You'd think the Germans would have figured out that someone cracked Enigma when the Allied forces knew about their secret plans on a consistent basis.
OTOH, kudos to the Brits for knowing how to handle decrypted info. In Zimmermann's Note, for example, they intercepted and cracked the original message, but made it look like lax security in Mexico compromised the Note to the US.
ok, i didnt know that. I'm used to LinkSys routers that use an http interface, which all come with a default of 'admin' or 'administrator' (cant remember which)
i think that's the actual problem - leaving in the default password. Routers should require a new password when the admin performs intial setup. Or, different routers should have different default passwords at time of manufacture. But I think the former is more practical and feasible, as the latter may require printing the passwd on a piece of paper, which can lend itself to error.
The OO course came after a C++ course and a course on elementary data structures and algorithms. Chances are good that because your students know C, they probably have some familarity with the DS/A stuff.
The books I had to get for my OOP course was Intro to Software Design by Steve Reiss, the Gamma et al Design Patterns book pointed out by others, and a reference book on UML.
The software design book is a good intro for OOP. It teaches OO using C++ and also introduces UML. The later chapters aren't really necessary, IMHO. They go into designing GUIs, distributed systems, large systems, project management, and other things that are better left to a course on software engineering. If you do use Reiss's book, do what my prof did: ignore those chapters.
The book did say it could be used for students with no C++ experience, and assumes to previous experience with classes, inheritance, etc. IIRC, there were was a chapter introducing the syntax of a class and stuff like that. It recommends a C++ reference to supplement the book if the students have had no C++ previously. I recommend Bjarne Stroustrup (sp??) The C++ Programming Language, a 1000+ page reference and specification on the entire language and the STL.
actually i think you gotta learn how to not follow the crowd, think for yourself, and make your own informed decisions and opinions.
There's nothing wrong with me taking the stand of this is a Good Thing(tm). there's a lot of unnecessary paranoia atound here that comes up every time the slightest hint of surveillence comes up. I personnally dont have that paranoia because i trust the government when they say they are not spying on people, especially because of the 4th & 9th amendments and Reagan's Exec Order that explicitly bans spying on American citizens by the American gov't (with the exception of those decisions made by FISA's court).
btw- I used to work for the gov't. I know they're playing by the rules becuase I saw them doing so.
There arent special courts for murder investigations, pollution, etc because they arent necessary in those arenas. Police are able to track down a suspect in a murder by matching the eyelash he drops at the scene or the bloddy fingerprint he leaves on the doorknob as he flees the crime scene.
Cyber-crime, OTOH, requires law enforcement to do their investigation a lot differently than traditional crimes, often requiring themselves to look through logs from ISPs (ie- access logs, email logs, etc) and other informational resources, including the suspected attacker's machine(s).
I think that such a court wouldn't be considered "secret" per se, but would be a secondary court available to law enforment on an as necessary basis for cyber-investigations. Chances are good this special court will be better because the judge would be specially trained and familiar with how laws apply online as opposed to a normal judge with no special knowledge in a normal courtroom.
ok, i see what you're getting at. If it were nat'l sec concern, I would think FISA would be the place to go for authorization of surviellience.
It must be something that's not a matter of nat'l security but can still be dangerous to others, like if someone were hacking into bank systems and such. That's not typically a nat'l sec concern, but it would be of concern to individuals and companies that use that bank, and the bank itself. Sorta like those two guys in russia that the FBI lured to the US and arrested some months back
hacking and national security seem to be rather far apart in the scale of things.
I think you're wrong. If a hacker (unethical hacker that is) goes after a power grid, that's a problem for national security, as the hacker could knock out power for an entire region, or worse, the entire country. Having no electricity in the entire United States seems like an issue of national security to me.
During an exam, stretch your arm up into the air and back. Manipulate your hands and wrists such that you can seruptitiously snap a photo of the paper behind you. Then look at your watch and quickly clear the photo before the proctor sees it. If the proctor asks why you're looking at your watch, you were curious to how much time was remaining.
Then hope & pray the teacher isnt using multiple exams, and that the guy behind you knows what he's doing.
my guess is the bottom line. He probably doesnt want to spend the money in purchasing Apple hardware. So he wants to spend a little on Linux and reuse the hardware he already has that's currently running Windows.
