Not really. The process control is done on real-time controllers, but visualization is usually on windows machines. Data historians, configuration databases, OPC servers, etc are often Windows servers. Add to that that hotfixes and service packs have to be vendor approved before putting them on the live system. This means that those systems often run whatever was approved at the time of installation, which can be years out of date.
Many SCADA and DCS systems are also horribly insecure, have default or hard coded administrative passwords, etc. What doesn't help is that they are often managed by people who are good at the actual process stuff, but not necessarily at security or system administration.
And then erect a great bonfire with everything they've bought; Perhaps even driving a wooden stake through a boxed copy of whatever SCO was still selling, after sprinkling it with holy water first. And at the end, the ashes could be scattered in the wind or buried underneath a crossroads...
IBM already made an example of them. This would be a nice way to end the saga.
I've been a LabVIEW programmer for close to 10 years. I have also been a C and C++ programmer for quite a long time now. I did large projects using both, sometimes using both in the same project. I can call myself a qualified programmer using both languages.
It is perfectly possible to create very large applications, using multi threading and proper design patterns. However, just like you had to spend years learning to write powerful and correct C++, you need quite some time to learn to program LabVIEW correctly.
Once you can do that, writing test and measurement applications can be as efficient or even better than with text based languages. I have the confidence to say that I wrote large data acquisition systems that performed well with very large datasets and high acquisition speeds.
But you have to understand data flow programming, and that is not something you acquire easily, just like you probably sucked at your first text based language projects.
Don't blame the tools for your failure to use them properly.
I've replied in a different place in this thread as well, but since you ask...
Initially, there was an adjustment period of a couple of weeks where the consistency was different (more watery). This lasted a couple of weeks, and I assume it has to do with the body readjusting for the lack of actual sperm cells. After a month or so (no more than 2 months definitely) everything was back to normal. There were no changes whatsoever to anything except fertility.
A friend of mine had the same treatment done (different hospital) and told me it was just like I said.
The treatment itself is also nothing to be afraid of. Sure the general scrotum area is a bit sensitive the first couple of days, but a week after the surgery everything was OK. The surgery itself lasted about 20 minutes and was completely painless, involving nothing more than local anesthetic.
Initially there is a difference due to the fact that internally, the body needs some time to adjust to the fact that no sperm cells are released anymore. A couple of weeks afterward, everything was back as is was before, minus the fertility.
Yes, they could do that, and miss out on advertising fees but provide you with a 'pure' web experience for altruistic reasons. You might as well want to ask people to stop sending spam while they're at it.
In reality, they are doing what makes them the most money. Small, quiet, unobtrusive ads will be clicked far less, which is why they are not used.
The only way you will get 'your' web back is if you can find a way for companies to increase their profit by using 'your' web over 'their' web. No amount of philosophical insight is going to make a difference otherwise.
Very true. After having 2 kids, we had fallen into the trap of starting to live separate lives. Looking back we couldn't really have done much different. Our schedule was forced by the sleeping pattern of the babies, and the fact that my wife needed much more sleep than I did / do.
Eventually we got to the stage where we felt things were going wrong between us, but we had no idea what it was. We tried talking with each other but that didn't really help.
As silly as it sounds, things started getting back on track when we tried going to sleep at the same time on most of the days, and then talk for a bit and end the day together. By synchronizing our lives again, we reconnected. I also started giving her flowers every now and again, or send her a romantic picture via email, or put an 'I love you' message in her lunchbox... things like that. Really, it takes nearly no effort at all, and it makes a huge difference.
Our marriage is now better than ever, just because of those little things. I still spend a lot of time in my workshop or behind my computer, but it is just not an issue anymore, because she knows that I care about her, and she knows that at the end of the day I'll be with her.
Here's a clue for you: getting married is nothing. Anyone can get married. Staying married is the challenge. Marriage is not some sort of goal where, once reached, you abandon romance, affection and attention.
If you treat marriage as a goal, or something that you did once to do her a favor for which she now owes you, then it won't last. You can't start living separate lives, spend all week behind your computer living your online life, and expect her to put out for an hour when you feel the need. If you want that, get a maid and an escort girl. You don't want a marriage.
