That's usually the biggest problem with developers, they don't know what users are actually doing.
Everybody who is working in a in-house development team should have a basic idea what the users are doing with the application.
App being developed is usually just a part of the whole work process and more the developers know about the process less likely they are to implement features that users classify as bugs.
My target and tenure is such that I can't meet my target unless I work 60 hours a week.
[...]
Or if that doesn't work, I'll just continue slacking for 60 hours a week.
Unless "utilization" is measured by hours billed from the customer, that's bit self contradicting.
If it actually is the customer billing that they are measuring you probably should have a chat with your boss to get the targets adjusted or get a new job.
Pre-shared keys, root certificates and and PGP-like key signing aren't likely to scale to truly ubiquitous encryption.
Any system that wants to provide ubiquitous encryption that isn't susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks needs to either implement chain of trust or to overcome the problem in some completely different manner.
In order to ubiquitous encryption to really fly, we need similar break through in authentication as public-key encryption was in cryptography.
Like you said, this would still provide protection against casual eavesdropper but not against ISP or government with resources to perform such an operation. Granted, it would still bury the illegitimate traffic to majority of the legitimate traffic and only way to distinguish these two from each other would be by performing MitM attack to all encrypted traffic.
Better than nothing? Definitely yes, but this still addresses only part of the problem.
A teacher's job is not to tell the children what some people believe, his job is to teach what is known to be the most accurate theory in existence.
Schools teach about democracy, capitalist market system and even mention, god forbid, communism. Same thing as with science, most popular theories are covered. In a same way most popular religions should be covered. If nothing else it will give you some kind of an idea in what those people believe in - it doesn't automatically mean that you should.
School should teach you what is happening in the world as whole, not just in your back yard. Religions are big part of this.
Children should be aware that ID exists, because they will find it mentioned outside of class, but they should be aware that a well-informed and intelligent person would have absolutely no doubt that evolution is the correct alternative.
They should be made aware of the alternatives and they should get to choose which one best fits them.
Being Atheist myself I don't really like when somebody starts pushing their religion to me and it always reminds me not to do the same. I can just present the facts that I know, the facts that caused me to make my mind and hope that they can make the right conclusion as well. But if they don't there is absolutely nothing more I can do.
It doesn't do any good to start calling priests liars or somehow try to force them into accepting that I'm right. I don't like some religious nut calling me misinformed as I don't believe in God so I don't call them misinformed if they do. Just like some people say that you need to take your time to discover the faith I'd say that you need to take time to actually rational thinking.
Some people are so vocal about their atheism that it's almost as bad as the church. If somebody wants to believe in God, Santa Claus, elfs or aliens-are-among-us, good for them. Just present the facts and leave the rest up to them. If we are so sure that our view of the world is correct then every other sane human being should come to the same conclusion just by hearing the facts.
I like the UN/LOCODE system as it lists not only country but the location within the country as well. Of course you might still need the site numbering if you have multiple sites in the same city.
The reason PGP, and GPG as well, fail is because PKI is just too difficult to setup and maintain <snip> IMO for the lack of secure options for communication are that corporations and governments don't WANT secure applications being adopted. Take Estonia, for example, where government has set up and is maintaining certificate based PKI infrastructure. When you receive a government issued ID card you can enroll for certificate free of charge. That certificate is then valid, among other things, for signing and encrypting email.
So in this case the infrastructure would be there but there aren't that many users that would sign or encrypt their emails. I wouldn't say that the problem in this case is the government but the users. It's all there, free of charge, but people don't see any reason to start using it.
More details are available, in English, from the www.sk.ee and www.id.ee.
The Java version runs as fast on a laptop PC as the original version runs on a high-powered UNIX server. I'm always a bit cautious when I read comments like this. Some dude slaps together a piece of code and runs it on his laptop and claims that it's faster than the production version on a real server, never mind that the real production version might be used concurrently by tens of thousands of users. I doubt that proper load testing is done when somebody just installs the application on their laptop.
Estimating the performance of complex, widely deployed mission critical system can be very difficult.
Nobody xrays shipping boxes going on freight planes. Sure they do. All packages go through x-ray before they are loaded to planes.
All staff will go through security check before entering air side and all tools, bags and whatever they carry goes through x-ray, just like at passenger terminal.