He may also want to retain some things from Windows but not have enough physical desk space for two machines (a Mac and a Windows box). So he can use Linux and dual-boot the two OSs.
hmm..... must be some other artist i was thinking of.... now that you say it i do recall he did have something against explicit bootlegging
the philosophy still holds though, some musicians prefer good music over money, much like how OSS programmers prefer good software over profiting off it. But there are some musicians (ie Metallica) who want all the bucks they can get, much like Bill Gates is to software.
Personally I believe that the best way to do it is to allow free recording of every show that an artist puts out. A devout fan is more likely to BUY a studio album if they can already get a taste of what the band is capable of on stage.
Dave Matthews does exactly that. He allows recorders at his shows and allows his music to be freely traded/swapped/copied/etc. He's ok with people making CD's out of his shows and selling them (including those shows he makes into albums). He's ok with people making MP3s (and other formats) out of his albums and shows and then placing them on p2p services.
Why does he do this? His philosophy is that of a Jazz musician (his music has an element of Jazz to it, btw) (i shouldnt really be singling out jazz, a lot of other types of musicians are the same way). They like their music to be listened to and enjoyed, not the monetary value they get in return. That philosophy is very similar to programmers who contribute to Open Source projects.
You are correct by saying a devout fan buys music - I have all of Dave's CDs:) There are many other artists like this, Dave is just one of them.
I suspect that the answer would be yes it does because Apple had to seriously overhaul the multitasking for the user layer, and knowing the amount of work they did for OS-X, I wouldnt see them not leaving out preemtiveness from the kernel. They also used the word "fully." If the left it out of the kernel, they couldnt use it.
But that's just my educated suspicion, i dont know for sure what fact is.
pre-emptive is a form of multi-threading. the other form is co-operative.
Co-operative means that threads relinquish control on their own. This meant that a greedy thread could put a serious stranglehold on the OS and lock-up the system, forcing a reboot.
Co-operative was used in every Mac prior to and including OS-9, which made it very unstable should a thread crash.
Pre-empt means the OS decides when the thread loses control. A thread can still voluntarily relinquish control, but the final call still comes down to the OS.
OS-X is fully pre-empt, meaning a crashed thread doesnt crash the entire system, bettering the stability overall as that will usually only crash the program that thread belonged to, not the entire system.
I dont know what MS has for their threading model, they seem to have a very bad hybrid system. The threading in Windows 95/98 tends to cause a good number of BSODs. NT/2000 OTOH, had a better model and crash a lot less often, which is why they have traditionally been the more stable MS OS.
Task scheduling has to do with what thread gets control next. Priority and other factors decide that. Solaris threads have 2^31 possible levels of priority, Windows (all versions, IIRC) has 5 classes and then 5 sub-classes of priority for each (a REALLY screwed up and tough to understand and explain technique, iow not a clear-cut 25 levels), and Java has 10 levels for cross-platform threading. Each model has their plusses and minuses, but that's getting offtopic from preemptive vs. co-operative.
i think the main reason cartridges were so expensive were because it basically was the entire camera. All the inks were on it, a battery to provide the flash, everything, all adding up to about $10-$12 per cartridge of 10 pictures.
what would professionals use polaroids for? Do they use the instants to test out the studio before using the really expensive top quality cameras for real shots? Does Polaroid have products for professionals that are used in the studio? Is it these products that Fuji is getting the share on?
correction... it does cost a little bit for prints of digital photos, but their cost is nominal compared to Polaroid, especially considering that with digital you can decide on what size print you want and have an oppurtunity to edit the photo if you wish.
Polaroid made some of the best advances in providing instant photos, but that was back during their golden years. Digital cameras entered the market a few years ago, also providing instant photos, and Polaroid acted like they werent there.
Digital beat Polaroid in the fact that Polaroid's photos never really improved over the years. The cameras lacked good zoom lenses, quality never improved, lighting was an issue, each photo was an expensive $1/print, not to mention sheer size of the cameras meant it was tough to carry around.
Digital, OTOH, has zoom, high quality photos, adjusts for lighting problems, and have hardly any cost per photo.
IMO, Polaroid's downfall was their failure to further develop their camera to compete with the modern world. Their only major advancement was in providing fancy party borders to photos.
Slashdot Mirror
...hmmm ....
You'd think the Germans would have figured out that someone cracked Enigma when the Allied forces knew about their secret plans on a consistent basis.
