Nope...not just a guess. I learned it in a college course some time back, and so I don't have the original citation, however, I did some digging and did find at least one reference to prove I didn't pull this out of thin air:
It's rather poorly formated, but here's the relevant passage: Scholars have generally regarded this use of the apostrophe as arising from the omission of the letter e in Old and Middle English -es GENITIVE singular endings (such as mannes man's, scipes ship's), spreading in due course to all genitives, with or without an e and plural as well as singular. Others have cited a noun-and-pronoun pattern of possession common in the 16-17c, as in Charles his name, where noun and pronoun came together as Charles's name and then spread to all possessives, male or female, singular or plural. However, it is the Old English inflection that more directly accounts for the use of the apostrophe in Modern English.
According to that, the more direct origin was the omission of the letter e in old and middle english, but my explanation *is* another possible contributing factor. So no, I wasn't just guessing or making shit up.
When you add an apostrophe s to the end of a noun, you're creating a contraction of the noun and the possessive pronoun. At least that was the intention when the rule was invented
gnrcman's is a contraction of "grncman his", girl's is a contraction of "girl hers"
So if you were to put the apostrophe in "its" the contraction would be "it its", which is really a bit recursive.:)
There once was a man from Nantucket Who saw a blue screen and said fuck it. When asked why he stayed with the OS Bill Made? "My company won't let me chuck it!"
I'll agree with you on Dashboard Widgets. It's a neat little gimick, but not really all that impressive, and I'm not as impressed as I'd hoped to be....
But...Spotlight is something that I've grown to love. I don't think I could do without it now. And here's the thing: The code that enables spotlight is actually a big deal, OS wise. Spotlight uses some new OS X funtionality related to file metadata.
The big news on 10.4, from a technical "OS X guts" perspective, isn't spotlight itself, but the new features that spotlight uses.
And beyond that, there are other "guts level" enhancements that are pretty cool. Here's some of the more technical "guts" features in 10.4:
* Kernel level file change notification -- This is why the finder now instantly reflects changed files in 10.4 * Metadata -- The new metadata features in OS X are, more than anything, a first step for very cool things to come, and applications will increasingly use these features * Access Control Lists -- these greatly improve upon the limited unix file system security. * Core Image -- This is very cool, and already applications like the wonderful Comic Life use this to good effect * Quartz Composer -- I've played with this, and damn, it's cool.
Much of this information was cribbed from the excellent review on Ars Technica. It's long(20+ pages!), but skim the fluff and there's good stuff there: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/
Oh, and the new Mail.app (including a spotlight search) kicks ass.
So, I don't feel cheated by the latest version of OS X. It's got an impressive amount of new features.
Linux is more capable for those users partly because a lot of software that doesn't have a GUI never got ported to OS X. It could probably be ported, but no one has. Also, there is binary-only software for Linux. A lot of this is command line stuff that Mac users just aren't interested in, and that will never get a GUI but is useful despite that.
Now, wait a sec...what software are you talking about? One of the strengths I've found with Macs is the command line stuff. I use zsh as my shell, and I have the full host of standard unix command line utilities. Most of the command line stuff I've needed, I've either been able to find binaries for, or I've used fink, or I've just built from source. There are a huge number of command line unix apps available on Mac OS X. After all, it is built on Unix. Maybe there's just some software I'm not aware of?
FWIW, Motorola's (somewhat crippled, but still nice) V710 Bluetooth phone now syncs with macs quite nicely, if you make a small tweak to iSync's phone compatibility plist. Instructions for doing so are here. Keep in mind that Verizon has disabled the OBEX bluetooth profile, so you cannot, for example, dial your phone from Address Book like you would be able to do with most Bluetooth phones.
The redundant teller counting example is good, but I've got a better one, true story:
I go to an ATM machine, manufactured by Diebold, and insert my card and punch in my PIN.
Would you like a reciept? No.
What would you like to do? Withdraw; 20 dollars.
