Suppose you have suborned a switching point for a company you wished to access. Suppose that you could reduce switching options for traffic to that destination by taking out one (or more) of those trunks at a particular time, to force traffic through your captured switching center. Know anyone who might want to run some man in the middle attacks on the valley?
You are confusing the location of her education with her campaign for "the freedom of women and girls to be educated". Ascribing motive to the location of her education is probably premature.
In as far as your "OSS falters" comment goes, the TL;DR version is "groupthink is bad". The obverse is that "non-groupthink is good." This is not the same as contentiousness to eleven, but enough dissent to spot any naked Emperors.
Having worked in both the cathedral and the bazaar, there are pros and cons to each, but I'd rather have more contentiousness earlier on in the cycle than usually happens in the cathedral. It's overall better for the cost of the project as well as the bugs/kloc BS metrics mgmt wants to use.
Amazing. I restrained myself and didn't call out your ignorance, since I tend to use rather complicated sentence construction. You failed to learn when hit with the clue-stick.
So hey, let's play...
The sentence read "I reported the infringements, the spamming, the users who have a variant of the name (e.g. foo2525 instead of foo): to the spam-handlers and to the variant-users." Let's dissect this.
The disingenuous would read this to mean I reported everyone to the spam-handlers *and* the variant-owners. That's totally unhelpful. So, perhaps there is another interpretation, after one is finished with your ad hominem nonsense: It can represent two different actions. Obviously, "variant-users" cannot refer to spammers -- that's just stupid. Then, it quite obviously indicates the resolution path for the variant-owners is *to* the variant-owners. The use of "respectively" would force the reader to cross-correlate the phrases, easing the process.
So, learn some bloody English, you puerile, self-indulgent, narcissistic, entitled moron. When they invent a "does not exceed a 6th grade reading level" tag, I'm sure you'll finally come into your own.
RTFMessage. To be clear, I wrote that I reported folks who used a variant to the variant-user. e.g. send email as foo@yahoo.com instead of foo2525@yahoo.com and I get the email reply, I sent it on to foo2525 with a note that they used the wrong email. Of course, the correct email has to be indicated somewhere, or I have no way...
My mistake was not adding ", respectively" to the sentence.
Glad to see you got your exercise today, jumping to conclusions.
... is why suddenly yahoo is making a show of caring.
I have a four-letter yahoo account (not that kind of four-letter word...) from waaaaay back in the day. It was something I maintained for about two decades for plausible deniability... a cut-out.
SCORES of people have tries to hack it. A couple have succeeded, but not since I switched it to a 32-character mixed-case-and-special password. Still, they try at the rate of about 3 a week (that I *see* via attempted password-reset manipulations, 2-factor authentication change attempts, etc).
But... I have received about 10 emails from folks who wanted to 'own' the email address. And -- I think -- because I didn't acquiesce, I have received hundreds of thousands of spam emails in the intervening time. They've submitted my email to stupid dating sites in French, German, Thai, Spanish, Tamil and most recently Hebrew. Hell, I got 1000+ emails/day from ONE SITE for a few days, about a week ago.
There's been phishing, spear-phishing based on the pseudo-identity hosted there, blind newsletter sign-up. Every kind of crap you can imagine, and several more.
And every step of the way, I reported the infringements, the spamming, the users who have a variant of the name (e.g. foo2525 instead of foo): to the spam-handlers and to the variant-users.
And yahoo has never given a shit. Not once. Period. IMHO, 'cause it was one account-holder. But I've kept it anyway -- since it's a great cut-out. And I'll continue to do so. Yahoo is a joke; has been for many years now. Sometimes... that's its value. It's a great example of what NOT to do, and it's a great revealer of the seedy underbelly of the 'net.
Bad comparison, borg. In that case, Apple was rewriting software to make use of a lower-layer API, thereby taking advantage of accelerations not available from the other side of the API-translation curtain.
They already had software working, which was asserted by the origin of this subthread as the toughest part. I have to concur with that.
