The/. artcile is a biased piece of cr4p. Nowhere was the PC mentioned in the article. With that said, the SANS list is also a piece of cr4p. They are trying to make me believe that these "25" errors are the holy grail of secure programming! That if I (somehow) make sure I have them covered, that everything will be fine? I am sure Keving Mitnick would love to disagree with that one. I do too. We are not at a stage where we can write "secure" software yet. The most basic input device for a computer is still the same thing that was in place 30 years ago: the Keyboard. We may have come a long way, but whenever I see a keyboard and mouse it's a grim reminder of how primitive technology still is.
The gratest threat I tend to see for example has nothing to do with code. It has to do with an unsecured laptop left on a desk, that can easily dissapear. So although the list of 25 is a valid list, it's far from anything new and unknown. There's many factors that affect how secure technology is produced - and code quality suffers as a result.
Apple was as much a thief as MS was, but they stole the interface earlier. Who knows, maybe Bill was busy filling in that "small" contract with IBM at that time, and did not have time to go down to Xerox PARC to snoop around the same way as a (barely employed)Steve Jobs did. Nevertheless, someone had to bring that amazing technology to the world, and it would have been unfair for Apple to patent it and be the only one.
Steal a penny from the Banks - go to jail - Banks steals $10 from you - calls it a "service charge".
We need the banks (except the World Bank), but it is despicable that they are allowed to play with our money the way they do. Twice I have been locked out of my money. And it was a weekend, so the banks were closed. I asked the 24/7 help guy from India what I should do, and his advice was: Can you borrow some money from someone until Monday when the bank opens?
I don't think Microsoft cares that Blu-Ray is Sony's standard, just that it's not Microsoft's standard. Not true. I do not think MS cares about a technology being non-MS as much as:
1) Who owns the "rights" to the technology
2) Can they somehow incorporate their own "touch-ups", so they don't feel completely 0wn3d by another company
Seeing that Sony is MS's biggest competitor in one of the most vibrant and biggest money making markets (games), it makes sense why MS won't go Sony. Call it what you will, but sure MS is a resiliant company when it comes to becoming dependent on "other" companies to push their product. They will push for their own technology no matter what. MS will not allow itself to be cornenred even if it means going their own way and coming up with their own version. Their track record proves that.
Bang on. I did nit agree with the article's narrow vision of "what most programer's background" is in. Today's programmer is not defined by the programming language he uses anymore, they are defined by how well they understand what they are building and coding for.
I think a programmer should chose whatever they like to code in, s long as they:
1) Understand the problem, and their choice of coding language (or environment) is the right fit that will produce the best possible solution
2) Are able to adhere to the coding standards, write clean/readeable code, comment (or document it), and strive for efficiency any chance they get.
Personal pride in these matters is stupid.
In my career, having the ability to adapt has been a winnig strategy both professionally and from the employer's point of view.
One thing I can honestly say though: I despised the Java developers that would not touch one fucking line of code other than Java. They were the most unproductive programmers I have ever seen. I am not generalizing. I am speaking about those I had to deal with.
You're not that important.
-- This is a dumb quote. You may have thought it's a justified one, but no it is not. It is plain DUMB.
With that said, I do agree with the article. There's a huge disconnect between upper management (mainly at VP level) and Information technology (and to add PROJECT MANAGEMENT).
I have experienced issued in several areas with VP level executives, when it comes to them and their understanding of IT, such as them looking at IT as an EXPENSE. IT is not the SALES department. We do not show RETURN like SALES does. The ROI for IT has to be calculated differently. IT is also not considered as an integral part of the proccess for the whole company. See, you have accounting, finance, operations and sales that can all interrelate and need to be in place so a product for example can be successfully brought to market, but IT is looked at as an outside resource, the "expense" part of the project, not an "integral" part. IT is therefore left out of any major and important decisions until the moment comes that "a new system to support the launch of this product is needed". Those companies that have realized that IT is an integral part of the business and need to be treated as a STRATEGIC function (not just as the people who fix your desktop) are big winners, and will have no difficulty seeing the value returned by IT. The rest will keep suffering, losing and making the life of their IT people hell.