BZZZT BZZZT BZZZT. Whir whir whir.
The money pops out.
Anything else? No
My card pops out.
So, okay, the whir whir whir was pretty obviously the money being counted and spat out. What what the BZZZT BZZZT BZZZT?
Well, surprisingly enough, that was a PAPER TRAIL. It turns out that banks purchasing ATM machines demand that the machines generate a paper tape audit log, cause, well, they're paranoid and they don't like to lose money. Well, I'm paranoid, and I don't want to lose votes, so I don't think it's unreasonable to demand a paper audit trail of votes cast. Take that ATM paper tape, and introduce a clear window, so you can see what the machine printed out. Are these the votes you requested? If yes, the paper audit trail is accepted. If no, the paper is destroyed/marked as invalid and you revote. It's not difficult, its not an inconvenience, and it's something that ATM machines do already. So what's the problem?
Oh, harsh! Over here in sector 7-G we just give the guy a couple donuts, a beer, and a drinking bird to play with, and he goes away happy. Since then I've gotten a couple emails from him consisting entirely of an endless string of the letter "Y", so I'm pretty sure the drinking bird is covering for him.
Well, see, what you describe is probably a more appropriate response. "forcing you to uninstall your silly little screensaver". Sure, yeah, I get it. If this guy's only sin was installing unapproved software (a poor decision on his part, granted), then a harsh repremand for this first offence would probably serve to keep him in line. Problem solved. But fire the guy, then insult him in the press? It just seems a little out of step with the actual offense.
Firing this guy didn't really gain anything over harshly repremanding him (assuming this wasn't done after a patern of problems with this employee). Sure, you "set an example"...but look at it the other way, if, for a first time offender, you brought him in, put the fear of god into him, and sent him back to work, you would have an employee who a) most likely won't do anything like *that* again and b) will now impress upon his coworkers the importance of following policies with regards to installing unauthorized software. By firing him you've got all his buddies saying, "Damn! I can't believe they did that to Joe. Completely unfair and I don't understand it." If you repremand him, you've got Joe telling all his buddies, "Wow, I had a close call here. They're serious about these usage policies and you'd better follow them...I almost got fired." It just seems like a better, more effective way to go about things.
Now, of course, there are offenses that demand immediate termination, ie. as an example, installing pirated software, or storing illegal MP3s, but this looks like a case of someone doing something stupid, but not illegal, one time. Rip the guy a new one, sure, but fire him? Probably not a reasonable response.
I pretty much expected this at some point. Which was why I was pretty impressed when the Apple iSight included a physical shutter. If you twist it open, it automatically launches iChat AV. Twist it closed, and no one can see you unless they figure out how to patch the firmware with x-ray vision support!
Hmm...for some reason this reminds me of a story my friend told me about something stupid he did.
After having his car stereo stolen, he replaced it and jammed razor blades around the stereo.
It was, of course stolen...and blood was smeared all over the interior...and all the windows were smashed by the pissed off thief...and the tires were slashed...and a good sized dent for good measure.
An excellent post. I am a student pilot, and maybe my training has been unusual, but I doubt it.