Judging someone by 3 lines is perhaps inaccurate. But it is also a fact that if you pay attention to your wife, buy her flowers every now and again, or do something romantic, she'll know that you think of her and won't mind the fact that you spend time at your computer or in your workshop.
I would gladly help you get those machines from us, but since they are currently in Belgium, shipping would be more costly than buying new low end servers.
The other issue would be that the charity or school needs to be local, or at least in the same country. Don't know exactly why, but it has to do with the paperwork. I suspect it has something to do with preventing people from faking the school or charity.
I am sysadmin in a pharmaceutical company, and the Parent is correct.
We have 3 DELL 2600 servers with Dual CPU Xeon cpu, SCSI raid5, 4GB RAM ready to make their final trip to the dumpster. We cannot use them anymore for plant systems because they are obsolete and out of support. They are too big and noisy to use as test systems (as opposed to the 2U 2650s that we are going to keep just for that).
I would love to have even one of those machines in my basement, but it is not going to happen. Corporate policy forbids employees from taking or even buying obsolete equipment. In the beginning it was allowed, but someone once abused the system really badly, so now there has to be a documented paper trail for the destruction of all things going the the digital eternity.
We are going to try and give them away to a charity or school because it hurts to see those perfectly good machines except the disks) destroyed. But if we can't find anyone willing to take them, they will be destroyed.:(
The.NET framework is a sandbox, just like the java runtime.
And anything running in internet explorer is considered to be untrusted and cannot actually do anything except showing you stuff. Anything platform related is inaccessible to anything that runs in ie unless your zones are configured to grant full trust to public internet and intranet. This is NOT the default..NET apps in IE are untrusted.
Rather than jumping the gun and coming with a 'zomg.NET is broken' post, you might reflect on the fact that this article contains 0 real information. So maybe you should wait for some actual data before starting to bash Microsoft.
But even if it were, what would your quick fix be? wrapping the.NET framework itself in another sandbox? And how 'quick' would that be?
In which case a surface mounted thruster is useless. It'll make the asteroid corkscrew along its trajectory but it won't deflect it to a large degree (depending on thrust and rotation).
Whereas a mass hovering next to the asteroid pulls continuously to the same direction.
And it is an order of magnitude easier to just hover nearby, vs landing on an unknown surface without damaging the equipment, anchoring and deploying the thrusters and making sure you land in a place where the thrusters can have an effect without sinking, falling over or breaking up the asteroid.
The chances of success on the hover method are likely more than an order of magnitude better than the landing + thrust method.
I administer a network like that. Pharmaceutical plant to be precise. All machines on the production network have 2 independent PCI nics, connecting to 2 identical but separate networks, using separate routers and switches. The critical servers are stratus high availability servers which have dual redundant everything, driving all components in lock-step and correcting errors on the fly.
If something happens to cause a network switch over, there is a bulk of network traffic to deal with it, because sockets have to be opened and closed, state has to be transferred, system control message flow has to be restarted so that all controllers go back to the normal state,... And at application level, everything is RPC and DCOM based, so this will cause a significant disruption for the running services, since COM objects and RPC marshalling have to be destroyed and recreated, reinitialized,...
The whole thing is very complex from a systemwide point of view, and causes a significant disruption.
Now, switchovers can be triggered by different things, like a maintenance techician replacing a controller and causing a timeout halfway through a message flow, network cable that has to be unplugged for some reason,... When that happens, performance of the system sucks for the next couple of minutes. Critical signals will work within defined tolerances, but anything else will simply stop responding during the switchover.
I can perfectly imagine that IF you have a nic which is failing in just such a way that makes the network switch back and forth, it'll dirupt and eventually kill the entire network. Unless of course the switches are smart enough to detect this and disable the physical port. But even then, we are not talking about DDoSing, but just minor errors at exactly the right time to trigger network failover.
Network redundancy of complex systems (and air traffic is much more complex than a pharma plant) can protect very well against single or predictable failures. But there will always be very specific failures, depending on dozens of variables, which have the power to bring down the system. Since is the first time such an event occurred with that air traffic control system, it is likely to be one of those corner cases.
