I'm glad that you understand that it's not just Microsoft. It seems that the parent really had an issue with Microsoft, since that's the only company that he cited. I'm not saying that Microsoft isn't evil. In fact, I'm fairly certain that they are. But that doesn't somehow make them worse than other businesses. Any for profit entity is motivated by primarily by greed. Any other motivations can almost always be traced back to greed of some sort.
Sure, we can just dismiss it all with the jaded outlook that everyone is fundamentally driven by selfish motives. But that's not very realistic or helpful. Selfish or not, there are very distinct differences between individual entities. Some can be expected to behave in a reasonably fair manner. Others can be expected to do otherwise and dealing with them will almost always be a disadvantage. It would be absurd to equate both as the same simply because they both wish to profit.
For example - a commercial is about selling you something. Nobody should think otherwise. But there is a distinct difference between the commercial that touts a product's real advantages and the commercial that lies about a product. Likewise, a company can be expected to seek a profit. But how they go about doing so is important.
What's hilarious is how many times I've been called a "tin-foil hatter" because I openly expected ulterior motives and other treachery from this company.
I guess I'm not seeing this "treachery" of which you're going on about. Microsoft made use of GPL code, like hundreds of other companies before them, and in keeping with the law and the license, also released their code under the GPL. This really is a big move for them, the company that previously wouldn't want to be caught dead with their hand in the GPL cookie jar. Here they are not only using the code but releasing it back out for public use and scrutiny.
Nobody cares that Linksys/Cisco uses GPL code in their cheap routers. Nobody cares that Google uses GPL code in their various web apps. Nobody cares that FOSS-heavy companies like Novell and Red Hat use GPL code to make a profit. Why should any care that Microsoft is using GPL code as long as they are following the terms of the license?
I don't know about "treachery" but I do see distinct differences between Microsoft and some of the other companies you've listed. This is all about history.
First and foremost, Microsoft has bent their "marketing and PR machine" towards discrediting the GPL - going so far as to call it both a "cancer" and a "virus". At the very same time that they made these claims, Microsoft used GPL utilities in their Services for Unix bundles. At the very least, this raises the question of Microsoft's honesty when it comes to their marketing (a question that's often raised). And there's something to be said that folks like yourself believe this is the first foray for Microsoft in GPL territory (no offense to you personally).
People do care when Linksys/Cisco, Google, Novell, and Red Hat use GPL code to make a profit. They take notice that the rules are followed and whether such attempts are successful - and tend to be supportive of success. Nobody is going to stop Microsoft from making money with GPL software. But when Microsoft enters those same waters, one has to wonder what happened to all the marketing they did that would imply that doing so gives away all one's "IP". Maybe we're not going to see a big press release. But we ARE going to remember previous PR hatchet-work.
However, exactly when did the 'web shift to a "presumed hostile" state?
2000 or so? Probably when always-on broadband become common.
I'd say that's off by at least 5 years and it didn't take the ubiquity of home broadband to bring it about (although it certainly helped).
Certainly XP as released was way too trusting. But I think Microsoft's track record has been quite positive since XPSP2. I wasn't around for that period, but it definitely got people VERY focused on security as something that has to be baked into product design from the inception of the product. Vista, IE 7/8, Silverlight, Office 2003/2007 all have had much better security records than their predecessors.
Again - I really don't wish to ignore Microsoft's obvious change in attitude towards security. It took them a long time. But there's a very distinct change over the bad old days.
But that doesn't leave Microsoft with a spotless record. Most of the products you've listed have had (or in some cases continue to have) issues. That isn't necessarily a criticism in itself; it depends on context.
That entire list of products were developed with the full knowledge of the hostile environments in which they'd operate. Yet vulnerabilities came to light in many cases. With that in mind, claiming that Silverlight is OK because it's new and developed for a hostile environment sounds a little too much like marketing - and a line that we've all heard before, at that. It does not address the fact that Silverlight does present another potential attack vector.
It's been easier in Silverlight since there wasn't anything to be backwards comaptible to. But there are defintley features that have been cut, delayed, or reduced in scope due to the test cost of verifying security. Every feature gets a threat model and security test plan before it gets approved.
