It's not very noticable using pliers, because you're just using the same force the "key" uses. My guess is that you may scratch the lock, but that's pretty unlikely and not very noticable.
Have you ever tried it?;-) When I was younger I had a perchant for taking things apart, but I never had the right tools. Removing torx screws using needle-nose pliers and the like. This was always noticable.
Ever if you use the right tools, a lot of parts will still show signs of repair. When I worked for a PC manufacturer, it was common to discard many of the screws if the unit had been rebuilt a couple of times, as it was visable wear on the parts. That's the last thing the customer wants on their shiny new laptop!
I'm not sure why this is seen as surprising. This is actually pretty good, given that Americans make up less than 5% of the world population.
Exactly. I cringed when I read that line. I'm not trolling or intending to insult anyone, but it really does seem that people in the USA are systematically taught to be ignorant about the rest of the world.
a resteurant can't put fake stuff on it's adverts to get customers into the resteurant...
That analogy sealed it for me. This kind of thing gets me a lot on the net. You google for some information, say "free motherboard bios", then the top five links don't provide anything without some sort of fee. They lied to get me there. As a rule I never deal with them, even if I have to go without whatever I was looking for.
Of course, meta-tags are a little old hat. I'd like to see the law encompass any method to promote a page. That would stop the google-spammers as well.
I see a lot of people are knocking it because it only works in one country, however there are many times when I use "search UK only" in Google. If the UK had a similar ruling and Google knew this and therefore indexed the tags in UK sites, then searching just got a little better.
Who's to say that these old ones were "accidently" burned in the first place? Didn't the US get a major boost when it was a fledging nation by ignoring patents and copyright from the old world? The mention of one for the internal combustion engine makes me wonder...didn't Henry T Ford stick his middle finger up at patents?
Mmmm, several hundred year old consipracy. This is gonna drive 'em nuts for years...;-)
Re:Spyware is just another form of a virus
on
Analysis of Spyware
·
· Score: 1
Thank god someone else believes this. OK, firstly get over the definitions on what is a worm, virus or trojan. If you argue this, you are missing the point of this sub-thread.
Spyware is unwanted software sitting on my machine, using my resources and harming my machine. How in any way is it different to any of the thousands or viruses (media definition) out there?
The following should have no bearing on whether something is or is not included in anti-virus definitions.
If the software is used for market data or spamming. The former is apparently "acceptible"
If the software replicates itself. Simply not relevant today's world of connected machines
If it is owned by a corperation. Just because malware has a company name behind it doesn't make it legit
Perhaps the OSS community should take the lead here and add spyware signatures into the OSS anti-virus packages and treat all malware equally. Rip it out. Quarantine it on first discovery. If bundled software it came with doesn't work, tough tittie. If they want to check for the spyware and disable themselves if it's not there, then it's their loss. Just allow the user to disable that definition with a "this is a very stupid thing to do" warning. You could even be clever and offer altenates suggestions of spyware-free software.
As spyware is corporate controlled, as are other anti-virus solutions, an OSS one is the only one I'd trust to zap all known malwhere and not allow "parners" malware thru.
See. That's the problem with most conspiricy theories; they blame a nameless "they". In reality, "they" is everyone who has a vested interest in the status quo. There is no one big conspiricy, just lots of smaller groups of people who look out for each other.
Most common locks are like most security proceedures in general, i.e. mostly a deterrent. You can pretty much always get in if you are willing to spend the time or energy on the target.
Plus, if you use pliers to open a lock like this, it will be visible, giving away the fact that there has been unauthorized access. A similar idea I've heard of is gluing a hard-drive cable to the motherboard and hd. You could get it off and access the data, but you can't do it without being noticed.
Jam one point of the scissors into the rectangular hole on the circumference of the circular key slot. Twist the scissors so that the inner part of the lock turns into the 'open' direction. Keep applying a gentle pressure, and use the paperclip to push in the little pins in the circular groove, one by one. Push down lightly and slowly until you feel the pin 'snap'. If you release the pin, it should be held in place and not spring back up again. If it does, just try first with another pin. Eventually you'll get them all and the lock will turn open.
That just sounds like normal lock-picking to me. Here is an article on the technique that is describing pretty much the same thing on a more traditional yale-style key.
Great. I've just taught serveral thousand geeks how to lock-pick...;-)
Parent is correct. When learning to ride a motorcycle, you get told to push the bike away from you in an accident. If you just skid along the ground, your clothing and helmet will protect you. The only real hazard is hitting something, like a wall, car or your own bike.