In order to be subject to the antimonopoly laws, you need to have a monopoly in the relevant market
Not neccessarily. Having a monopoly in the relevant market is only one of the criterias, but not the only one. Mergers of companies for example are another case that may draw the attention of the gevernment. And although Apple's case doesn't satisfy either 1) Monopoly or 2) Merger criterias, it may very well satisfy this one:
"prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities. This includes in particular the repression of cartels"
So give Apple props as a company company that creats eye-catching, extraordinary, visually attractive products, but give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their intentions.
Open source is a set of principles and practices on how to write software, the most important of which is that the source code is openly available
------
Project Description
The Singularity Research Development Kit (RDK) is based on the Microsoft Research Singularity project. It includes source code, build tools, test suites, design notes, and other background materials.
The academic/non-comercial use may have to do with the stage at which the software is at this point, not with the "final destination" of the software.
Good piece man. In addition, it is interesting to note that Christianity is always singled out as the "official opposition" of evolutionary theory. The "scientists" fail to mention that all other significant religions believe in a form of God, and that in fact belief that humans were created by a God is much older than Christianity.
It is interesting to see how the scientists are more preoccupied with "downplaying" christian believers, the significance of God in the creation of humans as "theories of religious nuts", rather than try to explain their theory (which they miserably have been failing at since before Darwin) and convince us that we indeed do come from the same family of species as those living in Zoos today.
I think they are just a bunch of anti-christian nuts who have been given authority to come up with bull-shit and we have no choice but to listen. Even if I did not believe in God having created humans, I surely do not believe in what these guys are saying. If I have to chose between God or Monkey (oops, Primate) as my origin, I surely choose God.
Who is EU anyway? There's as much truth to the "U" for "united" in that name as there is to nazis liking the jews. Someone has to stop "EU" from this madness. An invasion would be nice!
Well, CHIEF, it's not very important to you maybe, but considering it is the ONLY plane able to carry arsenal that will nuke any country's ass to ashes, I'd say that just the fact it is there - that it exists, in my opinion makes it the most "crucial" war plane USA has ever created.
....not a bunch of "commie-hippies" and their free stuff
Well, brother, what do you expect if you associate yourself with Cory Doctorow (I challenge him to convince people he doesn't own/or has read a copy of the communist manifesto)?
You'd think that the open source people would be smarter now, after having been in business for a while, that associating your cause for wide-spread acceptance with "movement"-centric people will not help, no matter how much you think you are doing the right thing. Maybe that is the big-downside of Open Source that they do not get YET. They want everyone to use their product, but do not want to be portrayed as "sellouts". I think there's a major contradiction right there. And all this while maintaining that "underground" feeling, that "against-the-norm" portrayal, that "rise-against-the-big-bully-corporation" attitude and stance. But it doesn't f-king work. Maybe if you concentrated on how "people" work for a change, then you'd probbably be more successful, closer to your goal.
They know that their marketing dept is their most important asset, and they can afford to pour cash at them. Hence their marketing people can afford to try out any wacky ideas and see what sticks
Hey man, lighten up. WTF? Companies do things like that all the time. So what? It is unbelievable that the so called "smart" people on/. can get so easily irritated by something as irrelevant as this story, just because it involves MS. The company has the right to spend its money anyway they like - just like any other company. Looking at their balance sheets, they must be doing something right! I do not think this is to be taken so seriously by anyone - or in anyway, not to mention that these are giveaways for their own webcast attendees, which are already MS geeks, who will probbably love to collect the figurines.
Take it easy people.......I think there's more important things to waste our worries on than Microsoft action figures...unless....
...you are from the Open Source camp of course....hahaha...sorry could not resists...again....
The reason I chose that printer? Konica-Minolta supplies open-source printer drivers that compiled on my AMD64-Ubuntu box.
Maybe you should chose an OS that doesn't force you to spend your money on garbage peripherals just because it has limited support for everything
They should create a feature that will check your email history file or address book for people that have same names (last names) in the list of TOs, and ask if this is the person you intend to send the email to. I understand it may be another irritating feature to some, but make it optional to turn it on. Would you rather be irritated by an email asking wheather you mean to send the email titled: "We need to use more linux" - to "this William Gates" or "the other William Gates"? I think in high risk correspondence, especially exposing companie's secrets etc, that more rules should be inforced.