It's the same with other proecedures with aviation. everything is supposed to be double and triple redundant, but still National Geographic has enough material to create the series 'Seconds from disaster' where one unlikely error amplifies another, and in the end, the plane hits the building / swamp / ground.
I read that article earlier today, and it is complete drivel. One of the points is they want to do away with UAC and instead educate the users. But otoh they complain that there is no status bar telling people that Vista is using their RAM for caching. So what do you want the users to be: Expert or novice? And I'm all for educating users, but a) it doesn't work if they don't care and b) Microsoft got bashed for not protecting the users. UAC enforces the design guidelines that were not enforced up until now.
And it has to be 'productive' Fine. You tell them what 'productive' constitutes and they'll be happy enough to implement it. As it is, usability experts find it difficult enough. Is 'the gimp' so much better?
And it has to be rewritten from scratch. You can complain about the Shell all you want, but the Vista kernel is an engineering masterpiece, and there are some real design innovations in there. Read 'Windows Systems Internals, 4th edition' if you don't believe me.
Yes, windows has its problems, but the list in TFA is complete bollocks as far as I am concerned. It is just a bunch of easy catchphrases for getting support from the windows bashers and for getting hits on their page.
That is exactly how it works in Belgium, and many other European countries.
Your previous employer has to pay your salary for the time during which you are not allowed to compete. Failure to include such a clause, or any of the other specific and mandatory details will void the entire non compete section and you are free to do what you want.
I don't know what compiler versions you are talking about. VC6 was not iso compliant. No wonder. the ISO standard wasn't ratified at that time. But g++ 2.95 scored equally bad, or worse. VC++8.x and 9 are very compliant, and on par with g++.
Sure VC++ has compiler extensions, but so does g++, which litters the global namespace with ISO non-conformant functionnames (snprintf). However, VC++ also has a switch that turns it into ISO mode, allowing not a single compiler extension.
And I don't know if you know, but a lot of headers (string for example) are supposed to come WITHOUT the.h extension. string.h is a C include header. string is a C++ include header. But hey, at least you're a respectable programmer. Me, I use whatever tool I need to get the job done.
Not on our network. The process control software cannot be scripted. No unapproved device drivers or software is allowed on any of the machines that run that software. The software itself may only be installed manually. I thought of using things like windif to make an MSI file for deployment, but a whole lot of stuff in the registry is variable, and depends on lots of things.
Then there is user management, which has to be done with paper forms and an audit trail.
Backup is automated, but recovery can be a 24 hour nightmare, depending on which server we are talking about, with lots of opportunities to hose he entire network with one misstep.
Unfortunately, there is little except making backups (and not even that in all cases) which can be automated. In other cases, it is a matter of QA and regulatory requirements to do things according to writtne procedures, with a paper trail attached.
Everything that we do on the process control network (big Pharma) is documented in Standard Operation Instructions. Those cover everything from installing and configuring a server, to user management, backup and recovery procedures, Policy implementations,...
The idea is that all procedures have to be validated in order to be allowed to use them, and if you have to deviate, you have to write a deviation report, and possibly ammend the procedure. The plus side is that everything on your system is documented, and can be trained by others. The downside is that it is a lot of work to make procedures for all normal operations.
But if there is a major problem and you have to replace a server and bring up the network at midnight, it is comforting to know that it has been done before, and that whatever you have to do is documented.
No, but you might want to tell his parents that their 12 year old idiot is getting them and himself ready for a world of hurt when someone decides to come after him for filesharing.
Of that guy on tv in a documentary about shoes. He collected sneakers (puma, adidas) and was raving about having extremely rare pumas of which only a couple are made. They cost him over a 1000$ and of course he didn't wear them. According to him, sneakers were more important than life itself, sneakers WERE life.
And I was just thinking: 'Dude, you've spent all your life saving on 600 pairs of shoes, and you think having sneakers makes you more special?'
Everyone has a pet project or hobby they like. My hobbies are restoring antique straight razors and C++ template programming.