We're really serious about it. On the media side, for example, there's a lot of fuzz testing of malformed bitstreams to make sure there's no way to cause a crash that could then lead to an exploit.
That's great. Again - in my skepticism I hate to gloss over the improvements Microsoft have made.
FWIW, Silverlight so far has had 0 exploits over three versions. It's done well compared to other media players in the same period. One advantage of a relatively recent technology is that it was designed for security from the get-go, after the web had shifted to its current "presumed hostile" state.
A reasonable track record so far. It makes a nice point. However, exactly when did the 'web shift to a "presumed hostile" state?
I ask because by my count, we've been in a hostile environment for years. And throughout those years, Microsoft has either introduced some very disturbing implementations or promised secure implementations that later fall short of these grand claims.
I don't want to completely discount Microsoft's improved attitude towards security. But there isn't an entirely solid track record there to warrent the kind of confidence you seem to think people should have in yet a new implementation of "a relatively recent technology."
It might have something to do with the knee-jerk reactions to Linux from Microsoft's CEO. When one starts rattling sabers, it's not entirely unfair to think that there might be a willingness to follow through.
If you discover another zero-day root exploit in the Linux kernel on your own, and you have the means to sell it to the highest bidder for a nice pile of cash, then neither you nor the winner have a motivation to pass on that secret to the underground.
If there are fewer active vulnerabilities floating in the underground - accounting for accidental or the occasional intentional leak - then how is that more chaotic than what we have now?
Such markets exist today. Yet we still have public disclosure (full disclosure or otherwise) of vulnerabilities. And we still have an underground counter-culture. It would seem that a "nice pile of cash" is not the only motivator (although even public exposure can lead to said cash - which is part of the criticism made in the manifesto).
Black markets don't eliminate spreading of information. They are themselves motivators for dissemination. And they represent the worse possible channel for vulnerability research - a group financially motivated to use a vulnerability in the most effective hostile way. Whether that is "chaos" or not depends on your point of view.
Oh wait, this reminds me a little of the Linux-development policy change with regards no longer enumerating the fixes and vulnerabilities which comprise each release version -- do you similarly believe that policy will lead to more chaos?
On first glance, I would say that this isn't the same issue. One of the ultimate goals of full disclosure is to get a vendor's attention about a vulnerability and get it fixed. If the Linux kernel devs are the vendor and they've already fixed an issue, then it's not quite the same situation as an independent entity saying "hey - I found a problem you guys need to fix ASAP."
Having said that, another aspect of public disclosure is letting EVERYONE know that there's an issue to address. This behavior does no favors to Linux's user base who should know that there are issues that need to be addressed quickly. Serious problems may go overlooked unless someone else realizes the implications of the cryptic bug fix note and alerts their user base (i.e. a distro).
Is it chaos? It's not as bad as an unpatched vulnerability that becomes well-known to hostile entities. But a well known but not widely patched vulnerability could be just as bad (as our current botnet examples show).
I should note two things that I think I wasn't very clear on earlier: secrecy and markets.
First, the 80s demonstrate that the idea of keeping vulnerabilities secret doesn't work. Eventually things get uncovered and secrets get shared. And now our ability to share has increased dramatically. So while this manifesto might be appealing to the crowd that would like to put security back in the secrecy bottle, they're fooling themselves to think it's possible.
Secondly, my concern is that this is really about limiting market competition. If money is a motivation, you'll find it existing in open markets and black markets. The manifesto seems keen to tear down that open market. And while I agree that theres a lot of snakeoil in the security industry, I'm not so sure we want the malware market becoming the defacto place to sell vulnerability knowledge.
I mean, if they got their way, completely. What would happen? Anyone motivated enough could find an exploit of their own and hack anyone else. But presumably this would eradicate the script-kiddie element as it would require an element of skill.
It goes back to an amplified version of the old BBS philez days. Except now they're not historical curiosities but relevant instructions as the exploits they describe remain current. At least, for a short while.