Again, what Apple did here was simply transit between APIs. Those were already made to work earlier. Such acceleration as did occur came as a result of changes to improve the newer APIs.
I was discussing this with a friend this morning, and he suggested that I post it, so here goes...
I think I figured out RMS' real service: His constancy. Sometimes it's just nice to have a lighthouse on the breakers by which to set a course. You wouldn't actually want to go where he is, but you like to know where you are in relation to it.
There was a great article in Business Week about this about a month ago, where the inflammatory title was something about whether WiFi would be the death knell of 3G(UMTS)
They listed the strengths of 3G as being integrated security models throughout the network and a wider distribution via antennas.
So, the two technologies are parallel; separate-but-equal if you would. That's/when/ UMTS actually sees the promised bitrates, of course.
But the really big thing coming down the pipe is mobiles which talk GPRS/UMTS in-network, or can speak WiFi to other mobiles in order to gain access to *their* GPRS/UMTS network.
Integrate the two that way, and you're never more than a couple of feet (if) from a digital network.
In the story link to the 2.5 read-copy update details at sourceforge, it states:
Read-Copy Update was originally designed for DYNIX/ptx, a UNIX operating system from Sequent Computer Systems Inc., now a part of IBM. Similar methods were also used for Tornado and K42 OS projects at University of Toronto and IBM Research.
(Emphasis mine)
Perhaps this is the means to SCO's claim, since if they can demonstrably prove that IBM included this tech in their K42 OS from the SCO product-line code, they can perhaps demonstrate also that this code was the basis for the kernel 2.5 submission of same, thus establishing their case.
IANAL, nor a kernel hacker, so I'll just supply this as speculation. Some of you may have the information necessary to acquit this as fact or fiction.
I'm sure this is going to get lost in the storm of RMS vs BillG noisemakers, but the world works like this, briefly...
There are two issues at hand IMHO:
Why can't the gov't release software as GPL; and
Why can't the gov't participate in GPL projects
Why can't the gov't release software as GPL?
Unclassified software developed by the gov't of the US has been paid for by taxpayers' money, and as such belongs to "the people" in the truest sense of the word.
Because of this, the gov't mandates that there be no restrictions on use of that software, hence no power may force the taxpayers to pay again for something they paid for in the first place.
It also means that the gov't has no right to restrict the use of the resultant software in any way.
This last idea runs orthogonally to the GPL (if not entirely contrary), and thus excludes its use by public-funded software projects.
Why can't the gov't participate in GPL projects?
GPL imposes restrictions on software due to it's viral nature.
The gov't mandates that there be no restrictions on use of publicly-funded software.
ERGO, the gov't may not contribute to GPL projects, as those project would they have use restrictions not imposed by their owners (i.e. the public at large).
Coverage is going to suck in the US, and likely all of north America. It uses (only) GSM, whereas TDMA/CDMA is all the rage in the States, and Canada (I believe).
There is a version of GSM in the States, called GSM1900, which eats into the UMTS bands, and represents less than about 10% of the total market traffic. It is that small fraction of the wireless traffic that this module will support.
For me, to buy a product at a 200% increase to the most expensive phones in common service, which only supports a tiny market segment, is ludicrous.
Also, to answer the guy who asked why Handspring chose to only allow upgrades via RAM-resident patches, the answer is blindingly obvious: It costs less to burn ROMs than to install flash RAM in the Visors.
--*> Some of this is opinion. Some of it is fact./You/ figure it out for yourself. *--
Wrong again. When Perot ran against Clinton and Bush, he *OUTSPENT* each of them, to the tune of a third again of the major spender.
(That's what I get for watching PBS instead of CNN this morning:)
While this is true, just to check out the service, I typed in microsoft.com, and got:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the.com,.net, and.org domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
To single out one record, look it up with "xxx", where xxx is one of the
of the records displayed above. If the records are the same, look them up
with "=xxx" to receive a full display for each record.