When you are training with a flight instructor, one of the very first things that is drilled in to your head repeatedly is that, the pilot in command (YOU!) are responsible for the safe operation of your aircraft. No excuses, no extenuating circumstances. YOU are responsible. That is, I think, why most pilots instinctively blame the PIC for most accidents. It isn't cockeyness...it's the training. And it's good training. As a student pilot, the most important thing I have been taught is that not causing an accident is my own responsibility. Even if something goes horribly wrong with the aircraft, most times, a pilot who truely takes his responsibility to heart, already has an emergency landing site in mind, and is prepared to attempt the safest landing possible there. My flight instructor has, many times, while flying, suddenly said, "Your engine just died...quickly...where can you land?". It's actually quite amazing how you progress from utter panic to calmly and confidently pointing at the best emergency landing site. It's all a matter of expectations and practice. And if my training is anywhere near representative of pilot training in general, non-pilots have no idea how well prepared most pilots are for an emergency. I have no doubt that if I had started my training as a "rich, thrill hungry wanna-be pilot" I would have either learned better, or dropped out, or been dropped by my instructor. I still remember the one and only time he yelled at me in the cockpit. On landing, my hand wasn't on the throttle. (He put his own hand at the throttle, in this case) He told me, "if there is a problem, that two seconds it takes you to reach down for the throttle could be too many seconds. There is no reason for unnecessary risks while flying....and not keeping your hand on the throttle while landing is a a pretty dumb reason." I guess the point I am trying to make is that flight training isn't taken lightly, because piloting isn't taken lightly. From my experience, anyway, pilots are given all the tools they need to realize what a responsibility they have. And most pilots would probably, simply by virtue of their training, readily admit their responsibility in most accidents, just as the NTSB and the FAA brutally assign responsibility to the pilots most of the time.
Well in that case, you could probably build an "ATM Machine" out of a cardboard box with a screen drawn in crayon and people would use it. No accounting for stupidity.:)
Well, to be fair, card readers like the one you link to on ebay are perfectly legal and have many legitimate uses. That particular card reader isn't even the right shape to use for ATM card skimming.
I suppose you could take it apart and build your own ATM shaped card reader from the parts, but then again, it doesn't have any sort of memory to save the card numbers without being plugged in to a computer.
Actually, you could probably just make one out of an old tape recorder. Unfortunately, it's not brain surgery.
Actually, you're both wrong. Due to the fiasco with that song, "867-5309 (Jenny)", TV shows, both good and bad, have learned their lesson and use the emergency number 555-911.:)
I simply didn't think it was worth my time to exaustively document these facts, seeing as it is Slashdot, and all. This is why I rarely post here any more. I always get drawn in to this bullshit.
But...since you asked...here you go, asshole (that was an ad homonym attack, BTW):
Fact #1: Since the.NET framework doesn't ship by default with IE, Office, or most versions of windows, up to and including Windows XP, it would be imposible for them to be responsible for security holes in the above mentioned software. If you install the.NET framework after the fact, well, then we can talk.
Fact #2: Probably poorly worded. Strings are a huge culprit, but buffer overflows (of which string overflows are a subset) are what are really at issue. C# makes buffer overflows in general less likely, because of both the dynamic nature of most buffers in C# as well as the strong checking that occurs. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default. asp?url=/technet/security/default.asp and http://www.ntbugtraq.com/default.asp?pid=36&sid=1& A1=ind0402&L=ntbugtraq#13 both illustrate the rampant buffer overflow problem. Explaining exactly how C# helps reduce the likelyhood of a buffer overflow will take too long. I don't feel like typing that much, but rest assured, I'm very much knowledgable in the subject.
Fact #3: Okay, so this is an opinion...but it borders on a fact. A little knowledge *is* a dangerous thing. This article illustrates that nicely.
So fuck you very much, anonymous troll. Do you have any real arguments against what I said? Or have you just succeeded in what you intended, trolling me?
Yeah, I hear you. I didn't even mention the problems with premise of reverse engineering causing security holes. If that were true, where does that leave open source software, where you get to see the actual source code? I seem to remember hearing him expound on the virtues of open source in some article or other. But in this one, he forgets all that, and goes after MS with what can, at best, be considered a red herring.
His article seems to be primarily about byte code obfuscators. An interesting topic, but he muddles it completely with factual errors. Hmm... enough ranting, methinks. It's probably not worth it.
This article seems to be arguing that MS's security problems are because of.NET/the CLR. That's just wrong.
FACT: Microsoft's operating systems, internet explorer, and office are NOT writen in C# at all. The.net runtime doesn't even ship with the OS by default!
