Nothing, if you have a good terminal. Cmd.exe on windows screws up backspaces and stuff, so if you want to test your smtp server, you need to be 100% accurate on each line.
Every function, every class, every file, EVERYTHING, needs to have automated tests associated with it. Keep in mind that it's really tough to write tests after the fact. You need to do it as soon as possible, and you need to enforce their use, preferably by automated means.
Use revision control, even if it's just you doing the coding, so you can add a post-commit hook on the server end to compile and run your tests, and raise some sort of red flag if anything fails.
There is a typo in the original submission. The author of Moving To Linux's name is Marcel, and not Marvel, Gagne.
Speaking of Marcel Gagne, who else thinks his Linux Journal articles are BEYOND annoying? (I know, if I don't like it, don't read it. Believe me, I don't.)
So if Fox owns everything on MySpace, does that mean they own the recently released Nine Inch Nails music that is streamed from there, or Billy Corgans solo album?
No. Copyright law does not permit this. For example, I'm sure you have a few music files on your computer. Do you "own" those songs by virtue of having a copy of them on your computer? No. The same rules apply in this situation.
What the GP was referring to was the effort by Google (and Yahoo and MSN) to stem the tide of comment spam on weblogs by use of a new html attribute. It has nothing to do with eliminating weblogs from search results, which are often good sources of information. What I would really appreciate is if people without useful information to blog would keep it to themselves.
The new attribute is called "nofollow" with rel="nofollow" being the format inserted within an anchor tag. When added to any link, it will serve as a flag that the link has not been explicitly approved by the site owner.
For example, this is how the HTML markup for an ordinary link might look:
<a href="http://www.site.com/page.html">Visit My Page</a>
This is how the link would look after the nofollow attribute has been added, with the attribute portion shown in bold
<a href="http://www.site.com/page.html" rel="nofollow">Visit My Page</a>
This would also be acceptable, as order of elements within the anchor tag makes no difference:
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.site.com/page.html" >Visit My Page</a>
Once added, the search engines supporting the attribute will understand that the link has not been vetted in some way by the site owner. Think of it as a way to flag to them, "I didn't post this link -- someone else did."
* All major browsers support HTML.
* Most of those support XMLHttpRequest.
* Therefore, "write once, run anywhere" works.
It's not true. Browser implementations of javascript and DOM object manipulation methods vary wildly enough to make it easier to take your software to some other platform.
That's not to say that I am not terribly impressed by gmail, google maps, and.. well, other stuff, but no one seems to be doing it as good as google right now. It's not like they have a monopoly on the slick web app.
No need to worry about this. DHS will just have the regs changed to mean that 50% of components by weight must come from within the US. Then they can just add lead weights to every computer case and cell phone housing manufactured in the US, to allow all those patriotic manufacturers to make some scratch off the war on terror.
If you like the idea of using post-its to index sections on your giant spindle of CDs, but don't want to peel the data layer off, you could use those CD-shaped non-cd things that ship with CD-R spindles. There's usually 2 per pack, so they should be easier to come by than the spindles themselves. I have about 10 of them at the bottom of my unindexed spindle right now.
My mother moved to Oregon from California before I was born. She used to tell me this story about when she was driving up into Oregon, some geezer saw her California license plate and tried to run her off the road!
Stuff like that's not so bad these days, but a lot of older Oregonians are fiercely protective of their culture and lifestyle.
I am so goddamn sick of the argument that Things Which Are Not Windows are only virus/malware free because they don't have the market share of Windows, and are therefore somehow not as valuable a target!
I didn't believe it about Mac OS, I don't believe it about Linux, and I am excited to see where it's going to go with Mozilla. People will realize that IE isn't just picked on because it's the most popular browser, it's also so easy to exploit, no wonder it's #1.
... Because when the submitter said Linux, there is an implication that x86 hardware will be involved. Call me back when your OS glistens on the hardware we've already invested in, instead of just my laptop.
Also, can you imagine the response from a common PHB when presented with what appears to be the age old "Macs vs PCs" argument? "I thought Microsoft took over Apple in 1998!"