I'd go down the line of emotional distress. While giving birth to her own family, she has received many "help me!" e-mails from people who are getting abused and think the site is some sort of help-group. Most people get annoyed at viagra spams in their e-mail, never mind having to deal with this sort of distressing material.
Will the new installers cater for low memory machines? I've just put sarge on an old box a week ago to act as a backup server.
The box only has 16 meg of memory and finding an install that works took a while. All the newer ones require 24+ meg of RAM. In order to get it installed, I had to use the Lord Sutch installer to get stable up and running, then to a dist upgrade to sarge. Messy.
Good post, but I must stick up for GUI testing. I've found it to be very useful and productive. You need dedicated staff on it, who are skilled at coding, otherwise there is no point. You need to budget for maintainence and train the developers into not breaking things by changing the GUI on a whim. In my last place my boss worked out how many man hours were saved by a relatively simple regression test running at least once a day. The numbers were surprising, unfortunately I don't have them at hand, but it gifted us whatever budget the QA team requested within the company. Coupled with the time saved by early notification of failures (allowing rebuilds to be started by anyone who happened to notice the "FAILURE!" e-mails), this radically changed a project that we were working on.
Also, you mention trying to get every path through the software. I've never aimed to complete any of these, maybe our apps have been different, but I've found that it's just not possible. Too many combinations. Also, once you've tested the upper percentile of these permutations, you are getting diminishing returns putting the effort in verses the posibility of finding a bug.
I usually just take a representive sample, weighing up the likelyhood and freqency of each operation. I'd love to cover them all, but most QA departments are heavily stretched as is. The developer/tester ratio should be almost even, a "good" environment would be 2:1, but usually it sits around 5:1 in my experience. This is where my liking for automation comes in, provided the benefit outweighs the development cost. Regression testing is an ideal candidate for this.
PS I'm writing this as I kick of automated suites. You'll mostly find me on slashdot when I'm waiting for these to hit breakpoints and the like...;-)
These are different kinds of tests. Developers can write some tests while coding, but not all. The most fitting ones are unit tests.
For most apps, you need more than that. You need to see how it'll all fit together, with all the different modules you have. You need to see how it will run on the various target hardware or operating systems (java testing anyone, yikes!!). Then you get to throw in databases, resilience testing, soak testing an so on. There's a lot to it!!
It's not that developers can't test, they are simply testing different things. Developers test that what they wrote works. QA people test that it isn't breakable. Sure, most fixes/new functionality works in it's default case, it's when you use it properly it fails. Developers don't test for that, they look for a clean compile, then a basic "passed" message. And for them the job is done and they move onto the next task.
Another important aspect is the independent verification. The following are regular causes of failures caused by the developer using a development environment:
Hardcoded paths
Missing libraries
System config (e.g. hosts file)
Any of these problems will not stand out on the developers machine. You need to install to a clean host do a non-default directory in order to test that it'll work when shipped. It's amazing how many hardcoded paths this'll find. This was the first thing I learned in QA.
Each the above tools is good, and I'd also add Rational Robot and the newer "IBM Rational Functional Tester for Java and Web" tools to the list. I've got a lot of automation experience and I'm presently using the later one. Very powerful and hackable, I've got it doing all sorts of things it's not designed to do. It's Java based, so if you don't like their method, extend the class and write your own. Fantastic.
HOWEVER, and I cannot stress this enough, you need the correct tool for the job. Some tools will work better with different tool sets, some not at all. Try each of the front-runners and make sure whatever choice you make integrates well with your application. This is a one-time decission that if made poorly will kill an automation project. You'll spend more time writing workarounds rather than tests to click on that strange widget your app uses.
One very useful paradigm we've employed in automation is to use it to *prep* the system under test.
Absolutely. The first things I automate are usually installation and configuration. My goal is to have tests running overnight, using all of those spare cycles. I usually plug directly into the build process to get the test running straight away.
I usually open up the tools and let developers use them to configure their systems for their own use. That way they appreciate and understand the automation, another important aspect. If you have developers changing things in the GUI without warning or reasonable cause (it happens, moving icons around "because"), then it's good to have something they use get broken by it. They soon learn!!