Since we're not falling back to the old analog MODEM days, but remaining here in the current Internet era, these tutorials will be just as distributed as they are now. They'll be fed in to the underground community instead of the general public. But in the Internet era, that underground community is much more connected and vast. The only limiting factor will be the rate of trickle-down as a zero-day spreads from the inner circles to the general community.
Of course, there's money to be made on this information. Malware markets and security vendors will both eagerly offer bounties for the information while attempting to cultivate direct contacts / placement in those communities. Once malware is developed on a new exploit, security vendors will analyze it to update their software. And in kind, once security vendors update their software, malware marketers will analyze patches / releases and develop malware seeking to take advantage of the adoption curve.
In short, we'll cycle through the 80s and 90s up to today's environment in record time. With arguably more chaos.
The series of questions are distractions. The real issues are:
1) The discussion was about trading systems. If apk was aware that the NASDAQ system (MDDS) wasn't a trading system, why put it forward for comparison? Either apk made a mistake and refused to give up ground after realizing it or they were intentionally attempting to mislead readers. I assumed the later.
2) The 99.999% figure given could not be attributed to MDDS. All this talk about "enterprise availability" and the definition of "perfect" are attempts to weasel out of this fact. Yet apk continued to state that this figure was an accepted fact.
It should also be noted that this challenge to put forward evidence to disprove apk's claims is bogus. It is enough to question the evidence apk claims supports their claims. Burden of proof is on the one making claims. One does not prove a negative. As I noted before, one can not claim unicorns exist by demanding proof that they do not.
At the end of the day, if you prefer apk's position then mine, then so be it. I've put forward my argument and it is up to the reader to decide which one makes more sense. I'm not in this to stroke my ego or win popularity.
You can do whatever you want. I stand by everything I said and all criticisms I provided. I'm confident anyone who'd wade through our exchange would see this and agree that your "evidence", while prolific, was lacking (which is ultimately my point).
We can agree to disagree. And I wouldn't be surprised to find at some other point we'll find something on which we agree (like Chess).
Exactly. The concept that "baking is just knowing the recipe" is just as (in)valid as "chess is knowing how to move pieces around the board." The point being that deconstructing any activity (I used Chess as a game example to be a bit more on-topic) to it's base components can be misleading.
Of course, you already know that since I already stated that in the reply that you yourself replied to. You're really just trying to make personal attacks here. But at least you're on-topic this time. I approve.
Yup - I was being facetious. Chess is a really great example that a game is much more than some simplification would make it. We see far too many simplifications about our modern games (not that all modern games have the grace of Chess or Go).
There are laws of physics and there are laws of man. The laws of physics define what is or is not possible. Man's law defines a society. Just because one is more trivial to transgress than the other doesn't mean both aren't important to making things work.
The problem apk is that I answer your questions and you ignore the answers. Then you come up with new questions. Often the questions are as irrelevant as the "data".
At the end of several days, you've yet to provide solid proof that this MDDS system does 5 9's. Which isn't even addressing the fact that this system has nothing to do with trades which is the actual topic at hand. Your entire argument is a shambles despite all your best hand-waving to divert attention from it.
The entire thread looks like I'm talking to a bizarre mix of Eliza and a 5 year old. It just keeps re-hashing the same text and logical fallacies again and again (with a fare amount of temper tantrums thrown in). If this is the sum of your expertise after over 16 years of professional experience and being an author, then this is an even more sad display than it already is on it's face.
Continue trying to prove your unicorns exist by demanding proof that they don't, apk. I've given up showing you the faults you are either oblivious or willfully ignorant of. Try not to let the fact that your argument has been challenged get under your skin too much - one of these days you're going to have to let go.
P.S.=> One day, instead of just being a network tech (which is ALL you are, & all guys like that do, face it, is read manuals of the tools guys like myself as a coder, create for YOU, to use, USER (network admin & network tech? USERS WITH A BETTER PASSWORD THAN NORMAL USERS, but that is about it - yes, I can say that, as I function as both in this science & I KNOW which is the more difficult of the two, & which takes more know-how)... & personally? I could care less if a flock of *NIX "network admins" (lol, users with a better password & that is ABOUT IT, compared to coders, who create the tools you manual/man page reading DRONES, merely use)... apk
Wow. An attitude like that really shows why you don't know what you're talking about. But I went ahead and responded to you since I seemed to bother you so badly that you're compelled to spend so much time on me:
I certainly got under your skin, didn't I? I guess it hard to handle when you've been proven wrong. But just for giggles, I'll show you the error of your ways once more.
