Based on my logs from the past week, I've blocked nearly 500 messages.
Bah, you don't count. My personal email at home dropped from 1,100 spam messages to about 200 spam messages per week when I wrote a postfix greylisting engine recently.
Mind you, that's 1,100 messages that were making it through various RBL kinds of things. The 1,100 did count things that spamassassin caught, but there was a pretty good thing that my client's Bayesian filter had to deal with in there, too.
I'm not looking forward to spammers catching up with my greylisting filter...it's one of the most effective things I've applied as of late.
Can one tell me why I should learn python and not any other programming language anyway?...uh, because your brain is actually capable of learning more than one way to do things. Some people even know up to *three* programming languages!
Sarcasm aside, it's not uncommon for me to work in four vastly different programming languages in a single day (usually java, ocaml, python, and C). That's not counting the ``lesser'' languages like sh, javascript, etc...
If I hear people talking about how a language or development environment does wonders for their productivity, I'll give it a shot. I can usually pick up languages pretty fast. I admit it took me a week or maybe even longer before I really ``got'' ocaml, though. But I had a good time trying.:)
I learned python initially because it had the best xmlrpc implementation. My first actual project was one that read a format definition for the tiger database and then used it to parse all of the zip file exports to load them into postgres. I ran it on several machines for about a week with very few errors (my own errors, that is) after spending a couple of hours writing the loader. That impressed me quite a bit for my first use of a language.
Don't look for an excuse to learn something, though. Just do it. Give it some time. If you don't like where it's taking you, then take what you got out of it and learn something else.
If all you know is VB, though, it's going to take quite a bit of learning before you know what a good language feels like.
Tog suggests leaving menu items undimmed and "popping up" a message explaining why the menu item is dimmed. Why? Because of his "Interfaces should be explorable" principle. Then, why not apply the same logic to dimmed scroll bars, buttons, checkboxes, radio buttons, etc.?
I don't think that makes sense, no, but leaving them dimmed and providing tooltips or what-not gives you what you have today in addition to getting rid of the problem of being denied with no explanation.
Ok, so the issue is that you want to know why the menu is disabled. So, which of 20 different on-screen objects do you want a message to indicate could be selected to enable "copy" ? Even if you manage to get the message "right", how useful is the message "You must select something to copy." going to be after the second time you see it? At that point the greyed menu tells me everything I needed to know.
This argument doesn't seem very consistent. You're suggesting that the first time you see something and it's not obvious to you, it should tell you so you'll know, but at that point, it's not useful to you. What if someone else is using your computer and has not seen that message? Would it be useful then?
Do you realize that there are more menu items than just ``copy''? I use a lot of applications with a lot of menu items (i.e. Final Cut HD) that will occasionally have something that sounds like what I want, but it's greyed out. Why would I not want immediately contextual information describing what I need to do? Is it really practical to suggest that I pull out the manuals and try to figure out what all is required to use something when I could just hit the brief contextual help?
A more concrete example: I'm in gimp which is giving me the option to scale my image, but not crop it. Why is that? Why can I move this layer down once, but not twice? I happen to know these answers, but it wasn't very long ago that I did not, and it was frustrating to want to bring a layer to the bottom and having gimp just refuse to do so with no explanation as to why (which was added in 2.something...but not on the menu).
I am offended of the use of the word Zen in terms of the name given to a MP3 player.
I agree with you on this. Especially offensive is the, ``Zen Portal Media Center.'' Movies, TV, music, photos, etc... everywhere you go as you enjoy your life of simple peace and tranquility.
Ever heard of dual booting? Ever heard of VMware? Ever heard of Wine?
Dual booting...that's when I can boot into MacOS or Linux on my PPC boxes? Or OS 7 and NetBSD on my 68k boxes? Or SunOS 4 or NetBSD on my Sun4c boxes? Or (NetBSD|Linux|OpenBSD) on my sun4u boxes? I assume NetBSD will run on at least one of my SGIs, but I haven't tried it. Supposedly they're making good progress on the SCSI driver for my NeXT slabs, but who knows.
AFAIK, VMWare and Wine don't run on any of the computers I regularly use.
Of course, I don't particularly care since I don't seem to be missing anything (although I've never in my entire lifetime with computers had a virus).
Do you run rsync with --delete? If not, how do you deal with moved files? If so, how do you deal with accidental deletion?