>>> Last update of whois database: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:31:07 EDT >>>>>>>>
There was not only a grain of salt implicit in the fact that a 'major' figure was expressing political opinion, but there was an explicit salt-lick provided in the form of a disclaimer that this was:
a private missive
a first-draft, firewall-blowing escapade into the author's intemperate outrage surrounding what he felt was a miscommunication of the highest order
an opinion piece
I'm no fan of GWB (part of the 'Dick and Bush' party), or of Gore/Liebermann (the Tipper and 'censor Hollywood' party)
Note to those without a sense of humor: those statements are made with tongue lodged firmly in cheek.
There is only one solution: educate yourselves. Do not be fooled by the media. In an age such as this where there is simply too much information from too many sources to be gathered by ourselves; opinion and bias abound. Cross-corralate information, seek other sources, and seek to come up with your own opinion.
Lord knows you're not going to be happy with anyone else's.
I've used resources such as realchange.org in my own research.
My opinion will be expressed with many (fewer than should be) Americans on election day. Until then, pax.
My experience with UML is that the diagrams do not serve much useful purpose on their own
When most people talk about using the UML, they are referring to a class diagram. That, in itself, only begins to describe the project: it is enough for someone to go code up the data and members of the various classes, and not much more.
However, if you use the sequence, interaction, instance, and use cases, you get more brushstrokes on the canvas, and the thing actually begins looking like a real project.
I guess the idea I'm trying to get at is that each diagram attempts to communicate a different relationship. Some overlap, but for the most part it's true.
Some examples:
class: great for a basic introduction of the coding structure; good to give to the junior on the team for skeletal implementation, and to communicate general characteristics of the classes
instance: good to imply memory and disk usages, and to indicate threading or parallel processing
interaction: good to illustrate the flow of messages and the players involved in normal traffic handling
sequence: another message flow illustration, but this time quasi time-based. Great for illustrating lifelines, spotting redundancies, and demonstrating need for object reuse
use-case: my least favorite, but most useful when communicating the 'why' of the project. This kind is ideally suited to communicating to a suit or markettroid what niche or need your product is likely to fulfill. It is also somewhat useful in outlining support cases and identifying early the minimum requirements for such.
Dont underestimate the use of pictures. If they are truly worth a thousand words apiece, then imagine how much happier someone is going to be to look at the diagrams instead of reading ream upon ream of dry detail-filled dead tree pieces.
Even so, UML won't present a complete view of the project -- and people won't understand it just by looking at the "pretty pictures." However, if it manages to clearly convey even 80% of the scope of the project (which I feel is an attainable goal given intelligent application of the UML), just think about how many fewer questions you'll have to answer later.
Slashdot Mirror
Suppose you have suborned a switching point for a company you wished to access. Suppose that you could reduce switching options for traffic to that destination by taking out one (or more) of those trunks at a particular time, to force traffic through your captured switching center.
Know anyone who might want to run some man in the middle attacks on the valley?
*like* *upvote*
Sorry, I don't have any mod points, currently. But this issue badly needs an injection of humor. Somewhere.
You are confusing the location of her education with her campaign for "the freedom of women and girls to be educated".
Ascribing motive to the location of her education is probably premature.
In as far as your "OSS falters" comment goes, the TL;DR version is "groupthink is bad". The obverse is that "non-groupthink is good." This is not the same as contentiousness to eleven, but enough dissent to spot any naked Emperors.
Having worked in both the cathedral and the bazaar, there are pros and cons to each, but I'd rather have more contentiousness earlier on in the cycle than usually happens in the cathedral. It's overall better for the cost of the project as well as the bugs/kloc BS metrics mgmt wants to use.
Amazing. I restrained myself and didn't call out your ignorance, since I tend to use rather complicated sentence construction. You failed to learn when hit with the clue-stick.
So hey, let's play...
The sentence read "I reported the infringements, the spamming, the users who have a variant of the name (e.g. foo2525 instead of foo): to the spam-handlers and to the variant-users." Let's dissect this.