Robot is now being mostly phased out and replaced by the product formerly known as "XDE Tester", which was formerly known as "RobotJ". It's now known as "IBM Rational Functional Tester for Java and Web". If you are testing Java or Web, it's the dogs bollocks.
It's Java based, so if you have dev. experience you are laughing. You can fire off background threads to monitor things, use any standard Java library to do anything. This is very very powerful.
Why was this topic posted at the weekend and not during the week when most testers are actually working!! I've worked in testing for many many years and have lots of experience, but by the time I saw this thread, most folk will have moved on.
For the discussion of all aspects of QA, I recommend this site. They have general areas as well as separate forums for each of the popular test tools.
So, you're saying that Hoover has a monopoly on vacuums [snip]
No, I never said that. I was talking about brand recognition and market share.
It's too soon to tell if they can maintain their "major player" status.
It would take a momumental cock-up to ruin it. Not unheard of, but Apple aren't daft.
If it ever does control 95% of the MP3 player market, the RIAA companies will still control the rights to the content.
So? If they own the predominate distribution channel, the RIAA would be Apple's bitch. All they would have to do is heavilly promote the non-RIAA affliated acts and labels on the home page of their site and the RIAA would start to panic.
Monopolies themselves are not illegal.
I never said they were. Nor did I say anything to the effect of being for/against them. All I simply said is that Apple stand a good chance of being the brand behind the future of music.
Give it time. Jeez, how much have we seen existing electronics shink in size and become cheaper over the past 20 years? Given that again, I'd say that phone cams will kick the ass out of any existing consumer digicam.
but then there's bandwidth issues in that, last I checked, they still charge for bandwidth
Most phones can sync without cost directly to a PC, via serial, usb, ir or bluetooth. Some are even getting wifi now. This is how you get music/video on and off.
However, I believe that the first phone to break the megapixel barrier didn't allow this and you had to pay to get the images.
They are a business competitor, not doing it for anything but pure financial gain.
Yeah, but the consumer (i.e. the electorate) wins and surely that should be relevant. What ever happened to that whole "for the people, by the people" thing?
APPLE IS NOT A CONVICTED MONOPOLY. The rules change significantly when you're a monopoly with near 100% market share.
If they hold back Real, there's a good chance they will develop near this level of market share. Like Hoovers to vacuums, TIVOs to PVRs, the iPod is likely to be the next Walkman.
And if all your customers are buying music direct from you (iTunes), you are laughing. Ask a random person to name an alternative to the iPod. You'd be pushed to find anyone.
Apple don't really care about that. The threat to their future iTunes profits is likely their number one concern. With eMusic growing in popularity every day, this is a market they want to lead. Right now they are in a position that could threaten the RIAA themselves, potentially owning the entire distribution chain for future music, right down to the playback devices themselfs.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever tried it? ;-) When I was younger I had a perchant for taking things apart, but I never had the right tools. Removing torx screws using needle-nose pliers and the like. This was always noticable.
Ever if you use the right tools, a lot of parts will still show signs of repair. When I worked for a PC manufacturer, it was common to discard many of the screws if the unit had been rebuilt a couple of times, as it was visable wear on the parts. That's the last thing the customer wants on their shiny new laptop!
Exactly. I cringed when I read that line. I'm not trolling or intending to insult anyone, but it really does seem that people in the USA are systematically taught to be ignorant about the rest of the world.
That analogy sealed it for me. This kind of thing gets me a lot on the net. You google for some information, say "free motherboard bios", then the top five links don't provide anything without some sort of fee. They lied to get me there. As a rule I never deal with them, even if I have to go without whatever I was looking for.
Of course, meta-tags are a little old hat. I'd like to see the law encompass any method to promote a page. That would stop the google-spammers as well.
I see a lot of people are knocking it because it only works in one country, however there are many times when I use "search UK only" in Google. If the UK had a similar ruling and Google knew this and therefore indexed the tags in UK sites, then searching just got a little better.
Mmmm, several hundred year old consipracy. This is gonna drive 'em nuts for years... ;-)
Spyware is unwanted software sitting on my machine, using my resources and harming my machine. How in any way is it different to any of the thousands or viruses (media definition) out there?
The following should have no bearing on whether something is or is not included in anti-virus definitions.
Perhaps the OSS community should take the lead here and add spyware signatures into the OSS anti-virus packages and treat all malware equally. Rip it out. Quarantine it on first discovery. If bundled software it came with doesn't work, tough tittie. If they want to check for the spyware and disable themselves if it's not there, then it's their loss. Just allow the user to disable that definition with a "this is a very stupid thing to do" warning. You could even be clever and offer altenates suggestions of spyware-free software.