I'm not the person to whom this question was written, but I'll tell you my solution:
My DB dumps are my biggest chunk of data. I dump each table (in each schema in each DB) to a separate stream and break the stream up into chunks of a specific size (configurable per stream). For each chunk, I maintain an md5. Every day, for every chunk, I compare the md5 against the md5 for the same chunk from the previous backup. If they are the same, I hard link the chunk from the previous location to the new location. If they're different, I gpg encrypt the chunk and store it in the new location.
The net result is that I end up with about 4MB of storage required for my nightly ``full'' backups of about 3GB of postgres (in the normal case). Each dump directory is a full dump, but uses incremental storage. I currently have 95 days worth of backups online in ~3.5GB.
After the dumps finish, they're immediately rsynced to two other systems on my LAN (each with RAID 5...one's going away hopefully). And then the destination system rsyncs the whole thing offsite.
There is no automated deletion, but if I go in there and mess around and delete something I didn't mean to, I can get the deleted data from one of the local or remote replicates.
Actually, I do the same thing with my mail (gpg'd tar streams per mailbox instead of dump streams per table), but there are deletions there since I only keep the last ten days or so of trees. The whole data size is closer to 400MB, but the deltas are closer to 15-20MB.
My source code is handled via gnu arch or darcs and I just use their built-in mirroring functionality to make sure there's always at least two copies of my source trees online (usually many more).
I'm not sure how much I'd trust that data. I've been watching it for a little while now, and the ``Instant Messages Sent Today'' stat dropped from 1,658,399,962 to 617,224,149 in about five minutes. That doesn't quite seem right to me.
I would think that maybe it's a sum of the messages sent in the last 24 hours, but that would imply that a billion messages were sent in about five minutes...or it rotated (which would make sense since that was about midnight east coast time). If that's the case, then the numbers are off by about 600 million.
It's not like you'd be able to tell the database "Make me a backup of the database as it was at is right now, at 12:45:23.183848!" and the database could continue modifying the content of the tables while still producing for you a perfect backup.
This is an example of why people who have used real databases are annoyed by mysql's undeserved popularity. People who have never seen a DB before build applications and processes around mysql's limitations and think that's the way things are.
Why would you store data in something that can't do this?
Sure Oracle (which does this among other things) is expensive, but people are pretty sure that if they put something in it, they can get it back out.
Postgres (which does this among other things) is indisputably more free than mysql and outscales it without making it harder on the low end. (And I don't buy the embedded mysql thing...if you're embedding, embed sqlite which is still yet more free, smaller, and easier).
This is a must-have in my situation, for adminning several evil Java server-apps that insist on only running when they have an X window open.
Are you sure about that? Why do your server apps need a window? Do you have to actually start the thing graphically, or does it just want a window after it's started. In the latter case, there's java.awt.headless or at the least xvfb.
(*) A quick search on Google found a mass-oriented estimate of 8.87 x 10^49 atoms for the entire Earth. That is e ^ 115, which is more than 2 ^ 115. (Does anyone know if google calculator has a keyword for "log base 2"?) Water far outmassed by rock. Three atoms per water molecule. Napkin math notwithstanding.
I'd say I'm currently pretty good at about 5GB. My databases are very important to me (photos, etc...), plus my mail, and source code and stuff.
Since I started using arch (and darcs to a lesser extent), every commit I make is backed up in two or three fully usable mirrors within the hour, and on three or four machines within a couple of days. That's probably where my most valuable work is. I've lost photos in the past, though. That hurts.
Maybe this would be good for some data, but I would never backup sensitive data on something like this. Nor would a lot of businesses.
I've been backing up sensitive data almost exactly like this for quite a while now. I've got an application that breaks a stream of data into chunks and encrypts them. It compares the md5 of the source block against the md5 of the same block from the previous backup. If they match, it hard links the block into the backup directory, if they don't match, it encrypts the block and stores a new copy.
The net effect is that I have about 2.5GB of full database dumps nightly that take up about 3MB of storage space (thus takes about 3MB to transfer it with rsync -H). I do this without having to store the unencrypted stream.
So yeah, it may be better to not send my GPG encrypted blocks to these other machines, but I trust GPG about as much as I trust my own network and applications keeping my data safe, so it's good for me.
I do the same thing with my DB dumps and my mail. I only have a 144kbps internet connection, so being able send my full dumps out nightly across it is a real win.
