And OO is not a complicated extra of programming, it is a simple ideology that makes programming so much easier when you know it.
I'll admit that OO does make programming easier in the long run. Though to do it right, you MUST spend a fair amount of time planning before throwing down that first line of code.
However, OO is just not suitable for all programming tasks. I currently work with an app that processes over 70,000 transactions per second. I doubt I could get a tenth of that performance with any OO language. Even in C, I spend quite a bit of time looking for ways to cut down on the number of conditionals, etc, since eliminating just one IF statement in the right place can get me as much as a 5% performance increase.
I fully agree that one should learn to program well procedurally FiRST, before tackling OO. If you don't have a firm grasp of that basics, you will never reach your full potential/
Agreed, someone comes up with something new to solve a very specific issue, and all of a sudden someone's predicting how it will completely replace everything else in the next month.
Grow up.
Physical storage and relational databases aren't going anywhere anytime soon. in-memory this and non-relational that are all well and good for the specific problems they were designed for, but physically stored and relational data fits the needs of 90% of data storage and retrieval. I sure as HECK don't want my bank storing my financial data purely in memory.
So keep yelling to yourselves about how the sky is falling on traditional techniques. Meanwhile the rest of us have real work to do.
No, it's not particularly elegant. But on the other hand, split-horizon DNS is nothing new or magical either. Nor would I classify it as "abuse". The capability has been there since the early days of BIND.
In the DNS trade, we refer to it under the category of "stupid DNS tricks"
That said, it does have some significant advantages over other techniques.
#1, It's protocol-independent. Sure you can do intelligent redirects with HTTP, but not everything in the world is HTTP #2, Even with HTTP, in order for it to work, you have to now change the name of the server, and often the links to internal content. Your initial request to www.domain.com will now have to be redirected to hostx.domain.com or www.location.domain.com etc., and links on the pages to content servers will also have to be altered. This can be confusing to end-users, and may require additional SSL certs. It's also a code maintenance issue. #2a, While the renaming seems trivial on first glance, it has HUGE implications for search engines, etc, since those "local" servers will get indexed instead of a generic name #2b, It also means that a calculation will have to be made by the web server deciding where to redirect you to, then the actual redirect, increasing load and latency. DNS solutions are "pre-computed" and thus do not have similar issues. #2c, If you solve 2a by checking every request at every location, you make 2b much worse #3, It's simple.
Downsides:
#1, Third-party DNS recursive services throw it off. (There is a proposed RFC that would allow for such recursives to pass the originating network in the request) #2, It makes DNSSEC a right royal PITA (Much more than it already is)
This is definitely theoretically possible. However, you're going to have to convince the major application developers to play along.
Though to be fair, it would only be the equivalent of the cheaper certs that only verify domain control for authority when issuing certs. The higher-level certs truly do involve a third-party verification of identity of the cert recipient.
Sure, they could pressure the parent to supply bogus records. On the other hand, they always could have pressured them to change the NS records, which they would also have to do if they published bogus DS records.
So at absolute worst, no security was gained from the "government". It cannot be made worse, because any theoretical compromise by the governing agency was already possible, and much easier before.
What DNSSEC does: DNSSEC provides a means for an end-user to determine the authenticity of the DNS data they receive by proving that only someone in control of the domain could have served the record.
What DNSSEC does not do: DNSSEC does not provide for the security of data being exchanged between systems.
With DNSSEC, each domain admin holds their own private keys. Nobody else should ever see them. Chain of authenticity is provided by each parent domain signing the delegation records provided by the child domain.
So, for the "government" to "exert control" over your domain, they would have to completely spoof every parent of your domain. This would affect not just your domain, but all domains in that TLD. Pretty sure if everyone in.com all broke at the same time, someone would notice. In short, this makes it harder for someone to take control of your DNS. If the "government" wanted it to be easier, they never would have allowed the root to be signed.
And let's face it, DNSSEC was not designed for you. DNSSEC is designed for businesses, banks and other large entities who are trying to protect their customers from being spoofed. It is just another tool like SSL. And, IMO, anyone who uses SSL certs should use DNSSEC. If you don't use SSL, it's highly unlikely you need DNSSEC.
But hey, if all you want to do is spew ridiculous conspiracy theories, never mind, rant on.
Somewhere around here I have the Steve Jackson card-based version of that game. It's pretty fun when you've got a few people with a warped sense of humor and a bit of free time.
The plant wasn't profitable currently, was going to be made obsolete by law in a couple of years, and was not even remotely profitable to refit to producing the CFLs.