Do you honestly sit there and look at Hillary, then look at Barack and think - Yeah, I am convinced that at the state US is in at the moment, these two would be able to run the country perfectly. I mean really - do you do that?
This worked really well with George W. Bush.
Well what the hell does that mean? Did it work BAD? Where did it work BAD? I don't understand these one sentece responses.
I don't think the faith of a candidate (or lack thereof) had ever been an issue in Canadian politic since I started voting 15 years ago. And I doubt it is different anywhere else in the West except the US.
But your observations of the "last 15 years" do not paint a whole picture of the election history in Canada. Canadians are mainly driven by political convictions than faith based ones. That is not necessarily a good thing of course, because that school of thought has prompted us to elect cowards and communists like Pierre Trudeau, or schizophrenics like Jean Cretien and useless money mongers like Paul Martin. In America people believe that if a person is driven by a good moral foundation, that they will be strong, fair and withstand the political corruption. In Canada we don't care about personal values, because maybe there isn't any (I mean look at how Canadians still idolize Pierre Trudeau - a dirty playboy who spawned a whole generation of Cuban lovers and american haters).
You are wrong in assuming that America stands out from the rest of the west in that prespective. Most countries have religious based parties that win elections (look at Germany). It maybe time Canada tried to elect a leader that has some values and a party that is less RED.
But one reason that I've allowed Yahoo! to gradually become such an important part of my life is that it's NOT Microsoft
It is incredible what the world would look like, if we applied this logic to everything else in our life. The depression drugs would be selling at an all time high, and psychologists would surely be in short supply. How much worry, how much concern, how much of your life does it take you to think about this to a point where you make it part of your life to avoid a specific company, Microsoft in this case. How much useless HATE breeds inside of you? Cosumes you? Live your life as it comes man....in the end when it's all said and done, you'll find out that it was all bull shit. Don't be a fucking follower. Listen to your brain for once and do what you want to.
Slashdot Mirror
The /. artcile is a biased piece of cr4p. Nowhere was the PC mentioned in the article. With that said, the SANS list is also a piece of cr4p. They are trying to make me believe that these "25" errors are the holy grail of secure programming! That if I (somehow) make sure I have them covered, that everything will be fine? I am sure Keving Mitnick would love to disagree with that one. I do too. We are not at a stage where we can write "secure" software yet. The most basic input device for a computer is still the same thing that was in place 30 years ago: the Keyboard. We may have come a long way, but whenever I see a keyboard and mouse it's a grim reminder of how primitive technology still is.
The gratest threat I tend to see for example has nothing to do with code. It has to do with an unsecured laptop left on a desk, that can easily dissapear. So although the list of 25 is a valid list, it's far from anything new and unknown. There's many factors that affect how secure technology is produced - and code quality suffers as a result.
ok, i'll give you all of them except point 7. It is pure unadulterated CR4P. Sorry bud. Read http://www.amazon.com/Dealers-Lightning-Xerox-PARC-Computer/dp/0887309895/ 'Dealers of Lightning' and get some real education on the whole point-and-click beginnings.
Apple was as much a thief as MS was, but they stole the interface earlier. Who knows, maybe Bill was busy filling in that "small" contract with IBM at that time, and did not have time to go down to Xerox PARC to snoop around the same way as a (barely employed)Steve Jobs did. Nevertheless, someone had to bring that amazing technology to the world, and it would have been unfair for Apple to patent it and be the only one.
...one cent at t time.
Steal a penny from the Banks - go to jail - Banks steals $10 from you - calls it a "service charge".
We need the banks (except the World Bank), but it is despicable that they are allowed to play with our money the way they do. Twice I have been locked out of my money. And it was a weekend, so the banks were closed. I asked the 24/7 help guy from India what I should do, and his advice was: Can you borrow some money from someone until Monday when the bank opens?
that's pretty funny.
For a short time I thought it was really cool.
1) Who owns the "rights" to the technology
2) Can they somehow incorporate their own "touch-ups", so they don't feel completely 0wn3d by another company
Seeing that Sony is MS's biggest competitor in one of the most vibrant and biggest money making markets (games), it makes sense why MS won't go Sony. Call it what you will, but sure MS is a resiliant company when it comes to becoming dependent on "other" companies to push their product. They will push for their own technology no matter what. MS will not allow itself to be cornenred even if it means going their own way and coming up with their own version. Their track record proves that.