You can't find a reference that shows this MDDS system maintains 5 9's. So now you're hung up on this quote that includes the word "perfectly". You seem to really think that this is vindication. The problem is, it doesn't have any meaning in this context. If I provided a client or employeer an availability report that claimed "perfect", I'd be asked for the numbers. You yourself have claimed that "perfectly" means both 99.999% and 100% (100% availability is laughable). "Perfectly" is not a metric. But do go ahead and keep clutching to the word if you want; it just shows off your ignorance.
The next point is even more interesting. You quote "enterprise availability" and then start providing supposed definitions for "high availability." This is why I question your reading comprehension. Two two phrases are different. Yet you desperately link them with nothing but your own words.
"Enterprise availability" has no real meaning. It's a nice term for general conversation and marketing brochures. Little wonder that you found it in marketing documentation.
"High availability" is more meaningful. But it's a pity you didn't pay attention to the Wikipedia article you linked to. If you did, you'd notice that not only do they list 99.999% but the scale goes from 80% to 99.9999% (and the outage calculations to get those figures). All the other references to "high availability" and "99.999%" are simply specifying what degree of high availability the person is talking about. It's good background information. But hardly "data" to back up your 5 9's claim.
As an aside, "uptime" and "availability" aren't always the same thing. Uptime can affect availability. But availability metrics won't always show you uptime. I suggest you go back to read that Wikipedia article to find out why. You might learn something.
Finally, let's talk about the putting words in your mouth issue. If we go back to the root of this thread, we'll notice the original poster was talking about trading systems. You responded to them with some links about MDDS. My contention is that you intentionally tried to mislead everyone in to thinking MDDS was a counter-example of a successful trading system. You don't SAY that you think MDDS is a trading system. But posting information about MDDS as a counter-example with no qualifications sure implies it. Whether this is an honest mistake on your part or not is a difficult call to make. But it does fall in line with all your other leaps in logic and sporadic non-data - I just honestly can't tell if you're being clueless or dishonest.
Awesome. Everyone should follow that above link to see how the apk troll (see below) operates. Pay close attention to what he links and what he THINKS they are saying. It's worth a chuckle if you enjoy watching a Microsoft fanboy kook in his natural habitat.
It doesn't mean what you think it means. Reading comprehension obviously isn't your strong suit, but please do try to pay attention to the conversation here (psst - your troll is showing).
I'd love to have this available for personal implementation. Granted - I'm thinking of very niche use. But I've attempted similar things with VNC and WoW in the past - with painful results. I'm not expecting to take my remote display in to a raid or battleground. But it'd be nice to be able to do auction house tasks, crafting, mailbox, banks, etc. wherever I happen to be at the time; reasonably quick tasks where a little latency isn't an issue.
Of course - it looks like their intent goes well beyond this.
The "NASDAQ" evidence is not NASDAQ but another company. Anyone interested in these sources should go and download the original Powerpoint slides and see where the HTML version fails to demonstrate this. All the other links have nothing to do with NASDAQ.
APK has done a marvelous job at attempting to mislead everyone involved. He's put out numbers and "data", challenging everyone who would disagree with him to take on his data. When his data is proven to not support his conclusions, he ignores the criticisms and resorts to the very same personal attacks he challenges everyone to avoid. He's even gone so far as to post this very post all over this thread. It would appear he subscribes to the belief that if you say something enough times, it becomes truth.
Of course, like any delusional individual facing a challenge to their beliefs, we will see denial in the form of a follow on post from APK claiming victory. It is impossible to reason with a zealot; even a Microsoft zealot (but on the plus side, I've picked up a stalker!).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad that you understand that it's not just Microsoft. It seems that the parent really had an issue with Microsoft, since that's the only company that he cited. I'm not saying that Microsoft isn't evil. In fact, I'm fairly certain that they are. But that doesn't somehow make them worse than other businesses. Any for profit entity is motivated by primarily by greed. Any other motivations can almost always be traced back to greed of some sort.