So they should just pay people to work for the heck of it?
Agreed, I went through a couple of TI calcs before buying an HP. I've never had an HP break. That's not to say I haven't dropped them. My poor HP 11C is now over 25 years old, and has been dropped too many times to count. It's still my favorite calculator. My 48G has likewise seen some rough handling, it is also still running fine.
TIs are decent from a functionality point of view, but they are unable to take any kind of rough handling.
My wife used TIs in college, and went through a couple of them as well.
Not actually true. In it's most basic definition, beer is anything made from fermenting starches. Yes, modern beers use grain for the primary starches, but that wasn't always the truth.
Root beer wasn't always a sickly sweet kid's drink, it once was exactly what the name suggests, beer fermented from roots, primarily sassafras.
Grain became the hands-down favorite because of its relative low cost and high starch content. Which is also why companies like Anheuser-Busch use rice, it's very cheap and high in fermentable starches. They sure don't do it for the quality flavor (rice has none).
The cacao beans themselves are pretty hardy, and once dried and roasted are very transportable. What they're talking about is the pulp that surrounds the seeds, which is supposed to be very good, but has an extremely short usable life. Like just hours from harvest. Likely the only practical way to use it would be to build your brewery on the plantation.
First, get rid of some keys. Many houses have exterior doors with both a lock on the knob and a deadlock. I've replaced all of the knobs with keyless versions. #1, the knob lock is pointless if you use the deadbolt. #2, if the only lock is a deadbolt, you *cannot* lock yourself out.
Second, split to multiple rings. There's no reason for me to carry my motorcycle keys when I'm driving my car. I have separate rings for each vehicle, with a house key on each. The rings are kept in a keybox, and I only take the one I need. I then have a separate ring with miscellaneous keys, but it mostly stays in the keybox.
I mean, seriously, why are you carrying around your *roof* key?
Oh, I seriously want to see them take on Motorola. Taking on HTC was like taking on the scrawny kid in school who isn't part of the "in crowd". He's not that dangerous, and nobody will back him up. Taking on Motorola would be more like a junior high art student taking on a college senior on a martial arts team.
They get away with HTC, because they know HTC's patent portfolio is thin. But all it would take is for Motorola to drop the filing cabinet on them containing their patent portfolio and Apple will crawl away crying for mommy.
It can happen anyway. I let myself get promoted into management, then when someone got a wild hair for a re-org, I got shown the door when the shuffle was over.
When I looked for a new job, I specifically stayed away from management jobs. Yeah, I'm making a little less, but my job is much more stable, and I'm a LOT happier.
Bottom line is, would you be happier doing the management position than the grunt work? If the answer is no, in the long run the money is not going to make up for it.
I don't think it will be an iPhone killer. At best, it will slow Apple's growth to a significant degree. However, with it's exchange integration, etc, it could take a measurable chunk from Blackberry.
And, as a long-time Palm user, this will likely be the last nail in the coffin for Palm. I'd decided months ago that the replacement for my 700p was not likely to be another Palm, but nothing was really grabbing me. I was resigned to go to a crackberry. Now though, I may end up an early buyer of the Droid.
My wife will almost certainly get one, since she was on the edge of buying a GPS device.
Yeah, seriously. Can someone make one of these without the stupid 3G, just wifi? And knock $20-$50 bucks off the price for not including it?
And putting it on the Nation's fastest^H^H^H^H^H^H^H least reliable Network is like kicking the buyer in the nuts. "Here, we have a really nice reader for you, but we're going to have to punish you for buying it."
Slashdot Mirror
Two problems with that:
#1 Age appropriate is pretty much impossible to automate. Every entry would have to be human-reviewed, and that's expensive.
#2 What you consider age-appropriate, someone else may note, and vice-versa. It's not objective, it's subjective.
If I was representing the truckers, I'd say "Sure, no problem, we just won't transport any loads carrying your goods anymore."
See how quickly they decide a few dollars in licensing revenue is not worth losing all retail sales.
And OO is not a complicated extra of programming, it is a simple ideology that makes programming so much easier when you know it.
I'll admit that OO does make programming easier in the long run. Though to do it right, you MUST spend a fair amount of time planning before throwing down that first line of code.
However, OO is just not suitable for all programming tasks. I currently work with an app that processes over 70,000 transactions per second. I doubt I could get a tenth of that performance with any OO language. Even in C, I spend quite a bit of time looking for ways to cut down on the number of conditionals, etc, since eliminating just one IF statement in the right place can get me as much as a 5% performance increase.