I assume this is a joke, but for anyone actually interested in time standards (or for those of you who think GMT and UTC mean the same thing), there was a really good discussion in the gnu arch mailing list about this recently. It's a pretty long thread, but very insightful.
Short answer: UTC is based on an atomic clock while GMT is based on the speed of earth rotation (which apparently varies). UTC adds and omits leap seconds to stay within about 0.9 seconds of GMT.
NATs have become compulsary; making some worms unable to contact some 'natted' pcs
It's not the NAT that stops the traffic, it's the firewall. NAT does not in any way enhance your security.
Every time anything about IPv6 comes up, someone says something to the effect of, ``but if there's no NAT, how will we secure our boxes!?'' That just makes no sense to me. The fact that a computer has a real IP address does not imply that it can accept connections from any machine on the internet. That's just silly.
Regardless, I've broken into plenty of machines behind NATs due to poor firewalling policies, exposed services, etc... Do you have any idea how many NATted Windows machines with poor firewall policies are remotely controlled on the internet today?
BUT: Home firewalls are so widespread only because NAT requires one.
That's an interesting way of looking at the problem. Our routers have some pretty neat firewalling features in them for home users, so I tend to think everyone should just use them.
I believe we're to the point where a firewall is something home users are scared into having in general nowadays. People are a lot less likely to consider putting a non-firewalled machine on the internet, and end users should be encouraged to think the same way.
So you get a stateful firewall that defaults to allowing all egress traffic and no ingress traffic and you're back to where you started (or at least, where I started), with the potential to do a lot more with growth.
People make fun of the light switches and all that, but is it really that obscene? I've got remotely accessible power switches, and thermometers, and homemade gadgets and stuff that I like to remotely access. They need addresses, too.
Re:yet another worthless article about IPv6
on
An Introduction to IPv6
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Most people that want to have multiple computers connected to the Internet use a NAT router and at least protect themselves SOMEWHAT from the outside threats.
Again, NAT does not enhance security. It just doesn't. I don't understand why people think it does. The thing that enhances security is your firewall. So instead of pretending like you get security because connections aren't mapped in, you ship home routers with a rule that says no connections may be established from the ``outside'' to the ``inside.'' Done. Then when someone wants an incoming connection, they tell the firewall to allow it.
It works exactly like doing a new NAT mapping and allowing the traffic, except you don't have to do a NAT mapping and allow the traffic, you just allow it. Oh, and if you have two computers you want to do the same kind of thing, you allow it to two computers rather than trying to decide which one of your web servers gets port 80.
NAT does nothing good for the internet. It causes confusion, it breaks protocols, it prevents certain types of connectivity from being possible.
advertisers sure like that term cause it sounds so grandiose, but a quantum leap is actual the smallest measure of distance that has any meaning what so ever.
You should discuss that with whomever wrote this page. In particular:
It is sometimes said that a phrase such as 'a quantum leap in technology' is inappropriate, because 'quantum' supposedly means 'small' in quantum mechanics, so a 'quantum leap' would be a 'small advance'. However, 'quantum' does not actually mean 'small' in quantum mechanics; it means 'indivisible' or 'all-at-once'; but that indivisible logically implies smallest-possible. A quantum leap is an advance that happens all at once, rather than gradually over time. If advances are classified as either evolutionary or revolutionary, then a quantum leap would be the latter.
From my employer's point of view, it makes me more productive than (most) other languages would, since I spend less time worrying about crap like header files, pointers, memory leaks, and so on.
What are these languages? There really aren't that many languages that require manual memory management, or use header files, or have pointers, etc...
You've basically said it's more productive than most other C based languages. Well, yeah.
I'm far more productive in python or ocaml. They're both higher level. Python has more APIs available, but ocaml is safer, faster, and more expressive.
Even in java (which the majority of my job requires), I will often implement classes in jython and then port them to java for deployment (which makes them much, much larger).
nah, but be sure to check out the related links...
on
IT Myths
·
· Score: 3, Funny
the six big myths in IT
don't
not
do
don't
does
do
More stories
Also by michael
Re:Myth 7: IT Journalists know the field...
on
IT Myths
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
How many times do EE's scrap a project after a successful prototype has been built, due to project management failure?
I've seen some incredibly cool products that, um, didn't come out of Apple.