Sure, we can just dismiss it all with the jaded outlook that everyone is fundamentally driven by selfish motives. But that's not very realistic or helpful. Selfish or not, there are very distinct differences between individual entities. Some can be expected to behave in a reasonably fair manner. Others can be expected to do otherwise and dealing with them will almost always be a disadvantage. It would be absurd to equate both as the same simply because they both wish to profit.
For example - a commercial is about selling you something. Nobody should think otherwise. But there is a distinct difference between the commercial that touts a product's real advantages and the commercial that lies about a product. Likewise, a company can be expected to seek a profit. But how they go about doing so is important.
What's hilarious is how many times I've been called a "tin-foil hatter" because I openly expected ulterior motives and other treachery from this company.
I guess I'm not seeing this "treachery" of which you're going on about. Microsoft made use of GPL code, like hundreds of other companies before them, and in keeping with the law and the license, also released their code under the GPL. This really is a big move for them, the company that previously wouldn't want to be caught dead with their hand in the GPL cookie jar. Here they are not only using the code but releasing it back out for public use and scrutiny.
Nobody cares that Linksys/Cisco uses GPL code in their cheap routers. Nobody cares that Google uses GPL code in their various web apps. Nobody cares that FOSS-heavy companies like Novell and Red Hat use GPL code to make a profit. Why should any care that Microsoft is using GPL code as long as they are following the terms of the license?
I don't know about "treachery" but I do see distinct differences between Microsoft and some of the other companies you've listed. This is all about history.
First and foremost, Microsoft has bent their "marketing and PR machine" towards discrediting the GPL - going so far as to call it both a "cancer" and a "virus". At the very same time that they made these claims, Microsoft used GPL utilities in their Services for Unix bundles. At the very least, this raises the question of Microsoft's honesty when it comes to their marketing (a question that's often raised). And there's something to be said that folks like yourself believe this is the first foray for Microsoft in GPL territory (no offense to you personally).
People do care when Linksys/Cisco, Google, Novell, and Red Hat use GPL code to make a profit. They take notice that the rules are followed and whether such attempts are successful - and tend to be supportive of success. Nobody is going to stop Microsoft from making money with GPL software. But when Microsoft enters those same waters, one has to wonder what happened to all the marketing they did that would imply that doing so gives away all one's "IP". Maybe we're not going to see a big press release. But we ARE going to remember previous PR hatchet-work.
Music for nothing and your porn for free?
Probably for the same reason I can go to Amazon and buy a copy of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.
However, exactly when did the 'web shift to a "presumed hostile" state?
2000 or so? Probably when always-on broadband become common.
I'd say that's off by at least 5 years and it didn't take the ubiquity of home broadband to bring it about (although it certainly helped).
Certainly XP as released was way too trusting. But I think Microsoft's track record has been quite positive since XPSP2. I wasn't around for that period, but it definitely got people VERY focused on security as something that has to be baked into product design from the inception of the product. Vista, IE 7/8, Silverlight, Office 2003/2007 all have had much better security records than their predecessors.
Again - I really don't wish to ignore Microsoft's obvious change in attitude towards security. It took them a long time. But there's a very distinct change over the bad old days.
But that doesn't leave Microsoft with a spotless record. Most of the products you've listed have had (or in some cases continue to have) issues. That isn't necessarily a criticism in itself; it depends on context.
That entire list of products were developed with the full knowledge of the hostile environments in which they'd operate. Yet vulnerabilities came to light in many cases. With that in mind, claiming that Silverlight is OK because it's new and developed for a hostile environment sounds a little too much like marketing - and a line that we've all heard before, at that. It does not address the fact that Silverlight does present another potential attack vector.
It's been easier in Silverlight since there wasn't anything to be backwards comaptible to. But there are defintley features that have been cut, delayed, or reduced in scope due to the test cost of verifying security. Every feature gets a threat model and security test plan before it gets approved.