I don't think you are an unwashed plebe just because you (possibly) shave with a gillette (or worse, an electric shaver) instead of a straight razor, or don't apreciate the finer points of partial template specialization. So why do you consider me one just because I don't fancy spending 1000s of dollars for a stereo and then sit down in a chair, doing nothing but listening to music or maybe even test tracks.
No mod points for the moment, but the parent has made a very good point that made me change my mind about the issue. Yeah I'm a flip flopper. Heavens forbid that people actually change their mind when presented with another point of view. I guess I'll never be a president now.:-)
C99 is driven by customer demand. And I don't mean as in a bunch of geeks saying 'implement ALL of C99 now!' but as in they work with their enterprise customers to prioritize features.
TR1 WILL be supported as soon as C++0x is finalized. Not sooner. If they would implement is now, it would likely change as soon as the new standard is ratified. Of course, even if they would implement now, you would criticise them as soon as the standard is ratified because ZOMG! Microsoft's TR1 is proprietary and out of date! LOLOLOLROFLMAO! I suspect they will simply license TR1 from dinkumware which is feature complete with the current state of TR1.
Intellisense is a dog. People are working on it, and a lot of redesign is going on. Not just for intellisense, but for the whole compiler architecture to make it more scalable and plufable.
And I don't know where you are getting your info from, but asm is perfectly supported in 64 bit. Just inline assembly isn't because for 64 bit code this would make it non-portable between different 64 bit architectures. You can still add asm files to your VC++ project and compile them.
And you can say yuck to MFC and I would agree. But a very large number of enterprise businesses still builds massive VC++ applications that use it extensively. maintaining and improving it makes lots of business sense.
And finally, C++ is not meant to be as RAD as C# and VB because that would require a lot of manpower which cannot be justified. VC++ is targeted for interoperability, performance and control over the program execution. Not for whipping up a data driven LINQ doc. People who want to use LINQ would simply build a C# project for data interaction and add it to their mixed mode C++ project.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps if you read the post in its entirety, you wouldn't have made yourself look foolish twice.
that 120,000kg to LEO cost $(2011)1.11billion ($(1969)185billion).
Not really. The process control is done on real-time controllers, but visualization is usually on windows machines. Data historians, configuration databases, OPC servers, etc are often Windows servers. Add to that that hotfixes and service packs have to be vendor approved before putting them on the live system. This means that those systems often run whatever was approved at the time of installation, which can be years out of date.
Many SCADA and DCS systems are also horribly insecure, have default or hard coded administrative passwords, etc. What doesn't help is that they are often managed by people who are good at the actual process stuff, but not necessarily at security or system administration.
And then erect a great bonfire with everything they've bought; Perhaps even driving a wooden stake through a boxed copy of whatever SCO was still selling, after sprinkling it with holy water first. And at the end, the ashes could be scattered in the wind or buried underneath a crossroads...
IBM already made an example of them. This would be a nice way to end the saga.
I've been a LabVIEW programmer for close to 10 years. I have also been a C and C++ programmer for quite a long time now. I did large projects using both, sometimes using both in the same project. I can call myself a qualified programmer using both languages.
It is perfectly possible to create very large applications, using multi threading and proper design patterns. However, just like you had to spend years learning to write powerful and correct C++, you need quite some time to learn to program LabVIEW correctly.
Once you can do that, writing test and measurement applications can be as efficient or even better than with text based languages. I have the confidence to say that I wrote large data acquisition systems that performed well with very large datasets and high acquisition speeds.
But you have to understand data flow programming, and that is not something you acquire easily, just like you probably sucked at your first text based language projects.
Don't blame the tools for your failure to use them properly.
Then again, mangled names have their place to resolve overloaded method names.
I've replied in a different place in this thread as well, but since you ask...
Initially, there was an adjustment period of a couple of weeks where the consistency was different (more watery). This lasted a couple of weeks, and I assume it has to do with the body readjusting for the lack of actual sperm cells. After a month or so (no more than 2 months definitely) everything was back to normal. There were no changes whatsoever to anything except fertility.
A friend of mine had the same treatment done (different hospital) and told me it was just like I said.
The treatment itself is also nothing to be afraid of. Sure the general scrotum area is a bit sensitive the first couple of days, but a week after the surgery everything was OK. The surgery itself lasted about 20 minutes and was completely painless, involving nothing more than local anesthetic.