FACT: Most of the security vulnerabilities being uncovered are due to buffer overflows. Writing software in something like C# actually reduces the chance of a buffer overflow. Strings in C and C++ are notorious culprits (okay, so the programmer is the real culprit) in buffer overflows. Strings are more dynamic in C#, eliminating many security problems. That doesn't make C# a panacea, but it certainly helps matters.
FACT: That article shows that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It really should have been fact checked by someone more technically adept.
Just today was my last day (I quit) at a company where the HR department insisted on editing the job requirements for job postings. They didn't change much, but one absolute requirement was that they added to skills such as: 2 years ASP.NET development Ability to quickly ramp up on new development projects. Solid Object Oriented skills. etc.
They insisted on adding: Excellent typing skills.
Now wait a minute. Someone who is a C# programming goddess...Who knows OOP like the back of their hand and understands programming concepts instinctually...need excellent typing skills? What a joke. If you are a good programmer (correct me if I'm wrong), you can type...guaranteed. And anyway...who programs at 80WPM? That's just not how it works. Dumbasses.
Anyone else notice this oh-so-subtle jab at free software in the "How to be a Hacker" FAQ? (We used to call these works ``free software'', but this confused too many people who weren't sure exactly what ``free'' was supposed to mean. Most of us, by at least a 2:1 ratio according to web content analysis, now prefer the term ``open-source'' software).
Hmm...basically, an iterator makes it easy to create a class that allows this:
{ FooIteratable foo = new FooIteratable(); foreach (int i in foo) {
Console.WriteLine(i.ToString()); }
So, instead of implementing all the cruft that might be written to implement IEnumerable, you just implement FooIteratable like this: public class FooIteratable: IEnumerable { public IEnumerator GetEnumerator() { for (int i = 0;i = 10;i++) yield i; } }
Slashdot Mirror
Nope...not just a guess. I learned it in a college course some time back, and so I don't have the original citation, however, I did some digging and did find at least one reference to prove I didn't pull this out of thin air:
t ml
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-APOSTROPHE.h
It's rather poorly formated, but here's the relevant passage:
Scholars have generally regarded this use of the apostrophe as arising from the omission of the letter e in Old and Middle English -es GENITIVE singular endings (such as mannes man's, scipes ship's), spreading in due course to all genitives, with or without an e and plural as well as singular. Others have cited a noun-and-pronoun pattern of possession common in the 16-17c, as in Charles his name, where noun and pronoun came together as Charles's name and then spread to all possessives, male or female, singular or plural. However, it is the Old English inflection that more directly accounts for the use of the apostrophe in Modern English.
According to that, the more direct origin was the omission of the letter e in old and middle english, but my explanation *is* another possible contributing factor. So no, I wasn't just guessing or making shit up.
Actually, there is a good, if obscure reason.
:)
When you add an apostrophe s to the end of a noun, you're creating a contraction of the noun and the possessive pronoun. At least that was the intention when the rule was invented
gnrcman's is a contraction of "grncman his", girl's is a contraction of "girl hers"
So if you were to put the apostrophe in "its" the contraction would be "it its", which is really a bit recursive.
There once was a man from Nantucket
Who saw a blue screen and said fuck it.
When asked why he stayed with the OS Bill Made?
"My company won't let me chuck it!"
1) Mac owners just too damn pretty for God to let them get viruses.
Haha! Kudos for the great Firefly reference!
I'll agree with you on Dashboard Widgets. It's a neat little gimick, but not really all that impressive, and I'm not as impressed as I'd hoped to be....
/
But...Spotlight is something that I've grown to love. I don't think I could do without it now. And here's the thing: The code that enables spotlight is actually a big deal, OS wise. Spotlight uses some new OS X funtionality related to file metadata.
The big news on 10.4, from a technical "OS X guts" perspective, isn't spotlight itself, but the new features that spotlight uses.
And beyond that, there are other "guts level" enhancements that are pretty cool. Here's some of the more technical "guts" features in 10.4:
* Kernel level file change notification -- This is why the finder now instantly reflects changed files in 10.4
* Metadata -- The new metadata features in OS X are, more than anything, a first step for very cool things to come, and applications will increasingly use these features
* Access Control Lists -- these greatly improve upon the limited unix file system security.