Bang on. I did nit agree with the article's narrow vision of "what most programer's background" is in. Today's programmer is not defined by the programming language he uses anymore, they are defined by how well they understand what they are building and coding for. I think a programmer should chose whatever they like to code in, s long as they:
1) Understand the problem, and their choice of coding language (or environment) is the right fit that will produce the best possible solution
2) Are able to adhere to the coding standards, write clean/readeable code, comment (or document it), and strive for efficiency any chance they get.
Personal pride in these matters is stupid.
In my career, having the ability to adapt has been a winnig strategy both professionally and from the employer's point of view.
One thing I can honestly say though: I despised the Java developers that would not touch one fucking line of code other than Java. They were the most unproductive programmers I have ever seen. I am not generalizing. I am speaking about those I had to deal with.
Maybe it's time he switched to a (real) LAPTOP!?!?!
-- This is a dumb quote. You may have thought it's a justified one, but no it is not. It is plain DUMB.
With that said, I do agree with the article. There's a huge disconnect between upper management (mainly at VP level) and Information technology (and to add PROJECT MANAGEMENT). I have experienced issued in several areas with VP level executives, when it comes to them and their understanding of IT, such as them looking at IT as an EXPENSE. IT is not the SALES department. We do not show RETURN like SALES does. The ROI for IT has to be calculated differently. IT is also not considered as an integral part of the proccess for the whole company. See, you have accounting, finance, operations and sales that can all interrelate and need to be in place so a product for example can be successfully brought to market, but IT is looked at as an outside resource, the "expense" part of the project, not an "integral" part. IT is therefore left out of any major and important decisions until the moment comes that "a new system to support the launch of this product is needed". Those companies that have realized that IT is an integral part of the business and need to be treated as a STRATEGIC function (not just as the people who fix your desktop) are big winners, and will have no difficulty seeing the value returned by IT. The rest will keep suffering, losing and making the life of their IT people hell.
Not neccessarily. Having a monopoly in the relevant market is only one of the criterias, but not the only one. Mergers of companies for example are another case that may draw the attention of the gevernment. And although Apple's case doesn't satisfy either 1) Monopoly or 2) Merger criterias, it may very well satisfy this one:
"prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities. This includes in particular the repression of cartels"
So give Apple props as a company company that creats eye-catching, extraordinary, visually attractive products, but give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their intentions.
Open source is a set of principles and practices on how to write software, the most important of which is that the source code is openly available
------
Project Description
The Singularity Research Development Kit (RDK) is based on the Microsoft Research Singularity project. It includes source code, build tools, test suites, design notes, and other background materials.
The academic/non-comercial use may have to do with the stage at which the software is at this point, not with the "final destination" of the software.
Good piece man. In addition, it is interesting to note that Christianity is always singled out as the "official opposition" of evolutionary theory. The "scientists" fail to mention that all other significant religions believe in a form of God, and that in fact belief that humans were created by a God is much older than Christianity.
It is interesting to see how the scientists are more preoccupied with "downplaying" christian believers, the significance of God in the creation of humans as "theories of religious nuts", rather than try to explain their theory (which they miserably have been failing at since before Darwin) and convince us that we indeed do come from the same family of species as those living in Zoos today.
I think they are just a bunch of anti-christian nuts who have been given authority to come up with bull-shit and we have no choice but to listen. Even if I did not believe in God having created humans, I surely do not believe in what these guys are saying. If I have to chose between God or Monkey (oops, Primate) as my origin, I surely choose God.
Who is EU anyway? There's as much truth to the "U" for "united" in that name as there is to nazis liking the jews. Someone has to stop "EU" from this madness. An invasion would be nice!
Well, CHIEF, it's not very important to you maybe, but considering it is the ONLY plane able to carry arsenal that will nuke any country's ass to ashes, I'd say that just the fact it is there - that it exists, in my opinion makes it the most "crucial" war plane USA has ever created.
....not a bunch of "commie-hippies" and their free stuff
Well, brother, what do you expect if you associate yourself with Cory Doctorow (I challenge him to convince people he doesn't own/or has read a copy of the communist manifesto)?