I think that was a typo. Here's what they really meant to say:
``It saddens us to see that yet more tools of a burglar are allowed to be released to the public. Thieves in the night will now have more tools to steal our food from artists' tables.'' - RIAA
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, that reminds me...here's a conversation I had with a guy at work one day:
aim.png
Based on my logs from the past week, I've blocked nearly 500 messages.
Bah, you don't count. My personal email at home dropped from 1,100 spam messages to about 200 spam messages per week when I wrote a postfix greylisting engine recently.
Mind you, that's 1,100 messages that were making it through various RBL kinds of things. The 1,100 did count things that spamassassin caught, but there was a pretty good thing that my client's Bayesian filter had to deal with in there, too.
I'm not looking forward to spammers catching up with my greylisting filter...it's one of the most effective things I've applied as of late.
Can one tell me why I should learn python and not any other programming language anyway? ...uh, because your brain is actually capable of learning more than one way to do things. Some people even know up to *three* programming languages!
:)
Sarcasm aside, it's not uncommon for me to work in four vastly different programming languages in a single day (usually java, ocaml, python, and C). That's not counting the ``lesser'' languages like sh, javascript, etc...
If I hear people talking about how a language or development environment does wonders for their productivity, I'll give it a shot. I can usually pick up languages pretty fast. I admit it took me a week or maybe even longer before I really ``got'' ocaml, though. But I had a good time trying.
I learned python initially because it had the best xmlrpc implementation. My first actual project was one that read a format definition for the tiger database and then used it to parse all of the zip file exports to load them into postgres. I ran it on several machines for about a week with very few errors (my own errors, that is) after spending a couple of hours writing the loader. That impressed me quite a bit for my first use of a language.
Don't look for an excuse to learn something, though. Just do it. Give it some time. If you don't like where it's taking you, then take what you got out of it and learn something else.
If all you know is VB, though, it's going to take quite a bit of learning before you know what a good language feels like.
Tog suggests leaving menu items undimmed and "popping up" a message explaining why the menu item is dimmed. Why? Because of his "Interfaces should be explorable" principle. Then, why not apply the same logic to dimmed scroll bars, buttons, checkboxes, radio buttons, etc.?
I don't think that makes sense, no, but leaving them dimmed and providing tooltips or what-not gives you what you have today in addition to getting rid of the problem of being denied with no explanation.
Ok, so the issue is that you want to know why the menu is disabled. So, which of 20 different on-screen objects do you want a message to indicate could be selected to enable "copy" ? Even if you manage to get the message "right", how useful is the message "You must select something to copy." going to be after the second time you see it? At that point the greyed menu tells me everything I needed to know.
This argument doesn't seem very consistent. You're suggesting that the first time you see something and it's not obvious to you, it should tell you so you'll know, but at that point, it's not useful to you. What if someone else is using your computer and has not seen that message? Would it be useful then?
Do you realize that there are more menu items than just ``copy''? I use a lot of applications with a lot of menu items (i.e. Final Cut HD) that will occasionally have something that sounds like what I want, but it's greyed out. Why would I not want immediately contextual information describing what I need to do? Is it really practical to suggest that I pull out the manuals and try to figure out what all is required to use something when I could just hit the brief contextual help?
A more concrete example: I'm in gimp which is giving me the option to scale my image, but not crop it. Why is that? Why can I move this layer down once, but not twice? I happen to know these answers, but it wasn't very long ago that I did not, and it was frustrating to want to bring a layer to the bottom and having gimp just refuse to do so with no explanation as to why (which was added in 2.something...but not on the menu).
I am offended of the use of the word Zen in terms of the name given to a MP3 player.
I agree with you on this. Especially offensive is the, ``Zen Portal Media Center.'' Movies, TV, music, photos, etc... everywhere you go as you enjoy your life of simple peace and tranquility.
Ever heard of dual booting? Ever heard of VMware? Ever heard of Wine?
Dual booting...that's when I can boot into MacOS or Linux on my PPC boxes? Or OS 7 and NetBSD on my 68k boxes? Or SunOS 4 or NetBSD on my Sun4c boxes? Or (NetBSD|Linux|OpenBSD) on my sun4u boxes? I assume NetBSD will run on at least one of my SGIs, but I haven't tried it. Supposedly they're making good progress on the SCSI driver for my NeXT slabs, but who knows.