Initially there is a difference due to the fact that internally, the body needs some time to adjust to the fact that no sperm cells are released anymore. A couple of weeks afterward, everything was back as is was before, minus the fertility.
Yes, they could do that, and miss out on advertising fees but provide you with a 'pure' web experience for altruistic reasons. You might as well want to ask people to stop sending spam while they're at it.
In reality, they are doing what makes them the most money. Small, quiet, unobtrusive ads will be clicked far less, which is why they are not used.
The only way you will get 'your' web back is if you can find a way for companies to increase their profit by using 'your' web over 'their' web. No amount of philosophical insight is going to make a difference otherwise.
Very true. After having 2 kids, we had fallen into the trap of starting to live separate lives. Looking back we couldn't really have done much different. Our schedule was forced by the sleeping pattern of the babies, and the fact that my wife needed much more sleep than I did / do.
Eventually we got to the stage where we felt things were going wrong between us, but we had no idea what it was. We tried talking with each other but that didn't really help.
As silly as it sounds, things started getting back on track when we tried going to sleep at the same time on most of the days, and then talk for a bit and end the day together. By synchronizing our lives again, we reconnected. I also started giving her flowers every now and again, or send her a romantic picture via email, or put an 'I love you' message in her lunchbox... things like that. Really, it takes nearly no effort at all, and it makes a huge difference.
Our marriage is now better than ever, just because of those little things. I still spend a lot of time in my workshop or behind my computer, but it is just not an issue anymore, because she knows that I care about her, and she knows that at the end of the day I'll be with her.
Here's a clue for you: getting married is nothing. Anyone can get married. Staying married is the challenge. Marriage is not some sort of goal where, once reached, you abandon romance, affection and attention.
If you treat marriage as a goal, or something that you did once to do her a favor for which she now owes you, then it won't last. You can't start living separate lives, spend all week behind your computer living your online life, and expect her to put out for an hour when you feel the need. If you want that, get a maid and an escort girl. You don't want a marriage.
Judging someone by 3 lines is perhaps inaccurate. But it is also a fact that if you pay attention to your wife, buy her flowers every now and again, or do something romantic, she'll know that you think of her and won't mind the fact that you spend time at your computer or in your workshop.
I would gladly help you get those machines from us, but since they are currently in Belgium, shipping would be more costly than buying new low end servers.
The other issue would be that the charity or school needs to be local, or at least in the same country.
Don't know exactly why, but it has to do with the paperwork. I suspect it has something to do with preventing people from faking the school or charity.
I am sysadmin in a pharmaceutical company, and the Parent is correct.
We have 3 DELL 2600 servers with Dual CPU Xeon cpu, SCSI raid5, 4GB RAM ready to make their final trip to the dumpster.
We cannot use them anymore for plant systems because they are obsolete and out of support.
They are too big and noisy to use as test systems (as opposed to the 2U 2650s that we are going to keep just for that).
I would love to have even one of those machines in my basement, but it is not going to happen.
Corporate policy forbids employees from taking or even buying obsolete equipment.
In the beginning it was allowed, but someone once abused the system really badly, so now there has to be a documented paper trail for the destruction of all things going the the digital eternity.
We are going to try and give them away to a charity or school because it hurts to see those perfectly good machines except the disks) destroyed. But if we can't find anyone willing to take them, they will be destroyed. :(
The .NET framework is a sandbox, just like the java runtime.
And anything running in internet explorer is considered to be untrusted and cannot actually do anything except showing you stuff. Anything platform related is inaccessible to anything that runs in ie unless your zones are configured to grant full trust to public internet and intranet. This is NOT the default. .NET apps in IE are untrusted.
Rather than jumping the gun and coming with a 'zomg .NET is broken' post, you might reflect on the fact that this article contains 0 real information. So maybe you should wait for some actual data before starting to bash Microsoft.
But even if it were, what would your quick fix be? .NET framework itself in another sandbox? And how 'quick' would that be?
wrapping the
In which case a surface mounted thruster is useless.