* Core Image -- This is very cool, and already applications like the wonderful Comic Life use this to good effect
* Quartz Composer -- I've played with this, and damn, it's cool.
Much of this information was cribbed from the excellent review on Ars Technica. It's long(20+ pages!), but skim the fluff and there's good stuff there: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars
Oh, and the new Mail.app (including a spotlight search) kicks ass.
So, I don't feel cheated by the latest version of OS X. It's got an impressive amount of new features.
--Casey
Linux is more capable for those users partly because a lot of software that doesn't have a GUI never got ported to OS X. It could probably be ported, but no one has. Also, there is binary-only software for Linux. A lot of this is command line stuff that Mac users just aren't interested in, and that will never get a GUI but is useful despite that.
Now, wait a sec...what software are you talking about? One of the strengths I've found with Macs is the command line stuff. I use zsh as my shell, and I have the full host of standard unix command line utilities. Most of the command line stuff I've needed, I've either been able to find binaries for, or I've used fink, or I've just built from source. There are a huge number of command line unix apps available on Mac OS X. After all, it is built on Unix. Maybe there's just some software I'm not aware of?
--Casey
FWIW, Motorola's (somewhat crippled, but still nice) V710 Bluetooth phone now syncs with macs quite nicely, if you make a small tweak to iSync's phone compatibility plist. Instructions for doing so are here. Keep in mind that Verizon has disabled the OBEX bluetooth profile, so you cannot, for example, dial your phone from Address Book like you would be able to do with most Bluetooth phones.
The redundant teller counting example is good, but I've got a better one, true story:
I go to an ATM machine, manufactured by Diebold, and insert my card and punch in my PIN.
Would you like a reciept? No.
What would you like to do? Withdraw; 20 dollars.
BZZZT BZZZT BZZZT. Whir whir whir.
The money pops out.
Anything else? No
My card pops out.
So, okay, the whir whir whir was pretty obviously the money being counted and spat out. What what the BZZZT BZZZT BZZZT?
Well, surprisingly enough, that was a PAPER TRAIL. It turns out that banks purchasing ATM machines demand that the machines generate a paper tape audit log, cause, well, they're paranoid and they don't like to lose money. Well, I'm paranoid, and I don't want to lose votes, so I don't think it's unreasonable to demand a paper audit trail of votes cast. Take that ATM paper tape, and introduce a clear window, so you can see what the machine printed out. Are these the votes you requested? If yes, the paper audit trail is accepted. If no, the paper is destroyed/marked as invalid and you revote. It's not difficult, its not an inconvenience, and it's something that ATM machines do already. So what's the problem?
Oh, harsh! Over here in sector 7-G we just give the guy a couple donuts, a beer, and a drinking bird to play with, and he goes away happy. Since then I've gotten a couple emails from him consisting entirely of an endless string of the letter "Y", so I'm pretty sure the drinking bird is covering for him.
Well, see, what you describe is probably a more appropriate response. "forcing you to uninstall your silly little screensaver". Sure, yeah, I get it. If this guy's only sin was installing unapproved software (a poor decision on his part, granted), then a harsh repremand for this first offence would probably serve to keep him in line. Problem solved. But fire the guy, then insult him in the press? It just seems a little out of step with the actual offense.
Firing this guy didn't really gain anything over harshly repremanding him (assuming this wasn't done after a patern of problems with this employee). Sure, you "set an example"...but look at it the other way, if, for a first time offender, you brought him in, put the fear of god into him, and sent him back to work, you would have an employee who a) most likely won't do anything like *that* again and b) will now impress upon his coworkers the importance of following policies with regards to installing unauthorized software. By firing him you've got all his buddies saying, "Damn! I can't believe they did that to Joe. Completely unfair and I don't understand it." If you repremand him, you've got Joe telling all his buddies, "Wow, I had a close call here. They're serious about these usage policies and you'd better follow them...I almost got fired." It just seems like a better, more effective way to go about things.