The disingenuous would read this to mean I reported everyone to the spam-handlers *and* the variant-owners. That's totally unhelpful. So, perhaps there is another interpretation, after one is finished with your ad hominem nonsense: It can represent two different actions. Obviously, "variant-users" cannot refer to spammers -- that's just stupid. Then, it quite obviously indicates the resolution path for the variant-owners is *to* the variant-owners. The use of "respectively" would force the reader to cross-correlate the phrases, easing the process.
So, learn some bloody English, you puerile, self-indulgent, narcissistic, entitled moron. When they invent a "does not exceed a 6th grade reading level" tag, I'm sure you'll finally come into your own.
Close... It's qwer@yaho^H^H^H^HH^H^H^H^H Ha. I'm not so foolish ... what do you mean that crtl-H doesn't delete anymore? ...
RTFMessage. To be clear, I wrote that I reported folks who used a variant to the variant-user. e.g. send email as foo@yahoo.com instead of foo2525@yahoo.com and I get the email reply, I sent it on to foo2525 with a note that they used the wrong email. Of course, the correct email has to be indicated somewhere, or I have no way ...
My mistake was not adding ", respectively" to the sentence.
Glad to see you got your exercise today, jumping to conclusions.
... is why suddenly yahoo is making a show of caring.
I have a four-letter yahoo account (not that kind of four-letter word...) from waaaaay back in the day. It was something I maintained for about two decades for plausible deniability... a cut-out.
SCORES of people have tries to hack it. A couple have succeeded, but not since I switched it to a 32-character mixed-case-and-special password. Still, they try at the rate of about 3 a week (that I *see* via attempted password-reset manipulations, 2-factor authentication change attempts, etc).
But ... I have received about 10 emails from folks who wanted to 'own' the email address. And -- I think -- because I didn't acquiesce, I have received hundreds of thousands of spam emails in the intervening time. They've submitted my email to stupid dating sites in French, German, Thai, Spanish, Tamil and most recently Hebrew. Hell, I got 1000+ emails/day from ONE SITE for a few days, about a week ago.
There's been phishing, spear-phishing based on the pseudo-identity hosted there, blind newsletter sign-up. Every kind of crap you can imagine, and several more.
And every step of the way, I reported the infringements, the spamming, the users who have a variant of the name (e.g. foo2525 instead of foo): to the spam-handlers and to the variant-users.
And yahoo has never given a shit. Not once. Period. IMHO, 'cause it was one account-holder. But I've kept it anyway -- since it's a great cut-out. And I'll continue to do so. Yahoo is a joke; has been for many years now. Sometimes... that's its value. It's a great example of what NOT to do, and it's a great revealer of the seedy underbelly of the 'net.
http://demotivators.despair.co...
“Faster, Faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/257768-faster-faster-until-the-thrill-of-speed-overcomes-the-fear
Bad comparison, borg. In that case, Apple was rewriting software to make use of a lower-layer API, thereby taking advantage of accelerations not available from the other side of the API-translation curtain.
They already had software working, which was asserted by the origin of this subthread as the toughest part. I have to concur with that.
Again, what Apple did here was simply transit between APIs. Those were already made to work earlier. Such acceleration as did occur came as a result of changes to improve the newer APIs.
There was a great article in Business Week about this about a month ago, where the inflammatory title was something about whether WiFi would be the death knell of 3G(UMTS)
/when/ UMTS actually sees the promised bitrates, of course.
They listed the strengths of 3G as being integrated security models throughout the network and a wider distribution via antennas.
So, the two technologies are parallel; separate-but-equal if you would. That's
But the really big thing coming down the pipe is mobiles which talk GPRS/UMTS in-network, or can speak WiFi to other mobiles in order to gain access to *their* GPRS/UMTS network.
Integrate the two that way, and you're never more than a couple of feet (if) from a digital network.
IANAL, nor a kernel hacker, so I'll just supply this as speculation. Some of you may have the information necessary to acquit this as fact or fiction.
Yes, but the important question is...
Have they fixed the gnome2 menu customization issues yet?
There are two issues at hand IMHO:
Why can't the gov't release software as GPL?