It'll make the asteroid corkscrew along its trajectory but it won't deflect it to a large degree (depending on thrust and rotation).
Whereas a mass hovering next to the asteroid pulls continuously to the same direction.
And it is an order of magnitude easier to just hover nearby, vs landing on an unknown surface without damaging the equipment, anchoring and deploying the thrusters and making sure you land in a place where the thrusters can have an effect without sinking, falling over or breaking up the asteroid.
The chances of success on the hover method are likely more than an order of magnitude better than the landing + thrust method.
One of the first times that a /. meme is Insightful and funny at the same time.
Interesting :)
...it is not so black and white.
I administer a network like that. Pharmaceutical plant to be precise.
All machines on the production network have 2 independent PCI nics, connecting to 2 identical but separate networks, using separate routers and switches. The critical servers are stratus high availability servers which have dual redundant everything, driving all components in lock-step and correcting errors on the fly.
If something happens to cause a network switch over, there is a bulk of network traffic to deal with it, because sockets have to be opened and closed, state has to be transferred, system control message flow has to be restarted so that all controllers go back to the normal state, ... And at application level, everything is RPC and DCOM based, so this will cause a significant disruption for the running services, since COM objects and RPC marshalling have to be destroyed and recreated, reinitialized, ...
The whole thing is very complex from a systemwide point of view, and causes a significant disruption.
Now, switchovers can be triggered by different things, like a maintenance techician replacing a controller and causing a timeout halfway through a message flow, network cable that has to be unplugged for some reason, ...
When that happens, performance of the system sucks for the next couple of minutes.
Critical signals will work within defined tolerances, but anything else will simply stop responding during the switchover.
I can perfectly imagine that IF you have a nic which is failing in just such a way that makes the network switch back and forth, it'll dirupt and eventually kill the entire network.
Unless of course the switches are smart enough to detect this and disable the physical port. But even then, we are not talking about DDoSing, but just minor errors at exactly the right time to trigger network failover.
Network redundancy of complex systems (and air traffic is much more complex than a pharma plant) can protect very well against single or predictable failures.
But there will always be very specific failures, depending on dozens of variables, which have the power to bring down the system. Since is the first time such an event occurred with that air traffic control system, it is likely to be one of those corner cases.
It's the same with other proecedures with aviation. everything is supposed to be double and triple redundant, but still National Geographic has enough material to create the series 'Seconds from disaster' where one unlikely error amplifies another, and in the end, the plane hits the building / swamp / ground.
I read that article earlier today, and it is complete drivel.
One of the points is they want to do away with UAC and instead educate the users.
But otoh they complain that there is no status bar telling people that Vista is using their RAM for caching. So what do you want the users to be: Expert or novice?
And I'm all for educating users, but
a) it doesn't work if they don't care and
b) Microsoft got bashed for not protecting the users. UAC enforces the design guidelines that were not enforced up until now.
And it has to be 'productive' Fine. You tell them what 'productive' constitutes and they'll be happy enough to implement it. As it is, usability experts find it difficult enough.
Is 'the gimp' so much better?
And it has to be rewritten from scratch.
You can complain about the Shell all you want, but the Vista kernel is an engineering masterpiece, and there are some real design innovations in there. Read 'Windows Systems Internals, 4th edition' if you don't believe me.
Yes, windows has its problems, but the list in TFA is complete bollocks as far as I am concerned. It is just a bunch of easy catchphrases for getting support from the windows bashers and for getting hits on their page.
That is exactly how it works in Belgium, and many other European countries.
Your previous employer has to pay your salary for the time during which you are not allowed to compete. Failure to include such a clause, or any of the other specific and mandatory details will void the entire non compete section and you are free to do what you want.
I usually don't reply to AC, but what the hell...
.h extension.
I don't know what compiler versions you are talking about.
VC6 was not iso compliant. No wonder. the ISO standard wasn't ratified at that time.
But g++ 2.95 scored equally bad, or worse.
VC++8.x and 9 are very compliant, and on par with g++.
Sure VC++ has compiler extensions, but so does g++, which litters the global namespace with ISO non-conformant functionnames (snprintf).