Now, of course, there are offenses that demand immediate termination, ie. as an example, installing pirated software, or storing illegal MP3s, but this looks like a case of someone doing something stupid, but not illegal, one time. Rip the guy a new one, sure, but fire him? Probably not a reasonable response.
I pretty much expected this at some point. Which was why I was pretty impressed when the Apple iSight included a physical shutter. If you twist it open, it automatically launches iChat AV. Twist it closed, and no one can see you unless they figure out how to patch the firmware with x-ray vision support!
Hmm...for some reason this reminds me of a story my friend told me about something stupid he did.
:)
After having his car stereo stolen, he replaced it and jammed razor blades around the stereo.
It was, of course stolen...and blood was smeared all over the interior...and all the windows were smashed by the pissed off thief...and the tires were slashed...and a good sized dent for good measure.
Don't do this.
An excellent post. I am a student pilot, and maybe my training has been unusual, but I doubt it.
When you are training with a flight instructor, one of the very first things that is drilled in to your head repeatedly is that, the pilot in command (YOU!) are responsible for the safe operation of your aircraft. No excuses, no extenuating circumstances. YOU are responsible. That is, I think, why most pilots instinctively blame the PIC for most accidents. It isn't cockeyness...it's the training. And it's good training. As a student pilot, the most important thing I have been taught is that not causing an accident is my own responsibility. Even if something goes horribly wrong with the aircraft, most times, a pilot who truely takes his responsibility to heart, already has an emergency landing site in mind, and is prepared to attempt the safest landing possible there. My flight instructor has, many times, while flying, suddenly said, "Your engine just died...quickly...where can you land?". It's actually quite amazing how you progress from utter panic to calmly and confidently pointing at the best emergency landing site. It's all a matter of expectations and practice. And if my training is anywhere near representative of pilot training in general, non-pilots have no idea how well prepared most pilots are for an emergency. I have no doubt that if I had started my training as a "rich, thrill hungry wanna-be pilot" I would have either learned better, or dropped out, or been dropped by my instructor. I still remember the one and only time he yelled at me in the cockpit. On landing, my hand wasn't on the throttle. (He put his own hand at the throttle, in this case) He told me, "if there is a problem, that two seconds it takes you to reach down for the throttle could be too many seconds. There is no reason for unnecessary risks while flying....and not keeping your hand on the throttle while landing is a a pretty dumb reason."
I guess the point I am trying to make is that flight training isn't taken lightly, because piloting isn't taken lightly. From my experience, anyway, pilots are given all the tools they need to realize what a responsibility they have. And most pilots would probably, simply by virtue of their training, readily admit their responsibility in most accidents, just as the NTSB and the FAA brutally assign responsibility to the pilots most of the time.
hehe, yeah, I had good success by dumping some sand in the ball bearing casings for the fan. My machine really screams now.
Okay, if everyone flushes all their asprin and antibiotics down the toilet, maybe we can take care of this...
In Soviet Russia, the doughnut eats you
Well in that case, you could probably build an "ATM Machine" out of a cardboard box with a screen drawn in crayon and people would use it. No accounting for stupidity. :)
Well, to be fair, card readers like the one you link to on ebay are perfectly legal and have many legitimate uses. That particular card reader isn't even the right shape to use for ATM card skimming.
I suppose you could take it apart and build your own ATM shaped card reader from the parts, but then again, it doesn't have any sort of memory to save the card numbers without being plugged in to a computer.
Actually, you could probably just make one out of an old tape recorder. Unfortunately, it's not brain surgery.
Actually, you're both wrong. Due to the fiasco with that song, "867-5309 (Jenny)", TV shows, both good and bad, have learned their lesson and use the emergency number 555-911. :)
I simply didn't think it was worth my time to exaustively document these facts, seeing as it is Slashdot, and all. This is why I rarely post here any more. I always get drawn in to this bullshit.