AFAIK, VMWare and Wine don't run on any of the computers I regularly use.
Of course, I don't particularly care since I don't seem to be missing anything (although I've never in my entire lifetime with computers had a virus).
Do you run rsync with --delete? If not, how do you deal with moved files? If so, how do you deal with accidental deletion?
I'm not the person to whom this question was written, but I'll tell you my solution:
My DB dumps are my biggest chunk of data. I dump each table (in each schema in each DB) to a separate stream and break the stream up into chunks of a specific size (configurable per stream). For each chunk, I maintain an md5. Every day, for every chunk, I compare the md5 against the md5 for the same chunk from the previous backup. If they are the same, I hard link the chunk from the previous location to the new location. If they're different, I gpg encrypt the chunk and store it in the new location.
The net result is that I end up with about 4MB of storage required for my nightly ``full'' backups of about 3GB of postgres (in the normal case). Each dump directory is a full dump, but uses incremental storage. I currently have 95 days worth of backups online in ~3.5GB.
After the dumps finish, they're immediately rsynced to two other systems on my LAN (each with RAID 5...one's going away hopefully). And then the destination system rsyncs the whole thing offsite.
There is no automated deletion, but if I go in there and mess around and delete something I didn't mean to, I can get the deleted data from one of the local or remote replicates.
Actually, I do the same thing with my mail (gpg'd tar streams per mailbox instead of dump streams per table), but there are deletions there since I only keep the last ten days or so of trees. The whole data size is closer to 400MB, but the deltas are closer to 15-20MB.
My source code is handled via gnu arch or darcs and I just use their built-in mirroring functionality to make sure there's always at least two copies of my source trees online (usually many more).
I'm not sure how much I'd trust that data. I've been watching it for a little while now, and the ``Instant Messages Sent Today'' stat dropped from 1,658,399,962 to 617,224,149 in about five minutes. That doesn't quite seem right to me.
I would think that maybe it's a sum of the messages sent in the last 24 hours, but that would imply that a billion messages were sent in about five minutes...or it rotated (which would make sense since that was about midnight east coast time). If that's the case, then the numbers are off by about 600 million.
It's not like you'd be able to tell the database "Make me a backup of the database as it was at is right now, at 12:45:23.183848!" and the database could continue modifying the content of the tables while still producing for you a perfect backup.
This is an example of why people who have used real databases are annoyed by mysql's undeserved popularity. People who have never seen a DB before build applications and processes around mysql's limitations and think that's the way things are.
Why would you store data in something that can't do this?
Sure Oracle (which does this among other things) is expensive, but people are pretty sure that if they put something in it, they can get it back out.
Postgres (which does this among other things) is indisputably more free than mysql and outscales it without making it harder on the low end. (And I don't buy the embedded mysql thing...if you're embedding, embed sqlite which is still yet more free, smaller, and easier).
This is a must-have in my situation, for adminning several evil Java server-apps that insist on only running when they have an X window open.
Are you sure about that? Why do your server apps need a window? Do you have to actually start the thing graphically, or does it just want a window after it's started. In the latter case, there's java.awt.headless or at the least xvfb.
no reliable cvs--tla converter (cscvs is under development)
:)
I converted thousands and thousands of ``changesets'' from CVS to arch when I did my conversion using cscvs. It worked quite well.
As is frequently pointed out, arch is also very different than CVS.
Absolutely.
(*) A quick search on Google found a mass-oriented estimate of 8.87 x 10^49 atoms for the entire Earth. That is e ^ 115, which is more than 2 ^ 115. (Does anyone know if google calculator has a keyword for "log base 2"?) Water far outmassed by rock. Three atoms per water molecule. Napkin math notwithstanding.
49 / log(2) = 162.774477
How much data do you *really* want backed up?
I'd say I'm currently pretty good at about 5GB. My databases are very important to me (photos, etc...), plus my mail, and source code and stuff.
Since I started using arch (and darcs to a lesser extent), every commit I make is backed up in two or three fully usable mirrors within the hour, and on three or four machines within a couple of days. That's probably where my most valuable work is. I've lost photos in the past, though. That hurts.
Maybe this would be good for some data, but I would never backup sensitive data on something like this. Nor would a lot of businesses.