We're really serious about it. On the media side, for example, there's a lot of fuzz testing of malformed bitstreams to make sure there's no way to cause a crash that could then lead to an exploit.
That's great. Again - in my skepticism I hate to gloss over the improvements Microsoft have made.
FWIW, Silverlight so far has had 0 exploits over three versions. It's done well compared to other media players in the same period. One advantage of a relatively recent technology is that it was designed for security from the get-go, after the web had shifted to its current "presumed hostile" state.
A reasonable track record so far. It makes a nice point. However, exactly when did the 'web shift to a "presumed hostile" state?
I ask because by my count, we've been in a hostile environment for years. And throughout those years, Microsoft has either introduced some very disturbing implementations or promised secure implementations that later fall short of these grand claims.
I don't want to completely discount Microsoft's improved attitude towards security. But there isn't an entirely solid track record there to warrent the kind of confidence you seem to think people should have in yet a new implementation of "a relatively recent technology."
Why the knee-jerk reactions to Silverlight?
It might have something to do with the knee-jerk reactions to Linux from Microsoft's CEO. When one starts rattling sabers, it's not entirely unfair to think that there might be a willingness to follow through.
If you discover another zero-day root exploit in the Linux kernel on your own, and you have the means to sell it to the highest bidder for a nice pile of cash, then neither you nor the winner have a motivation to pass on that secret to the underground.
If there are fewer active vulnerabilities floating in the underground - accounting for accidental or the occasional intentional leak - then how is that more chaotic than what we have now?
Such markets exist today. Yet we still have public disclosure (full disclosure or otherwise) of vulnerabilities. And we still have an underground counter-culture. It would seem that a "nice pile of cash" is not the only motivator (although even public exposure can lead to said cash - which is part of the criticism made in the manifesto).
Black markets don't eliminate spreading of information. They are themselves motivators for dissemination. And they represent the worse possible channel for vulnerability research - a group financially motivated to use a vulnerability in the most effective hostile way. Whether that is "chaos" or not depends on your point of view.
Oh wait, this reminds me a little of the Linux-development policy change with regards no longer enumerating the fixes and vulnerabilities which comprise each release version -- do you similarly believe that policy will lead to more chaos?
On first glance, I would say that this isn't the same issue. One of the ultimate goals of full disclosure is to get a vendor's attention about a vulnerability and get it fixed. If the Linux kernel devs are the vendor and they've already fixed an issue, then it's not quite the same situation as an independent entity saying "hey - I found a problem you guys need to fix ASAP."
Having said that, another aspect of public disclosure is letting EVERYONE know that there's an issue to address. This behavior does no favors to Linux's user base who should know that there are issues that need to be addressed quickly. Serious problems may go overlooked unless someone else realizes the implications of the cryptic bug fix note and alerts their user base (i.e. a distro).
Is it chaos? It's not as bad as an unpatched vulnerability that becomes well-known to hostile entities. But a well known but not widely patched vulnerability could be just as bad (as our current botnet examples show).
I should note two things that I think I wasn't very clear on earlier: secrecy and markets.
First, the 80s demonstrate that the idea of keeping vulnerabilities secret doesn't work. Eventually things get uncovered and secrets get shared. And now our ability to share has increased dramatically. So while this manifesto might be appealing to the crowd that would like to put security back in the secrecy bottle, they're fooling themselves to think it's possible.
Secondly, my concern is that this is really about limiting market competition. If money is a motivation, you'll find it existing in open markets and black markets. The manifesto seems keen to tear down that open market. And while I agree that theres a lot of snakeoil in the security industry, I'm not so sure we want the malware market becoming the defacto place to sell vulnerability knowledge.
I mean, if they got their way, completely. What would happen? Anyone motivated enough could find an exploit of their own and hack anyone else. But presumably this would eradicate the script-kiddie element as it would require an element of skill.
It goes back to an amplified version of the old BBS philez days. Except now they're not historical curiosities but relevant instructions as the exploits they describe remain current. At least, for a short while.