3) Telnet is dead, long live SSH. Like he said, it's easy to install telnet if you need it. Telnet is used for much more than just terminal sessions. Having problems with SMTP server? Telnet to port 25 and see if you can connect. Same with HTTP, IMAP, POP and so on.
Telnet is also diagnostics tool just like ping or traceroute. You cannot say the same about SSH.
If I generalize a bit it seems that awful lot of people are against copy protection and DRM without realizing that actually they aren't opposing the means to achieve it but the goal itself: preventing copyright violations.
I have absolutely no problem with copy protection and DRM, in fact I'm all for it. It'd be nice if you could make sure that nobody can make illegitimate copies while legitimate customer could use the product unaffected. I'm just all against half-assed implementations that hurt more the paying customer than the person who makes illegit copies.
Thus I say that pursue the copy protection and DRM as much as possible. Just keep them away from me until you have an implementation that doesn't hurt the paying customer. It might take a while, though. If some megacorp somewhere is willing to pay for research that might not lead to anything conclusive, why should I care, it's their money. If we are lucky there might be some unintended side products coming out of such research. Somebody will get paid doing pointless job but I'm happy for them, at least they got a job...;)
I completely agree that our understanding of our surroundings is as complete as it ever has been. But let's not forget the fact that we have no way telling how complete it is.
A while a ago we knew that Earth is flat.
Not so long ago electricity and magnetism were thought to have no relationship at all. Ampere saw that there is a relation but it took Maxwell piece everything together. Maxwell published his equations at 1864.
Whole concept of nuclear energy was put together pretty quickly; ~50 years from Einstein's Special Relativity to first reactor. At the moment we might think that Fusion could be used as a potential energy sources in the future. Yes, it seems *very* difficult at the moment but there might be breakthrough, or there might not be. It would only take one bright mind to unify gravitational force with electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force or weak nuclear force. If that happens, we might all the sudden have something completely different at our hands.
There are still plenty of unanswered questions. Magic wasn't required to solve the unanswered questions in past and it certainly isn't required now. And it is solving those unanswered questions got us to this point.
Your comment is pretty much saying that we know that the fundamental elements of the universe are Earth, Wind, Water and Fire. Yes, you will be proven wrong and you are going to love it;)
All that doesn't change the fact that we are running out of some resources - but it might make all the difference what those limited resources are and what is the timescale.
If the sample differs significantly from the mechanical count, you have a problem. If sample differs at all you have a problem. Vote counting shouldn't be a "pretty close approximation", it should be exact. Number of votes need to be exact.
You shouldn't be able to cheat at all in elections. You cannot ignore something because you could only cheat "a little". If it comes to a close call every single vote counts.
It doesn't. You've made it more complicated than it needs to be, by putting in an exception handler. What are you going to do in the unlikely event that there is an exception, anyway - fix it somehow? Fail gracefully? I mean, at least attempt to close the open files, sockets and whatnot. Usually the general clean up can be done in top level handler but there might be some specific items that are easier to clean up within that function than try create a magical top level handler that can perform clean abort from every possible state.
First do the function specific clean up and then abort the application, task, thread or whatever relevant to that exception using general clean up function or top level handler.
Hate to break it to you, but standards already work. Consider ASCII.
Indeed, consider ASCII. Let's not forget ASCII "extensions" like CP437, CP850, Windows-1252 and others. Some of them are more compatible than others. And let's not get into other encodings like EBCDIC, which are still more common than most people think.
Standard part of ASCII only defines 95 printable characters and 33 control characters. That said, it has provided good foundation for others to embrace-and-extend.
Error you mentioned means that *application* (Exchange in this case) can't handle fragmented memory. Windows can handle the fragmented memory just fine.
Memory allocation is done on multiple levels. OS usually doesn't care about fragmented memory. As long as there are pages available those pages can be reserved for specific process and they are visible to process as single continuous memory block.
Application does its own memory management in its own address space. You allocate a large block of memory from OS and then use malloc() to dish it out in small quantities. This is where memory fragmentation might become a problem. Process memory management (be that libc or whatever) cannot map fragmented memory blocks to continuous blocks. If it happens that there is more memory available in the process' address space but the largest available block is smaller than what was requested, only option is to allocate more from OS. Allocation strategy plays significant role avoiding fragmentation.