However, VC++ also has a switch that turns it into ISO mode, allowing not a single compiler extension.
And I don't know if you know, but a lot of headers (string for example) are supposed to come WITHOUT the
string.h is a C include header. string is a C++ include header.
But hey, at least you're a respectable programmer. Me, I use whatever tool I need to get the job done.
Not on our network.
The process control software cannot be scripted.
No unapproved device drivers or software is allowed on any of the machines that run that software.
The software itself may only be installed manually. I thought of using things like windif to make an MSI file for deployment, but a whole lot of stuff in the registry is variable, and depends on lots of things.
Then there is user management, which has to be done with paper forms and an audit trail.
Backup is automated, but recovery can be a 24 hour nightmare, depending on which server we are talking about, with lots of opportunities to hose he entire network with one misstep.
Unfortunately, there is little except making backups (and not even that in all cases) which can be automated.
In other cases, it is a matter of QA and regulatory requirements to do things according to writtne procedures, with a paper trail attached.
Everything that we do on the process control network (big Pharma) is documented in Standard Operation Instructions. ...
Those cover everything from installing and configuring a server, to user management, backup and recovery procedures, Policy implementations,
The idea is that all procedures have to be validated in order to be allowed to use them, and if you have to deviate, you have to write a deviation report, and possibly ammend the procedure.
The plus side is that everything on your system is documented, and can be trained by others.
The downside is that it is a lot of work to make procedures for all normal operations.
But if there is a major problem and you have to replace a server and bring up the network at midnight, it is comforting to know that it has been done before, and that whatever you have to do is documented.
No, but you might want to tell his parents that their 12 year old idiot is getting them and himself ready for a world of hurt when someone decides to come after him for filesharing.
Of that guy on tv in a documentary about shoes.
He collected sneakers (puma, adidas) and was raving about having extremely rare pumas of which only a couple are made. They cost him over a 1000$ and of course he didn't wear them.
According to him, sneakers were more important than life itself, sneakers WERE life.
And I was just thinking: 'Dude, you've spent all your life saving on 600 pairs of shoes, and you think having sneakers makes you more special?'
Everyone has a pet project or hobby they like. My hobbies are restoring antique straight razors and C++ template programming.
I don't think you are an unwashed plebe just because you (possibly) shave with a gillette (or worse, an electric shaver) instead of a straight razor, or don't apreciate the finer points of partial template specialization.
So why do you consider me one just because I don't fancy spending 1000s of dollars for a stereo and then sit down in a chair, doing nothing but listening to music or maybe even test tracks.
No mod points for the moment, but the parent has made a very good point that made me change my mind about the issue. :-)
Yeah I'm a flip flopper. Heavens forbid that people actually change their mind when presented with another point of view. I guess I'll never be a president now.
C99 is driven by customer demand. And I don't mean as in a bunch of geeks saying 'implement ALL of C99 now!' but as in they work with their enterprise customers to prioritize features.
TR1 WILL be supported as soon as C++0x is finalized. Not sooner. If they would implement is now, it would likely change as soon as the new standard is ratified. Of course, even if they would implement now, you would criticise them as soon as the standard is ratified because ZOMG! Microsoft's TR1 is proprietary and out of date! LOLOLOLROFLMAO!
I suspect they will simply license TR1 from dinkumware which is feature complete with the current state of TR1.
Intellisense is a dog. People are working on it, and a lot of redesign is going on. Not just for intellisense, but for the whole compiler architecture to make it more scalable and plufable.
And I don't know where you are getting your info from, but asm is perfectly supported in 64 bit. Just inline assembly isn't because for 64 bit code this would make it non-portable between different 64 bit architectures.
You can still add asm files to your VC++ project and compile them.
And you can say yuck to MFC and I would agree. But a very large number of enterprise businesses still builds massive VC++ applications that use it extensively. maintaining and improving it makes lots of business sense.
And finally, C++ is not meant to be as RAD as C# and VB because that would require a lot of manpower which cannot be justified. VC++ is targeted for interoperability, performance and control over the program execution. Not for whipping up a data driven LINQ doc. People who want to use LINQ would simply build a C# project for data interaction and add it to their mixed mode C++ project.