Since we're not falling back to the old analog MODEM days, but remaining here in the current Internet era, these tutorials will be just as distributed as they are now. They'll be fed in to the underground community instead of the general public. But in the Internet era, that underground community is much more connected and vast. The only limiting factor will be the rate of trickle-down as a zero-day spreads from the inner circles to the general community.
Of course, there's money to be made on this information. Malware markets and security vendors will both eagerly offer bounties for the information while attempting to cultivate direct contacts / placement in those communities. Once malware is developed on a new exploit, security vendors will analyze it to update their software. And in kind, once security vendors update their software, malware marketers will analyze patches / releases and develop malware seeking to take advantage of the adoption curve.
In short, we'll cycle through the 80s and 90s up to today's environment in record time. With arguably more chaos.
Assuming that this isn't apk I'm replying to...
The series of questions are distractions. The real issues are:
1) The discussion was about trading systems. If apk was aware that the NASDAQ system (MDDS) wasn't a trading system, why put it forward for comparison? Either apk made a mistake and refused to give up ground after realizing it or they were intentionally attempting to mislead readers. I assumed the later.
2) The 99.999% figure given could not be attributed to MDDS. All this talk about "enterprise availability" and the definition of "perfect" are attempts to weasel out of this fact. Yet apk continued to state that this figure was an accepted fact.
It should also be noted that this challenge to put forward evidence to disprove apk's claims is bogus. It is enough to question the evidence apk claims supports their claims. Burden of proof is on the one making claims. One does not prove a negative. As I noted before, one can not claim unicorns exist by demanding proof that they do not.
At the end of the day, if you prefer apk's position then mine, then so be it. I've put forward my argument and it is up to the reader to decide which one makes more sense. I'm not in this to stroke my ego or win popularity.
You can do whatever you want. I stand by everything I said and all criticisms I provided. I'm confident anyone who'd wade through our exchange would see this and agree that your "evidence", while prolific, was lacking (which is ultimately my point).
We can agree to disagree. And I wouldn't be surprised to find at some other point we'll find something on which we agree (like Chess).
Exactly. The concept that "baking is just knowing the recipe" is just as (in)valid as "chess is knowing how to move pieces around the board." The point being that deconstructing any activity (I used Chess as a game example to be a bit more on-topic) to it's base components can be misleading.
Of course, you already know that since I already stated that in the reply that you yourself replied to. You're really just trying to make personal attacks here. But at least you're on-topic this time. I approve.
Yup - I was being facetious. Chess is a really great example that a game is much more than some simplification would make it. We see far too many simplifications about our modern games (not that all modern games have the grace of Chess or Go).
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28610457
There are laws of physics and there are laws of man. The laws of physics define what is or is not possible. Man's law defines a society. Just because one is more trivial to transgress than the other doesn't mean both aren't important to making things work.
Along those lines... chess is just about knowing how to move pieces around the board.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28610457
The problem apk is that I answer your questions and you ignore the answers. Then you come up with new questions. Often the questions are as irrelevant as the "data".
At the end of several days, you've yet to provide solid proof that this MDDS system does 5 9's. Which isn't even addressing the fact that this system has nothing to do with trades which is the actual topic at hand. Your entire argument is a shambles despite all your best hand-waving to divert attention from it.
The entire thread looks like I'm talking to a bizarre mix of Eliza and a 5 year old. It just keeps re-hashing the same text and logical fallacies again and again (with a fare amount of temper tantrums thrown in). If this is the sum of your expertise after over 16 years of professional experience and being an author, then this is an even more sad display than it already is on it's face.
Continue trying to prove your unicorns exist by demanding proof that they don't, apk. I've given up showing you the faults you are either oblivious or willfully ignorant of. Try not to let the fact that your argument has been challenged get under your skin too much - one of these days you're going to have to let go.
