If you work in the security industry sure.. if you're a user who feels they are getting poor service you yell it from the rooftops. Think about it this way.. if you found out your keyless entry system to your car was broken and any idiot could get into your car with a $2 transmitter, would you go quietly to the company and help them "mitigate" the damage or would you send this information to your local newspaper or current affairs show so they can tell as many people as possible to steer clear of this manufacturer as they don't even do basic security checks of their key systems. Anyone who trusts a for-profit entity to "do the right thing" with disclosing their own fuckups is an idiot.. and as for CERT, they're just as complacent in coverups.
Dude, we're not talking about "writing software", we're talking about setting up a website and leaving the default mySQL account active. We're talking about writing shit in php and not escaping user input. We're talking about gross incompetence. There's plenty of it, and yes, the best way to deal with it is public naming and shaming.
Or, ya know, you could write code without security issues already. Most "wall of shame" sites are exactly that. The message is: these guys are idiots, switch to someone else as quickly as possible.
Because they claim they are secure. It's like if someone was to build a big fence around their property, place armed guards, security cameras, attack dogs, and then boast in a local newpaper that they are secure.. you'd have a nice good laugh if it turns out their cleaning lady stole their diamonds.
So, do ya think that maybe the massive amounts of marketting and promotion that NASA did in the 60s might have had something to do with them being a lot more popular then than they are now?
Nothing is black and white in copyright law. All Google has to do is cast a little legal doubt and then the issue is up to the Supremes' discretion. They pretend to be all rational, but they are humans and they let their own personal biases guide their decisions.
Google will pay for some lawyers and appeal this all the way to the supreme court who will say "I love YouTube, it's the shit, you fuckers can go spin" and that will be the end of copyright as we know it.
I know that. He failed. His arguement is that because no-one has done what he wants them to do that there must be something wrong with their development process. Totally ignoring the possibility that maybe the maintainers just don't want that level of configurability and the users of GNOME don't either. It's not just GNOME that takes the "no thanks to the kitchen sink" approach.
Linus' patches don't "fix" anything. They add one feature.. in particular, the ability to configure left, right and middle click to do what you like. Which, ya know, is useful to like 3 people.
How do I know? I've looked. Yesterday I even fixed it. I sent the patches off to add the capabilities. It's a shame he didn't, ya know, attach the patches to his email.. this whole "contribute it to the maintainer" crap is the problem with open source. If you see something you don't like, sure, contribute it to the maintainer to get fixed.. but if the maintainer drops your patch on the floor, don't go cry on the mailing lists, just make your patch publically available so other people who want the same feature as you don't have to recode it themselves. Jesus, Linus should know better.
Seems to me the headline and summary were provided by the company, via the article.. your interpretation may have been that they were trying to replace current microprocessors in all the various markets of which microprocessors are sold, but that certainly isn't what the summary or the article says. You're just arguing with yourself.
Kinda makes you wonder right.. Unfortunately, the probe doesn't fly itself. It needs occassional course corrections and all that stuff is worked out on the ground. So how much money did it cost to pull staff off other projects and put em on this Jupiter diversion? Is it really economical to pop by just to pick up 3 years? It's not like there's a time to market here.
Like, say, the C99 standard.. it's 2007 and we still don't have a conforming implementation. The committee failed to perform its mandate, codifying existing practice, and we, the developers who use this language, have suffered as a result.
Slashdot Mirror
And while you're solving the motor companies problems for them, they'll be sure to put a lot of effort into making sure it never happens again, right?
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe all this do-gooding attitude is the reason why computer security is so bad? You're just co-conspirators.
If you work in the security industry sure.. if you're a user who feels they are getting poor service you yell it from the rooftops. Think about it this way.. if you found out your keyless entry system to your car was broken and any idiot could get into your car with a $2 transmitter, would you go quietly to the company and help them "mitigate" the damage or would you send this information to your local newspaper or current affairs show so they can tell as many people as possible to steer clear of this manufacturer as they don't even do basic security checks of their key systems. Anyone who trusts a for-profit entity to "do the right thing" with disclosing their own fuckups is an idiot.. and as for CERT, they're just as complacent in coverups.
Dude, we're not talking about "writing software", we're talking about setting up a website and leaving the default mySQL account active. We're talking about writing shit in php and not escaping user input. We're talking about gross incompetence. There's plenty of it, and yes, the best way to deal with it is public naming and shaming.
Or, ya know, you could write code without security issues already. Most "wall of shame" sites are exactly that. The message is: these guys are idiots, switch to someone else as quickly as possible.
Because they claim they are secure. It's like if someone was to build a big fence around their property, place armed guards, security cameras, attack dogs, and then boast in a local newpaper that they are secure.. you'd have a nice good laugh if it turns out their cleaning lady stole their diamonds.
So, do ya think that maybe the massive amounts of marketting and promotion that NASA did in the 60s might have had something to do with them being a lot more popular then than they are now?
In about 400 years, sure.
Install a rail system instead of using those crazy tractor things.
Nothing is black and white in copyright law. All Google has to do is cast a little legal doubt and then the issue is up to the Supremes' discretion. They pretend to be all rational, but they are humans and they let their own personal biases guide their decisions.
Google will pay for some lawyers and appeal this all the way to the supreme court who will say "I love YouTube, it's the shit, you fuckers can go spin" and that will be the end of copyright as we know it.
Nah, these dicks are arguing that denial of service isn't a security issue. That's not a semantic argument, that's just straight ignorance.
Ok. I'm done talking to you idiots now.
Availability is a key facet of security. There's no fuckin' point having a "secure" system which you can't even use.
You really look like an idiot debating this.
And I really look like an idiot trying to school an AC on Slashdot.
Go read a book, take a class or borrow a clue about security.
I know that. He failed. His arguement is that because no-one has done what he wants them to do that there must be something wrong with their development process. Totally ignoring the possibility that maybe the maintainers just don't want that level of configurability and the users of GNOME don't either. It's not just GNOME that takes the "no thanks to the kitchen sink" approach.
Linus' patches don't "fix" anything. They add one feature.. in particular, the ability to configure left, right and middle click to do what you like. Which, ya know, is useful to like 3 people.
Riiiiight.. cause that summary really screamed hype to me. I see you got modded up too, moderators can't even be bothered reading the summary now?
Fuckin' Slashdot.
Seems to me the headline and summary were provided by the company, via the article.. your interpretation may have been that they were trying to replace current microprocessors in all the various markets of which microprocessors are sold, but that certainly isn't what the summary or the article says. You're just arguing with yourself.
If you RTA or if, say, the people who modded you up to +5 had RTA, you'd see why feature size is terribly unimportant.
Fuckin' Slashdot.
Kinda makes you wonder right.. Unfortunately, the probe doesn't fly itself. It needs occassional course corrections and all that stuff is worked out on the ground. So how much money did it cost to pull staff off other projects and put em on this Jupiter diversion? Is it really economical to pop by just to pick up 3 years? It's not like there's a time to market here.
heh, true.
// and mid block variable declarations.
Shit like zero length arrays vs variable length arrays was more what I was thinking.
There was essentially only two parts good to C99:
But then again, it has been 5 years since I bothered to read it.
Like, say, the C99 standard.. it's 2007 and we still don't have a conforming implementation. The committee failed to perform its mandate, codifying existing practice, and we, the developers who use this language, have suffered as a result.
Here's discrimination for ya... if you fuck with the people on the Google shuttle, chances are you won't be working for Google tomorrow.
I don't know how you'd get the same kind of effect from a public transport system.
nevermind, ACs and Slashdot reply hiding.. bleh.