You'd think that the open source people would be smarter now, after having been in business for a while, that associating your cause for wide-spread acceptance with "movement"-centric people will not help, no matter how much you think you are doing the right thing. Maybe that is the big-downside of Open Source that they do not get YET. They want everyone to use their product, but do not want to be portrayed as "sellouts". I think there's a major contradiction right there. And all this while maintaining that "underground" feeling, that "against-the-norm" portrayal, that "rise-against-the-big-bully-corporation" attitude and stance. But it doesn't f-king work. Maybe if you concentrated on how "people" work for a change, then you'd probbably be more successful, closer to your goal.
They know that their marketing dept is their most important asset, and they can afford to pour cash at them. Hence their marketing people can afford to try out any wacky ideas and see what sticks /. can get so easily irritated by something as irrelevant as this story, just because it involves MS. The company has the right to spend its money anyway they like - just like any other company. Looking at their balance sheets, they must be doing something right! I do not think this is to be taken so seriously by anyone - or in anyway, not to mention that these are giveaways for their own webcast attendees, which are already MS geeks, who will probbably love to collect the figurines.
...you are from the Open Source camp of course....hahaha...sorry could not resists...again....
Hey man, lighten up. WTF? Companies do things like that all the time. So what? It is unbelievable that the so called "smart" people on
Take it easy people.......I think there's more important things to waste our worries on than Microsoft action figures...unless....
this logo font formatting is reminiscent of all the .COM bust companies of the past:
quadrantONE
Whenever I see a logo like that, I rarely read past it.
The reason I chose that printer? Konica-Minolta supplies open-source printer drivers that compiled on my AMD64-Ubuntu box. Maybe you should chose an OS that doesn't force you to spend your money on garbage peripherals just because it has limited support for everything
sorry I couldn't resist.......
Wait a minute? Are you comparing Microsoft to communists? And you are from which camp? The Open Source? Fuck, that's quite ironic isn't it?
They should create a feature that will check your email history file or address book for people that have same names (last names) in the list of TOs, and ask if this is the person you intend to send the email to. I understand it may be another irritating feature to some, but make it optional to turn it on. Would you rather be irritated by an email asking wheather you mean to send the email titled: "We need to use more linux" - to "this William Gates" or "the other William Gates"? I think in high risk correspondence, especially exposing companie's secrets etc, that more rules should be inforced.
Do you honestly sit there and look at Hillary, then look at Barack and think - Yeah, I am convinced that at the state US is in at the moment, these two would be able to run the country perfectly. I mean really - do you do that?
This worked really well with George W. Bush. Well what the hell does that mean? Did it work BAD? Where did it work BAD? I don't understand these one sentece responses.
Hey, look at what France picked as a leader. I'd be more worried about that than what US choses.
I don't think the faith of a candidate (or lack thereof) had ever been an issue in Canadian politic since I started voting 15 years ago. And I doubt it is different anywhere else in the West except the US.
But your observations of the "last 15 years" do not paint a whole picture of the election history in Canada. Canadians are mainly driven by political convictions than faith based ones. That is not necessarily a good thing of course, because that school of thought has prompted us to elect cowards and communists like Pierre Trudeau, or schizophrenics like Jean Cretien and useless money mongers like Paul Martin. In America people believe that if a person is driven by a good moral foundation, that they will be strong, fair and withstand the political corruption. In Canada we don't care about personal values, because maybe there isn't any (I mean look at how Canadians still idolize Pierre Trudeau - a dirty playboy who spawned a whole generation of Cuban lovers and american haters). You are wrong in assuming that America stands out from the rest of the west in that prespective. Most countries have religious based parties that win elections (look at Germany). It maybe time Canada tried to elect a leader that has some values and a party that is less RED.
I could not help but notice this:
But one reason that I've allowed Yahoo! to gradually become such an important part of my life is that it's NOT Microsoft
It is incredible what the world would look like, if we applied this logic to everything else in our life. The depression drugs would be selling at an all time high, and psychologists would surely be in short supply. How much worry, how much concern, how much of your life does it take you to think about this to a point where you make it part of your life to avoid a specific company, Microsoft in this case. How much useless HATE breeds inside of you? Cosumes you? Live your life as it comes man....in the end when it's all said and done, you'll find out that it was all bull shit. Don't be a fucking follower. Listen to your brain for once and do what you want to.