Unclassified software developed by the gov't of the US has been paid for by taxpayers' money, and as such belongs to "the people" in the truest sense of the word.
Because of this, the gov't mandates that there be no restrictions on use of that software, hence no power may force the taxpayers to pay again for something they paid for in the first place.
It also means that the gov't has no right to restrict the use of the resultant software in any way.
This last idea runs orthogonally to the GPL (if not entirely contrary), and thus excludes its use by public-funded software projects.
Why can't the gov't participate in GPL projects?
GPL imposes restrictions on software due to it's viral nature. The gov't mandates that there be no restrictions on use of publicly-funded software.
ERGO, the gov't may not contribute to GPL projects, as those project would they have use restrictions not imposed by their owners (i.e. the public at large).
What's this? XML meets the geek code? (real site down)
Coverage is going to suck in the US, and likely all of north America. It uses (only) GSM, whereas TDMA/CDMA is all the rage in the States, and Canada (I believe).
/You/ figure it out for yourself. *--
There is a version of GSM in the States, called GSM1900, which eats into the UMTS bands, and represents less than about 10% of the total market traffic. It is that small fraction of the wireless traffic that this module will support.
For me, to buy a product at a 200% increase to the most expensive phones in common service, which only supports a tiny market segment, is ludicrous.
Also, to answer the guy who asked why Handspring chose to only allow upgrades via RAM-resident patches, the answer is blindingly obvious: It costs less to burn ROMs than to install flash RAM in the Visors.
--*> Some of this is opinion. Some of it is fact.
Wrong again. When Perot ran against Clinton and Bush, he *OUTSPENT* each of them, to the tune of a third again of the major spender. :)
(That's what I get for watching PBS instead of CNN this morning
Money isn't the (only) issue.
While this is true, just to check out the service, I typed in microsoft.com, and got:
.com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
R ORISTS.NET
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
MICROSOFT.COM.IS.SECRETLY.RUN.BY.ILLUMINATI.TER
MICROSOFT.COM
To single out one record, look it up with "xxx", where xxx is one of the
of the records displayed above. If the records are the same, look them up
with "=xxx" to receive a full display for each record.
>>> Last update of whois database: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:31:07 EDT >>>>>>>>
Bloody strange, that.
There was not only a grain of salt implicit in the fact that a 'major' figure was expressing political opinion, but there was an explicit salt-lick provided in the form of a disclaimer that this was:
I'm no fan of GWB (part of the 'Dick and Bush' party), or of Gore/Liebermann (the Tipper and 'censor Hollywood' party)
Note to those without a sense of humor: those statements are made with tongue lodged firmly in cheek.
There is only one solution: educate yourselves. Do not be fooled by the media. In an age such as this where there is simply too much information from too many sources to be gathered by ourselves; opinion and bias abound. Cross-corralate information, seek other sources, and seek to come up with your own opinion.
Lord knows you're not going to be happy with anyone else's.
I've used resources such as realchange.org in my own research.
My opinion will be expressed with many (fewer than should be) Americans on election day. Until then, pax.
When most people talk about using the UML, they are referring to a class diagram. That, in itself, only begins to describe the project: it is enough for someone to go code up the data and members of the various classes, and not much more.
However, if you use the sequence, interaction, instance, and use cases, you get more brushstrokes on the canvas, and the thing actually begins looking like a real project.
I guess the idea I'm trying to get at is that each diagram attempts to communicate a different relationship. Some overlap, but for the most part it's true.
Some examples:
Dont underestimate the use of pictures. If they are truly worth a thousand words apiece, then imagine how much happier someone is going to be to look at the diagrams instead of reading ream upon ream of dry detail-filled dead tree pieces.
Even so, UML won't present a complete view of the project -- and people won't understand it just by looking at the "pretty pictures." However, if it manages to clearly convey even 80% of the scope of the project (which I feel is an attainable goal given intelligent application of the UML), just think about how many fewer questions you'll have to answer later.
-f
IMHO, IANAL, and all the standard disclaimers.
This may escalate the nerd-quotient, but how about a picture of a viking. :)