OTOH, kudos to the Brits for knowing how to handle decrypted info. In Zimmermann's Note, for example, they intercepted and cracked the original message, but made it look like lax security in Mexico compromised the Note to the US.
ok, i didnt know that. I'm used to LinkSys routers that use an http interface, which all come with a default of 'admin' or 'administrator' (cant remember which)
i think that's the actual problem - leaving in the default password. Routers should require a new password when the admin performs intial setup. Or, different routers should have different default passwords at time of manufacture. But I think the former is more practical and feasible, as the latter may require printing the passwd on a piece of paper, which can lend itself to error.
The OO course came after a C++ course and a course on elementary data structures and algorithms. Chances are good that because your students know C, they probably have some familarity with the DS/A stuff.
The books I had to get for my OOP course was Intro to Software Design by Steve Reiss, the Gamma et al Design Patterns book pointed out by others, and a reference book on UML.
The software design book is a good intro for OOP. It teaches OO using C++ and also introduces UML. The later chapters aren't really necessary, IMHO. They go into designing GUIs, distributed systems, large systems, project management, and other things that are better left to a course on software engineering. If you do use Reiss's book, do what my prof did: ignore those chapters.
The book did say it could be used for students with no C++ experience, and assumes to previous experience with classes, inheritance, etc. IIRC, there were was a chapter introducing the syntax of a class and stuff like that. It recommends a C++ reference to supplement the book if the students have had no C++ previously. I recommend Bjarne Stroustrup (sp??) The C++ Programming Language, a 1000+ page reference and specification on the entire language and the STL.
more testing......
testing my posting abilities, i keep getting formkey errors :(
actually i think you gotta learn how to not follow the crowd, think for yourself, and make your own informed decisions and opinions.
There's nothing wrong with me taking the stand of this is a Good Thing(tm). there's a lot of unnecessary paranoia atound here that comes up every time the slightest hint of surveillence comes up. I personnally dont have that paranoia because i trust the government when they say they are not spying on people, especially because of the 4th & 9th amendments and Reagan's Exec Order that explicitly bans spying on American citizens by the American gov't (with the exception of those decisions made by FISA's court).
btw- I used to work for the gov't. I know they're playing by the rules becuase I saw them doing so.
There arent special courts for murder investigations, pollution, etc because they arent necessary in those arenas. Police are able to track down a suspect in a murder by matching the eyelash he drops at the scene or the bloddy fingerprint he leaves on the doorknob as he flees the crime scene.
Cyber-crime, OTOH, requires law enforcement to do their investigation a lot differently than traditional crimes, often requiring themselves to look through logs from ISPs (ie- access logs, email logs, etc) and other informational resources, including the suspected attacker's machine(s).
I think that such a court wouldn't be considered "secret" per se, but would be a secondary court available to law enforment on an as necessary basis for cyber-investigations. Chances are good this special court will be better because the judge would be specially trained and familiar with how laws apply online as opposed to a normal judge with no special knowledge in a normal courtroom.
ok, i see what you're getting at. If it were nat'l sec concern, I would think FISA would be the place to go for authorization of surviellience.
It must be something that's not a matter of nat'l security but can still be dangerous to others, like if someone were hacking into bank systems and such. That's not typically a nat'l sec concern, but it would be of concern to individuals and companies that use that bank, and the bank itself. Sorta like those two guys in russia that the FBI lured to the US and arrested some months back
hacking and national security seem to be rather far apart in the scale of things.
I think you're wrong. If a hacker (unethical hacker that is) goes after a power grid, that's a problem for national security, as the hacker could knock out power for an entire region, or worse, the entire country. Having no electricity in the entire United States seems like an issue of national security to me.
Webcast on Wednesday, October 17, 2001 at 3:00 p.m. Eastern time
[flame]It only got posted on the front page at 4:20 Eastern. Awesome timing as usual.[/flame]
schools too.....
During an exam, stretch your arm up into the air and back. Manipulate your hands and wrists such that you can seruptitiously snap a photo of the paper behind you. Then look at your watch and quickly clear the photo before the proctor sees it. If the proctor asks why you're looking at your watch, you were curious to how much time was remaining.
Then hope & pray the teacher isnt using multiple exams, and that the guy behind you knows what he's doing.
if i tell you my ideas i'd also have to kill ya.
my guess is the bottom line. He probably doesnt want to spend the money in purchasing Apple hardware. So he wants to spend a little on Linux and reuse the hardware he already has that's currently running Windows.