I fully agree that one should learn to program well procedurally FiRST, before tackling OO. If you don't have a firm grasp of that basics, you will never reach your full potential/
Agreed, someone comes up with something new to solve a very specific issue, and all of a sudden someone's predicting how it will completely replace everything else in the next month.
Grow up.
Physical storage and relational databases aren't going anywhere anytime soon. in-memory this and non-relational that are all well and good for the specific problems they were designed for, but physically stored and relational data fits the needs of 90% of data storage and retrieval. I sure as HECK don't want my bank storing my financial data purely in memory.
So keep yelling to yourselves about how the sky is falling on traditional techniques. Meanwhile the rest of us have real work to do.
The originating network of the client.
Caching would not have to be turned off, but it would get a lot more complicated.
Note that the draft expired, but I expect someone will eventually resurrect it.
EDNS Client IP
No, it's not particularly elegant. But on the other hand, split-horizon DNS is nothing new or magical either. Nor would I classify it as "abuse". The capability has been there since the early days of BIND.
In the DNS trade, we refer to it under the category of "stupid DNS tricks"
That said, it does have some significant advantages over other techniques.
#1, It's protocol-independent. Sure you can do intelligent redirects with HTTP, but not everything in the world is HTTP
#2, Even with HTTP, in order for it to work, you have to now change the name of the server, and often the links to internal content. Your initial request to www.domain.com will now have to be redirected to hostx.domain.com or www.location.domain.com etc., and links on the pages to content servers will also have to be altered. This can be confusing to end-users, and may require additional SSL certs. It's also a code maintenance issue.
#2a, While the renaming seems trivial on first glance, it has HUGE implications for search engines, etc, since those "local" servers will get indexed instead of a generic name
#2b, It also means that a calculation will have to be made by the web server deciding where to redirect you to, then the actual redirect, increasing load and latency. DNS solutions are "pre-computed" and thus do not have similar issues.
#2c, If you solve 2a by checking every request at every location, you make 2b much worse
#3, It's simple.
Downsides:
#1, Third-party DNS recursive services throw it off. (There is a proposed RFC that would allow for such recursives to pass the originating network in the request)
#2, It makes DNSSEC a right royal PITA (Much more than it already is)
But how does DNSSEC make it more vulnerable?
(It seems no different to me).
It doesn't. But it makes a nice straw-man, doesn't it?
For someone with control of the root, DNSSEC makes things only slightly more difficult, but definitely does not make it easier.
This is definitely theoretically possible. However, you're going to have to convince the major application developers to play along.
Though to be fair, it would only be the equivalent of the cheaper certs that only verify domain control for authority when issuing certs. The higher-level certs truly do involve a third-party verification of identity of the cert recipient.
Sure, they could pressure the parent to supply bogus records. On the other hand, they always could have pressured them to change the NS records, which they would also have to do if they published bogus DS records.
So at absolute worst, no security was gained from the "government". It cannot be made worse, because any theoretical compromise by the governing agency was already possible, and much easier before.
Actually, .net was enabled sometime around 16:00 GMT yesterday. They just didn't announce it until today.
I was doing testing of a DNSSEC system yesterday, and one of my test cases change state on me unexpectedly. (Signed zone in an unsigned parent)
You really don't know what DNSSEC is, do you?
What DNSSEC does: DNSSEC provides a means for an end-user to determine the authenticity of the DNS data they receive by proving that only someone in control of the domain could have served the record.
What DNSSEC does not do: DNSSEC does not provide for the security of data being exchanged between systems.
With DNSSEC, each domain admin holds their own private keys. Nobody else should ever see them. Chain of authenticity is provided by each parent domain signing the delegation records provided by the child domain.
So, for the "government" to "exert control" over your domain, they would have to completely spoof every parent of your domain. This would affect not just your domain, but all domains in that TLD. Pretty sure if everyone in .com all broke at the same time, someone would notice. In short, this makes it harder for someone to take control of your DNS. If the "government" wanted it to be easier, they never would have allowed the root to be signed.
And let's face it, DNSSEC was not designed for you. DNSSEC is designed for businesses, banks and other large entities who are trying to protect their customers from being spoofed. It is just another tool like SSL. And, IMO, anyone who uses SSL certs should use DNSSEC. If you don't use SSL, it's highly unlikely you need DNSSEC.
But hey, if all you want to do is spew ridiculous conspiracy theories, never mind, rant on.
Anyone want to start a pool on how long it will take someone to crack the system and start sending bogus alerts?