I've been backing up sensitive data almost exactly like this for quite a while now. I've got an application that breaks a stream of data into chunks and encrypts them. It compares the md5 of the source block against the md5 of the same block from the previous backup. If they match, it hard links the block into the backup directory, if they don't match, it encrypts the block and stores a new copy.
The net effect is that I have about 2.5GB of full database dumps nightly that take up about 3MB of storage space (thus takes about 3MB to transfer it with rsync -H). I do this without having to store the unencrypted stream.
So yeah, it may be better to not send my GPG encrypted blocks to these other machines, but I trust GPG about as much as I trust my own network and applications keeping my data safe, so it's good for me.
I do the same thing with my DB dumps and my mail. I only have a 144kbps internet connection, so being able send my full dumps out nightly across it is a real win.
Is that American for GMT?
I assume this is a joke, but for anyone actually interested in time standards (or for those of you who think GMT and UTC mean the same thing), there was a really good discussion in the gnu arch mailing list about this recently. It's a pretty long thread, but very insightful.
s/GMT/UTC/.
Short answer: UTC is based on an atomic clock while GMT is based on the speed of earth rotation (which apparently varies). UTC adds and omits leap seconds to stay within about 0.9 seconds of GMT.
NATs have become compulsary; making some worms unable to contact some 'natted' pcs
It's not the NAT that stops the traffic, it's the firewall. NAT does not in any way enhance your security.
Every time anything about IPv6 comes up, someone says something to the effect of, ``but if there's no NAT, how will we secure our boxes!?'' That just makes no sense to me. The fact that a computer has a real IP address does not imply that it can accept connections from any machine on the internet. That's just silly.
Regardless, I've broken into plenty of machines behind NATs due to poor firewalling policies, exposed services, etc... Do you have any idea how many NATted Windows machines with poor firewall policies are remotely controlled on the internet today?
(Hey, Dustin.)
Hey!
BUT: Home firewalls are so widespread only because NAT requires one.
That's an interesting way of looking at the problem. Our routers have some pretty neat firewalling features in them for home users, so I tend to think everyone should just use them.
I believe we're to the point where a firewall is something home users are scared into having in general nowadays. People are a lot less likely to consider putting a non-firewalled machine on the internet, and end users should be encouraged to think the same way.
So you get a stateful firewall that defaults to allowing all egress traffic and no ingress traffic and you're back to where you started (or at least, where I started), with the potential to do a lot more with growth.
People make fun of the light switches and all that, but is it really that obscene? I've got remotely accessible power switches, and thermometers, and homemade gadgets and stuff that I like to remotely access. They need addresses, too.
Most people that want to have multiple computers connected to the Internet use a NAT router and at least protect themselves SOMEWHAT from the outside threats.
Again, NAT does not enhance security. It just doesn't. I don't understand why people think it does. The thing that enhances security is your firewall. So instead of pretending like you get security because connections aren't mapped in, you ship home routers with a rule that says no connections may be established from the ``outside'' to the ``inside.'' Done. Then when someone wants an incoming connection, they tell the firewall to allow it.
It works exactly like doing a new NAT mapping and allowing the traffic, except you don't have to do a NAT mapping and allow the traffic, you just allow it. Oh, and if you have two computers you want to do the same kind of thing, you allow it to two computers rather than trying to decide which one of your web servers gets port 80.
NAT does nothing good for the internet. It causes confusion, it breaks protocols, it prevents certain types of connectivity from being possible.
You should discuss that with whomever wrote this page. In particular:
Uh, that's because the entire posting invokes Godwin's law.
From my employer's point of view, it makes me more productive than (most) other languages would, since I spend less time worrying about crap like header files, pointers, memory leaks, and so on.
What are these languages? There really aren't that many languages that require manual memory management, or use header files, or have pointers, etc...
You've basically said it's more productive than most other C based languages. Well, yeah.
I'm far more productive in python or ocaml. They're both higher level. Python has more APIs available, but ocaml is safer, faster, and more expressive.
Even in java (which the majority of my job requires), I will often implement classes in jython and then port them to java for deployment (which makes them much, much larger).
How many times do EE's scrap a project after a successful prototype has been built, due to project management failure?
I've seen some incredibly cool products that, um, didn't come out of Apple.
I think that was a typo. Here's what they really meant to say:
``It saddens us to see that yet more tools of a burglar are allowed to be released to the public. Thieves in the night will now have more tools to steal our food from artists' tables.'' - RIAA