OS, on the other hand, can use MMU to present fragmented memory to process as a single continuous address space. Process has no way of telling whether the memory it got from OS is fragmented or paged out.
Everyone who intends to take anything with them is probably smart enough to make copies before telling you they're leaving. Likewise, any damage they might do can already be set up.
Exactly, they have already made the copies if they need them, but why to give them access to new information that is produced *after* they gave the notice?
What if that "intelligent life" looks at us the same way we look at cows grazing in a grassy field ("Beef...it's what's for dinner!")?
Would you like to know that there is a "intelligent life" out there that thinks we are beef?
SETI doesn't help the "intelligent life" to find us, but it allows us to find them.
That same "intelligent life" will find us no matter if SETI exists or not - But it might make all the difference, it could give us a heads-up that there is something out there coming to us.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen!
That's usually the biggest problem with developers, they don't know what users are actually doing.
Everybody who is working in a in-house development team should have a basic idea what the users are doing with the application.
App being developed is usually just a part of the whole work process and more the developers know about the process less likely they are to implement features that users classify as bugs.
My target and tenure is such that I can't meet my target unless I work 60 hours a week.
[...]
Or if that doesn't work, I'll just continue slacking for 60 hours a week.
Unless "utilization" is measured by hours billed from the customer, that's bit self contradicting.
If it actually is the customer billing that they are measuring you probably should have a chat with your boss to get the targets adjusted or get a new job.
You nailed it.
Pre-shared keys, root certificates and and PGP-like key signing aren't likely to scale to truly ubiquitous encryption.
Any system that wants to provide ubiquitous encryption that isn't susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks needs to either implement chain of trust or to overcome the problem in some completely different manner.
In order to ubiquitous encryption to really fly, we need similar break through in authentication as public-key encryption was in cryptography.
Like you said, this would still provide protection against casual eavesdropper but not against ISP or government with resources to perform such an operation. Granted, it would still bury the illegitimate traffic to majority of the legitimate traffic and only way to distinguish these two from each other would be by performing MitM attack to all encrypted traffic.
Better than nothing? Definitely yes, but this still addresses only part of the problem.
HTTPS relies on root certificates to authenticate the remote peer.
A teacher's job is not to tell the children what some people believe, his job is to teach what is known to be the most accurate theory in existence.
Schools teach about democracy, capitalist market system and even mention, god forbid, communism. Same thing as with science, most popular theories are covered. In a same way most popular religions should be covered. If nothing else it will give you some kind of an idea in what those people believe in - it doesn't automatically mean that you should.
School should teach you what is happening in the world as whole, not just in your back yard. Religions are big part of this.
Children should be aware that ID exists, because they will find it mentioned outside of class, but they should be aware that a well-informed and intelligent person would have absolutely no doubt that evolution is the correct alternative.
They should be made aware of the alternatives and they should get to choose which one best fits them.
Being Atheist myself I don't really like when somebody starts pushing their religion to me and it always reminds me not to do the same. I can just present the facts that I know, the facts that caused me to make my mind and hope that they can make the right conclusion as well. But if they don't there is absolutely nothing more I can do.
It doesn't do any good to start calling priests liars or somehow try to force them into accepting that I'm right. I don't like some religious nut calling me misinformed as I don't believe in God so I don't call them misinformed if they do. Just like some people say that you need to take your time to discover the faith I'd say that you need to take time to actually rational thinking.
Some people are so vocal about their atheism that it's almost as bad as the church. If somebody wants to believe in God, Santa Claus, elfs or aliens-are-among-us, good for them. Just present the facts and leave the rest up to them. If we are so sure that our view of the world is correct then every other sane human being should come to the same conclusion just by hearing the facts.
But, but .. is it compliant with sections 2.1 and 2.12 of RFC1925?
Yes, you can.
And if you don't believe your vote makes any difference, you can run for the office yourself.
I like the UN/LOCODE system as it lists not only country but the location within the country as well. Of course you might still need the site numbering if you have multiple sites in the same city.
Ages ago when I was using Borland IDEs I got used to the blue background with white text and I still prefer that over anything else.
To be precise Borland default color scheme was yellow on blue, which I couldn't stand, but with white text it's actually pretty good.
I may even get more work done.
Now if only somebody could ban the Slashdot as well.