Ah, Battle Cattle.
Somewhere around here I have the Steve Jackson card-based version of that game. It's pretty fun when you've got a few people with a warped sense of humor and a bit of free time.
Not uncommon for pyromaniacs to become firefighters.
In rural areas, a number of arson cases end up being traced back to volunteer firefighters. Most commonly involving abandoned structures or barns.
OK, how exactly were they "sold out by GE"?
The plant wasn't profitable currently, was going to be made obsolete by law in a couple of years, and was not even remotely profitable to refit to producing the CFLs.
So they should just pay people to work for the heck of it?
Agreed, I went through a couple of TI calcs before buying an HP. I've never had an HP break. That's not to say I haven't dropped them. My poor HP 11C is now over 25 years old, and has been dropped too many times to count. It's still my favorite calculator. My 48G has likewise seen some rough handling, it is also still running fine.
TIs are decent from a functionality point of view, but they are unable to take any kind of rough handling.
My wife used TIs in college, and went through a couple of them as well.
If there's no grain in it, it's not beer.
Not actually true. In it's most basic definition, beer is anything made from fermenting starches. Yes, modern beers use grain for the primary starches, but that wasn't always the truth.
Root beer wasn't always a sickly sweet kid's drink, it once was exactly what the name suggests, beer fermented from roots, primarily sassafras.
Grain became the hands-down favorite because of its relative low cost and high starch content. Which is also why companies like Anheuser-Busch use rice, it's very cheap and high in fermentable starches. They sure don't do it for the quality flavor (rice has none).
The cacao beans themselves are pretty hardy, and once dried and roasted are very transportable. What they're talking about is the pulp that surrounds the seeds, which is supposed to be very good, but has an extremely short usable life. Like just hours from harvest. Likely the only practical way to use it would be to build your brewery on the plantation.
First, get rid of some keys. Many houses have exterior doors with both a lock on the knob and a deadlock. I've replaced all of the knobs with keyless versions. #1, the knob lock is pointless if you use the deadbolt. #2, if the only lock is a deadbolt, you *cannot* lock yourself out.
Second, split to multiple rings. There's no reason for me to carry my motorcycle keys when I'm driving my car. I have separate rings for each vehicle, with a house key on each. The rings are kept in a keybox, and I only take the one I need. I then have a separate ring with miscellaneous keys, but it mostly stays in the keybox.
I mean, seriously, why are you carrying around your *roof* key?
Oh, I seriously want to see them take on Motorola. Taking on HTC was like taking on the scrawny kid in school who isn't part of the "in crowd". He's not that dangerous, and nobody will back him up. Taking on Motorola would be more like a junior high art student taking on a college senior on a martial arts team.
They get away with HTC, because they know HTC's patent portfolio is thin. But all it would take is for Motorola to drop the filing cabinet on them containing their patent portfolio and Apple will crawl away crying for mommy.
It can happen anyway. I let myself get promoted into management, then when someone got a wild hair for a re-org, I got shown the door when the shuffle was over.
When I looked for a new job, I specifically stayed away from management jobs. Yeah, I'm making a little less, but my job is much more stable, and I'm a LOT happier.
Bottom line is, would you be happier doing the management position than the grunt work? If the answer is no, in the long run the money is not going to make up for it.
I don't think it will be an iPhone killer. At best, it will slow Apple's growth to a significant degree. However, with it's exchange integration, etc, it could take a measurable chunk from Blackberry.
And, as a long-time Palm user, this will likely be the last nail in the coffin for Palm. I'd decided months ago that the replacement for my 700p was not likely to be another Palm, but nothing was really grabbing me. I was resigned to go to a crackberry. Now though, I may end up an early buyer of the Droid.
My wife will almost certainly get one, since she was on the edge of buying a GPS device.
Gotta love the apologists.
"it can read it, you just gotta use this thing on another device to convert it then transfer it"
By this logic, MS notepad can read PDF files. Just open a PDF in Acrobat, select the text, copy, paste into wordpad, then save as text.
Um, seriously dude? That means it can't read it.
Yeah, seriously. Can someone make one of these without the stupid 3G, just wifi? And knock $20-$50 bucks off the price for not including it?
And putting it on the Nation's fastest^H^H^H^H^H^H^H least reliable Network is like kicking the buyer in the nuts. "Here, we have a really nice reader for you, but we're going to have to punish you for buying it."
Ironically, in my current job, I was hired as a PHP developer, but I'm spending most of my time lately writing C.
Been having a blast too.