He may also want to retain some things from Windows but not have enough physical desk space for two machines (a Mac and a Windows box). So he can use Linux and dual-boot the two OSs.
hmm..... must be some other artist i was thinking of.... now that you say it i do recall he did have something against explicit bootlegging
the philosophy still holds though, some musicians prefer good music over money, much like how OSS programmers prefer good software over profiting off it. But there are some musicians (ie Metallica) who want all the bucks they can get, much like Bill Gates is to software.
Personally I believe that the best way to do it is to allow free recording of every show that an artist puts out. A devout fan is more likely to BUY a studio album if they can already get a taste of what the band is capable of on stage.
:) There are many other artists like this, Dave is just one of them.
Dave Matthews does exactly that. He allows recorders at his shows and allows his music to be freely traded/swapped/copied/etc. He's ok with people making CD's out of his shows and selling them (including those shows he makes into albums). He's ok with people making MP3s (and other formats) out of his albums and shows and then placing them on p2p services.
Why does he do this? His philosophy is that of a Jazz musician (his music has an element of Jazz to it, btw) (i shouldnt really be singling out jazz, a lot of other types of musicians are the same way). They like their music to be listened to and enjoyed, not the monetary value they get in return. That philosophy is very similar to programmers who contribute to Open Source projects.
You are correct by saying a devout fan buys music - I have all of Dave's CDs
yeah i did.
he asked what's the deal with pre emptive. and I told him and told him what OS's use it and a few that didnt
that i do not know.
I suspect that the answer would be yes it does because Apple had to seriously overhaul the multitasking for the user layer, and knowing the amount of work they did for OS-X, I wouldnt see them not leaving out preemtiveness from the kernel. They also used the word "fully." If the left it out of the kernel, they couldnt use it.
But that's just my educated suspicion, i dont know for sure what fact is.
the marketing blitz about OS-X has indicated "fully preemptive multitasking" See http://www.apple.com/macosx/
pre-emptive is a form of multi-threading. the other form is co-operative.
Co-operative means that threads relinquish control on their own. This meant that a greedy thread could put a serious stranglehold on the OS and lock-up the system, forcing a reboot.
Co-operative was used in every Mac prior to and including OS-9, which made it very unstable should a thread crash.
Pre-empt means the OS decides when the thread loses control. A thread can still voluntarily relinquish control, but the final call still comes down to the OS.
OS-X is fully pre-empt, meaning a crashed thread doesnt crash the entire system, bettering the stability overall as that will usually only crash the program that thread belonged to, not the entire system.
I dont know what MS has for their threading model, they seem to have a very bad hybrid system. The threading in Windows 95/98 tends to cause a good number of BSODs. NT/2000 OTOH, had a better model and crash a lot less often, which is why they have traditionally been the more stable MS OS.
Task scheduling has to do with what thread gets control next. Priority and other factors decide that. Solaris threads have 2^31 possible levels of priority, Windows (all versions, IIRC) has 5 classes and then 5 sub-classes of priority for each (a REALLY screwed up and tough to understand and explain technique, iow not a clear-cut 25 levels), and Java has 10 levels for cross-platform threading. Each model has their plusses and minuses, but that's getting offtopic from preemptive vs. co-operative.
Mac OS-X is fully pre-empt already, making it a greatly stable system.
I can only see a fully pre-empted Linux increasing it's already solid stability.
Now if only we could remove co-operative threading from windows....
i think the main reason cartridges were so expensive were because it basically was the entire camera. All the inks were on it, a battery to provide the flash, everything, all adding up to about $10-$12 per cartridge of 10 pictures.
i must say i'm curious...
what would professionals use polaroids for? Do they use the instants to test out the studio before using the really expensive top quality cameras for real shots? Does Polaroid have products for professionals that are used in the studio? Is it these products that Fuji is getting the share on?
correction... it does cost a little bit for prints of digital photos, but their cost is nominal compared to Polaroid, especially considering that with digital you can decide on what size print you want and have an oppurtunity to edit the photo if you wish.
Polaroid made some of the best advances in providing instant photos, but that was back during their golden years. Digital cameras entered the market a few years ago, also providing instant photos, and Polaroid acted like they werent there.
Digital beat Polaroid in the fact that Polaroid's photos never really improved over the years. The cameras lacked good zoom lenses, quality never improved, lighting was an issue, each photo was an expensive $1/print, not to mention sheer size of the cameras meant it was tough to carry around.
Digital, OTOH, has zoom, high quality photos, adjusts for lighting problems, and have hardly any cost per photo.
IMO, Polaroid's downfall was their failure to further develop their camera to compete with the modern world. Their only major advancement was in providing fancy party borders to photos.