<snip>
IMO for the lack of secure options for communication are that corporations and governments don't WANT secure applications being adopted. Take Estonia, for example, where government has set up and is maintaining certificate based PKI infrastructure. When you receive a government issued ID card you can enroll for certificate free of charge. That certificate is then valid, among other things, for signing and encrypting email.
So in this case the infrastructure would be there but there aren't that many users that would sign or encrypt their emails. I wouldn't say that the problem in this case is the government but the users. It's all there, free of charge, but people don't see any reason to start using it.
More details are available, in English, from the www.sk.ee and www.id.ee.
Estimating the performance of complex, widely deployed mission critical system can be very difficult.
All staff will go through security check before entering air side and all tools, bags and whatever they carry goes through x-ray, just like at passenger terminal.
Telnet is also diagnostics tool just like ping or traceroute. You cannot say the same about SSH.
If I generalize a bit it seems that awful lot of people are against copy protection and DRM without realizing that actually they aren't opposing the means to achieve it but the goal itself: preventing copyright violations.
;)
I have absolutely no problem with copy protection and DRM, in fact I'm all for it. It'd be nice if you could make sure that nobody can make illegitimate copies while legitimate customer could use the product unaffected. I'm just all against half-assed implementations that hurt more the paying customer than the person who makes illegit copies.
Thus I say that pursue the copy protection and DRM as much as possible. Just keep them away from me until you have an implementation that doesn't hurt the paying customer. It might take a while, though. If some megacorp somewhere is willing to pay for research that might not lead to anything conclusive, why should I care, it's their money. If we are lucky there might be some unintended side products coming out of such research. Somebody will get paid doing pointless job but I'm happy for them, at least they got a job...
They have my vote as well. Those things are perfect for warehouses, no problems with dust and they can take much more beating than regular keyboards.
I completely agree that our understanding of our surroundings is as complete as it ever has been. But let's not forget the fact that we have no way telling how complete it is.
;)
A while a ago we knew that Earth is flat.
Not so long ago electricity and magnetism were thought to have no relationship at all. Ampere saw that there is a relation but it took Maxwell piece everything together. Maxwell published his equations at 1864.
Whole concept of nuclear energy was put together pretty quickly; ~50 years from Einstein's Special Relativity to first reactor. At the moment we might think that Fusion could be used as a potential energy sources in the future. Yes, it seems *very* difficult at the moment but there might be breakthrough, or there might not be. It would only take one bright mind to unify gravitational force with electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force or weak nuclear force. If that happens, we might all the sudden have something completely different at our hands.
There are still plenty of unanswered questions. Magic wasn't required to solve the unanswered questions in past and it certainly isn't required now. And it is solving those unanswered questions got us to this point.
Your comment is pretty much saying that we know that the fundamental elements of the universe are Earth, Wind, Water and Fire. Yes, you will be proven wrong and you are going to love it
All that doesn't change the fact that we are running out of some resources - but it might make all the difference what those limited resources are and what is the timescale.
You shouldn't be able to cheat at all in elections. You cannot ignore something because you could only cheat "a little". If it comes to a close call every single vote counts.
First do the function specific clean up and then abort the application, task, thread or whatever relevant to that exception using general clean up function or top level handler.
Standard part of ASCII only defines 95 printable characters and 33 control characters. That said, it has provided good foundation for others to embrace-and-extend.
Error you mentioned means that *application* (Exchange in this case) can't handle fragmented memory. Windows can handle the fragmented memory just fine.
Memory allocation is done on multiple levels. OS usually doesn't care about fragmented memory. As long as there are pages available those pages can be reserved for specific process and they are visible to process as single continuous memory block.
Application does its own memory management in its own address space. You allocate a large block of memory from OS and then use malloc() to dish it out in small quantities. This is where memory fragmentation might become a problem. Process memory management (be that libc or whatever) cannot map fragmented memory blocks to continuous blocks. If it happens that there is more memory available in the process' address space but the largest available block is smaller than what was requested, only option is to allocate more from OS. Allocation strategy plays significant role avoiding fragmentation.
OS, on the other hand, can use MMU to present fragmented memory to process as a single continuous address space. Process has no way of telling whether the memory it got from OS is fragmented or paged out.
SETI doesn't help the "intelligent life" to find us, but it allows us to find them.
That same "intelligent life" will find us no matter if SETI exists or not - But it might make all the difference, it could give us a heads-up that there is something out there coming to us.