Wiki for busy people: Simple, Secure, Serious
on
Using Wikis in Hospitals?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I echo everyone's concerns about security and having a wiki not being taken seriously because of its silly name, but the important thing to remember about the term is that it's well known in certain circles, and easy to remember. Slapping some marketing oriented name on it is not going to help, either. What kind of message does a name like eCollabWebsite get across? It looks like it wants to be bought, is all.
I use a wiki for my own personal notes, and to get into some advanced stuff, you need to really take the time to learn the markup and stuff. I think busy doctors would scoff at the amount of wiki markup you need to use, just to get things done and formatted.
What the busy person's wiki needs is a graphical text editor with word processor functions that can be embedded in a HTML form, to replace the standard entry form, something like FCKEditor.
Wiki is already very easy, especially for those of us with a technical background. The terribly unfortunate thing would be if a tool like this that could make collaborative writing so simple was avoided because of a few paltry work culture differences.
First off, I find it interesting that everyone in this thread suddenly jumps to talking about how the FBI could brute-force your SSL key, when it's really so much simpler to get access to email. If you're talking about secure POP3 or IMAP, then yes it would be trivial to snarf the email by sniffing for SMTP traffic.
Can you imagine writing all of your personal information down on the back of a postcard and just dropping it in the mailbox? That's what you're doing every time you click the send button in your email client. Like the previous reply to your question said, it's necessary to actually encrypt the body of your message, and leave sensitive information out of the message subject.
Yes, but the most important part of that is that the software is as fault-free as possible. You've read all the reports of problems with this election.
Design your software as if your hardware had no security, and design your hardware as if your software had no security. Unfortunately, Diebold seems to have this completely backwards.
Slashdot Mirror
Andrew File System? Surely not. Perhaps they meant Apple Filing Protocol (AppleShare over IP (and sometimes AppleTalk)).
Huh? What is so difficult about that?
Nothing, if you have a good terminal. Cmd.exe on windows screws up backspaces and stuff, so if you want to test your smtp server, you need to be 100% accurate on each line.
Not notable! Request speedy delete per ASD 7.
... and lead to greater LUD which, of course, is what every management team wants! I am SO SICK of all these management LUDdite types.We have a medium sized setup and for us, Cacti works great. http://www.cacti.net/
Right. You can't say that it wasn't released in the states, when it really sort of was.
By the way, it was significantly harder, and was a real step up in complexity from SMB1. Luigi jumped way higher, but was slower.
DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN
TEST TEST TEST TEST
Every function, every class, every file, EVERYTHING, needs to have automated tests associated with it. Keep in mind that it's really tough to write tests after the fact. You need to do it as soon as possible, and you need to enforce their use, preferably by automated means.
Use revision control, even if it's just you doing the coding, so you can add a post-commit hook on the server end to compile and run your tests, and raise some sort of red flag if anything fails.
Normally this exact thing you want to do is done with a '+' character, which is allowed for by the RFC.
The '.' character in an email address violates RFC, but no one seems to really care.
There is a typo in the original submission. The author of Moving To Linux's name is Marcel, and not Marvel, Gagne. Speaking of Marcel Gagne, who else thinks his Linux Journal articles are BEYOND annoying? (I know, if I don't like it, don't read it. Believe me, I don't.)
No. Copyright law does not permit this. For example, I'm sure you have a few music files on your computer. Do you "own" those songs by virtue of having a copy of them on your computer? No. The same rules apply in this situation.
No, he's not thinking of robots.txt.
What the GP was referring to was the effort by Google (and Yahoo and MSN) to stem the tide of comment spam on weblogs by use of a new html attribute. It has nothing to do with eliminating weblogs from search results, which are often good sources of information. What I would really appreciate is if people without useful information to blog would keep it to themselves.
The new attribute is called "nofollow" with rel="nofollow" being the format inserted within an anchor tag. When added to any link, it will serve as a flag that the link has not been explicitly approved by the site owner.
For example, this is how the HTML markup for an ordinary link might look:
<a href="http://www.site.com/page.html">Visit My Page</a>
This is how the link would look after the nofollow attribute has been added, with the attribute portion shown in bold
<a href="http://www.site.com/page.html" rel="nofollow">Visit My Page</a>
This would also be acceptable, as order of elements within the anchor tag makes no difference:
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.site.com/page.html" >Visit My Page</a>
Once added, the search engines supporting the attribute will understand that the link has not been vetted in some way by the site owner. Think of it as a way to flag to them, "I didn't post this link -- someone else did."