.NET framework doesn't ship by default with IE, Office, or most versions of windows, up to and including Windows XP, it would be imposible for them to be responsible for security holes in the above mentioned software. If you install the .NET framework after the fact, well, then we can talk.
. asp?url=/technet/security/default.asp and http://www.ntbugtraq.com/default.asp?pid=36&sid=1& A1=ind0402&L=ntbugtraq#13 both illustrate the rampant buffer overflow problem. Explaining exactly how C# helps reduce the likelyhood of a buffer overflow will take too long. I don't feel like typing that much, but rest assured, I'm very much knowledgable in the subject.
But...since you asked...here you go, asshole (that was an ad homonym attack, BTW):
Fact #1: Since the
Fact #2: Probably poorly worded. Strings are a huge culprit, but buffer overflows (of which string overflows are a subset) are what are really at issue. C# makes buffer overflows in general less likely, because of both the dynamic nature of most buffers in C# as well as the strong checking that occurs. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default
Fact #3: Okay, so this is an opinion...but it borders on a fact. A little knowledge *is* a dangerous thing. This article illustrates that nicely.
So fuck you very much, anonymous troll.
Do you have any real arguments against what I said? Or have you just succeeded in what you intended, trolling me?
Casey
Yeah, I hear you. I didn't even mention the problems with premise of reverse engineering causing security holes. If that were true, where does that leave open source software, where you get to see the actual source code? I seem to remember hearing him expound on the virtues of open source in some article or other. But in this one, he forgets all that, and goes after MS with what can, at best, be considered a red herring.
His article seems to be primarily about byte code obfuscators. An interesting topic, but he muddles it completely with factual errors. Hmm... enough ranting, methinks. It's probably not worth it.
This article seems to be arguing that MS's security problems are because of .NET/the CLR. That's just wrong.
.net runtime doesn't even ship with the OS by default!
FACT: Microsoft's operating systems, internet explorer, and office are NOT writen in C# at all. The
FACT: Most of the security vulnerabilities being uncovered are due to buffer overflows. Writing software in something like C# actually reduces the chance of a buffer overflow. Strings in C and C++ are notorious culprits (okay, so the programmer is the real culprit) in buffer overflows. Strings are more dynamic in C#, eliminating many security problems. That doesn't make C# a panacea, but it certainly helps matters.
FACT: That article shows that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It really should have been fact checked by someone more technically adept.
Just today was my last day (I quit) at a company where the HR department insisted on editing the job requirements for job postings. They didn't change much, but one absolute requirement was that they added to skills such as:
2 years ASP.NET development
Ability to quickly ramp up on new development projects.
Solid Object Oriented skills.
etc.
They insisted on adding:
Excellent typing skills.
Now wait a minute. Someone who is a C# programming goddess...Who knows OOP like the back of their hand and understands programming concepts instinctually...need excellent typing skills? What a joke. If you are a good programmer (correct me if I'm wrong), you can type...guaranteed. And anyway...who programs at 80WPM? That's just not how it works. Dumbasses.
Anyone else notice this oh-so-subtle jab at free software in the "How to be a Hacker" FAQ?
(We used to call these works ``free software'', but this confused too many people who weren't sure exactly what ``free'' was supposed to mean. Most of us, by at least a 2:1 ratio according to web content analysis, now prefer the term ``open-source'' software).
(*eye's roll*)
Hmm...basically, an iterator makes it easy to create a class that allows this:
{
FooIteratable foo = new FooIteratable();
foreach (int i in foo)
{
Console.WriteLine(i.ToString());
}
So, instead of implementing all the cruft that might be written to implement IEnumerable, you just implement FooIteratable like this:
public class FooIteratable: IEnumerable
{
public IEnumerator GetEnumerator()
{
for (int i = 0;i = 10;i++) yield i;
}
}