P.S.=> One day, instead of just being a network tech (which is ALL you are, & all guys like that do, face it, is read manuals of the tools guys like myself as a coder, create for YOU, to use, USER (network admin & network tech? USERS WITH A BETTER PASSWORD THAN NORMAL USERS, but that is about it - yes, I can say that, as I function as both in this science & I KNOW which is the more difficult of the two, & which takes more know-how)... & personally? I could care less if a flock of *NIX "network admins" (lol, users with a better password & that is ABOUT IT, compared to coders, who create the tools you manual/man page reading DRONES, merely use)... apk
Wow. An attitude like that really shows why you don't know what you're talking about. But I went ahead and responded to you since I seemed to bother you so badly that you're compelled to spend so much time on me:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28604931
I certainly got under your skin, didn't I? I guess it hard to handle when you've been proven wrong. But just for giggles, I'll show you the error of your ways once more.
You can't find a reference that shows this MDDS system maintains 5 9's. So now you're hung up on this quote that includes the word "perfectly". You seem to really think that this is vindication. The problem is, it doesn't have any meaning in this context. If I provided a client or employeer an availability report that claimed "perfect", I'd be asked for the numbers. You yourself have claimed that "perfectly" means both 99.999% and 100% (100% availability is laughable). "Perfectly" is not a metric. But do go ahead and keep clutching to the word if you want; it just shows off your ignorance.
The next point is even more interesting. You quote "enterprise availability" and then start providing supposed definitions for "high availability." This is why I question your reading comprehension. Two two phrases are different. Yet you desperately link them with nothing but your own words.
"Enterprise availability" has no real meaning. It's a nice term for general conversation and marketing brochures. Little wonder that you found it in marketing documentation.
"High availability" is more meaningful. But it's a pity you didn't pay attention to the Wikipedia article you linked to. If you did, you'd notice that not only do they list 99.999% but the scale goes from 80% to 99.9999% (and the outage calculations to get those figures). All the other references to "high availability" and "99.999%" are simply specifying what degree of high availability the person is talking about. It's good background information. But hardly "data" to back up your 5 9's claim.
As an aside, "uptime" and "availability" aren't always the same thing. Uptime can affect availability. But availability metrics won't always show you uptime. I suggest you go back to read that Wikipedia article to find out why. You might learn something.
Finally, let's talk about the putting words in your mouth issue. If we go back to the root of this thread, we'll notice the original poster was talking about trading systems. You responded to them with some links about MDDS. My contention is that you intentionally tried to mislead everyone in to thinking MDDS was a counter-example of a successful trading system. You don't SAY that you think MDDS is a trading system. But posting information about MDDS as a counter-example with no qualifications sure implies it. Whether this is an honest mistake on your part or not is a difficult call to make. But it does fall in line with all your other leaps in logic and sporadic non-data - I just honestly can't tell if you're being clueless or dishonest.
Awesome. Everyone should follow that above link to see how the apk troll (see below) operates. Pay close attention to what he links and what he THINKS they are saying. It's worth a chuckle if you enjoy watching a Microsoft fanboy kook in his natural habitat.
It doesn't mean what you think it means. Reading comprehension obviously isn't your strong suit, but please do try to pay attention to the conversation here (psst - your troll is showing).
I'd love to have this available for personal implementation. Granted - I'm thinking of very niche use. But I've attempted similar things with VNC and WoW in the past - with painful results. I'm not expecting to take my remote display in to a raid or battleground. But it'd be nice to be able to do auction house tasks, crafting, mailbox, banks, etc. wherever I happen to be at the time; reasonably quick tasks where a little latency isn't an issue.
Of course - it looks like their intent goes well beyond this.
And once again, you've proven my point. Thanks APK. :)
The "NASDAQ" evidence is not NASDAQ but another company. Anyone interested in these sources should go and download the original Powerpoint slides and see where the HTML version fails to demonstrate this. All the other links have nothing to do with NASDAQ.
APK has done a marvelous job at attempting to mislead everyone involved. He's put out numbers and "data", challenging everyone who would disagree with him to take on his data. When his data is proven to not support his conclusions, he ignores the criticisms and resorts to the very same personal attacks he challenges everyone to avoid. He's even gone so far as to post this very post all over this thread. It would appear he subscribes to the belief that if you say something enough times, it becomes truth.
Of course, like any delusional individual facing a challenge to their beliefs, we will see denial in the form of a follow on post from APK claiming victory. It is impossible to reason with a zealot; even a Microsoft zealot (but on the plus side, I've picked up a stalker!).