Ok, so the thinking goes like this:
* All major browsers support HTML.
* Most of those support XMLHttpRequest.
* Therefore, "write once, run anywhere" works.
It's not true. Browser implementations of javascript and DOM object manipulation methods vary wildly enough to make it easier to take your software to some other platform.
That's not to say that I am not terribly impressed by gmail, google maps, and.. well, other stuff, but no one seems to be doing it as good as google right now. It's not like they have a monopoly on the slick web app.
No need to worry about this. DHS will just have the regs changed to mean that 50% of components by weight must come from within the US. Then they can just add lead weights to every computer case and cell phone housing manufactured in the US, to allow all those patriotic manufacturers to make some scratch off the war on terror.
9/11! NEVER FORGET!
If you like the idea of using post-its to index sections on your giant spindle of CDs, but don't want to peel the data layer off, you could use those CD-shaped non-cd things that ship with CD-R spindles. There's usually 2 per pack, so they should be easier to come by than the spindles themselves. I have about 10 of them at the bottom of my unindexed spindle right now.
Don't be a stupid. At least read the mailing list posting:
Oops, I forgot to log in when I posted that! No, really, it was me! You can send the check to the address in my profile!
No joke.
My mother moved to Oregon from California before I was born. She used to tell me this story about when she was driving up into Oregon, some geezer saw her California license plate and tried to run her off the road!
Stuff like that's not so bad these days, but a lot of older Oregonians are fiercely protective of their culture and lifestyle.
I am so goddamn sick of the argument that Things Which Are Not Windows are only virus/malware free because they don't have the market share of Windows, and are therefore somehow not as valuable a target!
I didn't believe it about Mac OS, I don't believe it about Linux, and I am excited to see where it's going to go with Mozilla. People will realize that IE isn't just picked on because it's the most popular browser, it's also so easy to exploit, no wonder it's #1.
... Because when the submitter said Linux, there is an implication that x86 hardware will be involved. Call me back when your OS glistens on the hardware we've already invested in, instead of just my laptop.
Also, can you imagine the response from a common PHB when presented with what appears to be the age old "Macs vs PCs" argument? "I thought Microsoft took over Apple in 1998!"
I echo everyone's concerns about security and having a wiki not being taken seriously because of its silly name, but the important thing to remember about the term is that it's well known in certain circles, and easy to remember. Slapping some marketing oriented name on it is not going to help, either. What kind of message does a name like eCollabWebsite get across? It looks like it wants to be bought, is all.
I use a wiki for my own personal notes, and to get into some advanced stuff, you need to really take the time to learn the markup and stuff. I think busy doctors would scoff at the amount of wiki markup you need to use, just to get things done and formatted.
What the busy person's wiki needs is a graphical text editor with word processor functions that can be embedded in a HTML form, to replace the standard entry form, something like FCKEditor.
Wiki is already very easy, especially for those of us with a technical background. The terribly unfortunate thing would be if a tool like this that could make collaborative writing so simple was avoided because of a few paltry work culture differences.
First off, I find it interesting that everyone in this thread suddenly jumps to talking about how the FBI could brute-force your SSL key, when it's really so much simpler to get access to email. If you're talking about secure POP3 or IMAP, then yes it would be trivial to snarf the email by sniffing for SMTP traffic.
Can you imagine writing all of your personal information down on the back of a postcard and just dropping it in the mailbox? That's what you're doing every time you click the send button in your email client. Like the previous reply to your question said, it's necessary to actually encrypt the body of your message, and leave sensitive information out of the message subject.
A one-time thing?
You're either with us or against us, citizen!
> somebody should make a virus that downloads FireFox, installs it on their computer, replaces IE and uses IE icons.
:)
It wouldn't be able to spread very well, once it destroys its infection vector by uninstalling IE.
Yes, but the most important part of that is that the software is as fault-free as possible. You've read all the reports of problems with this election.
Design your software as if your hardware had no security, and design your hardware as if your software had no security. Unfortunately, Diebold seems to have this completely backwards.