As spyware is corporate controlled, as are other anti-virus solutions, an OSS one is the only one I'd trust to zap all known malwhere and not allow "parners" malware thru.
See. That's the problem with most conspiricy theories; they blame a nameless "they". In reality, "they" is everyone who has a vested interest in the status quo. There is no one big conspiricy, just lots of smaller groups of people who look out for each other.
Plus, if you use pliers to open a lock like this, it will be visible, giving away the fact that there has been unauthorized access. A similar idea I've heard of is gluing a hard-drive cable to the motherboard and hd. You could get it off and access the data, but you can't do it without being noticed.
That just sounds like normal lock-picking to me. Here is an article on the technique that is describing pretty much the same thing on a more traditional yale-style key.
Great. I've just taught serveral thousand geeks how to lock-pick... ;-)
Parent is correct. When learning to ride a motorcycle, you get told to push the bike away from you in an accident. If you just skid along the ground, your clothing and helmet will protect you. The only real hazard is hitting something, like a wall, car or your own bike.
I think it depends on the colour of their skin or religion...provided they are white anglo-saxon Jesus worshipers, it will remain a UAV.
Build it in an Arab country (with oil) and you'll have WMD! WMD! WMD! chants.
I'd go down the line of emotional distress. While giving birth to her own family, she has received many "help me!" e-mails from people who are getting abused and think the site is some sort of help-group. Most people get annoyed at viagra spams in their e-mail, never mind having to deal with this sort of distressing material.
The box only has 16 meg of memory and finding an install that works took a while. All the newer ones require 24+ meg of RAM. In order to get it installed, I had to use the Lord Sutch installer to get stable up and running, then to a dist upgrade to sarge. Messy.
Also, you mention trying to get every path through the software. I've never aimed to complete any of these, maybe our apps have been different, but I've found that it's just not possible. Too many combinations. Also, once you've tested the upper percentile of these permutations, you are getting diminishing returns putting the effort in verses the posibility of finding a bug.
I usually just take a representive sample, weighing up the likelyhood and freqency of each operation. I'd love to cover them all, but most QA departments are heavily stretched as is. The developer/tester ratio should be almost even, a "good" environment would be 2:1, but usually it sits around 5:1 in my experience. This is where my liking for automation comes in, provided the benefit outweighs the development cost. Regression testing is an ideal candidate for this.
PS I'm writing this as I kick of automated suites. You'll mostly find me on slashdot when I'm waiting for these to hit breakpoints and the like... ;-)
For most apps, you need more than that. You need to see how it'll all fit together, with all the different modules you have. You need to see how it will run on the various target hardware or operating systems (java testing anyone, yikes!!). Then you get to throw in databases, resilience testing, soak testing an so on. There's a lot to it!!
Another important aspect is the independent verification. The following are regular causes of failures caused by the developer using a development environment:
Any of these problems will not stand out on the developers machine. You need to install to a clean host do a non-default directory in order to test that it'll work when shipped. It's amazing how many hardcoded paths this'll find. This was the first thing I learned in QA.
HOWEVER, and I cannot stress this enough, you need the correct tool for the job. Some tools will work better with different tool sets, some not at all. Try each of the front-runners and make sure whatever choice you make integrates well with your application. This is a one-time decission that if made poorly will kill an automation project. You'll spend more time writing workarounds rather than tests to click on that strange widget your app uses.
One very useful paradigm we've employed in automation is to use it to *prep* the system under test.
Absolutely. The first things I automate are usually installation and configuration. My goal is to have tests running overnight, using all of those spare cycles. I usually plug directly into the build process to get the test running straight away.
I usually open up the tools and let developers use them to configure their systems for their own use. That way they appreciate and understand the automation, another important aspect. If you have developers changing things in the GUI without warning or reasonable cause (it happens, moving icons around "because"), then it's good to have something they use get broken by it. They soon learn!!
It's Java based, so if you have dev. experience you are laughing. You can fire off background threads to monitor things, use any standard Java library to do anything. This is very very powerful.
Why was this topic posted at the weekend and not during the week when most testers are actually working!! I've worked in testing for many many years and have lots of experience, but by the time I saw this thread, most folk will have moved on.
For the discussion of all aspects of QA, I recommend this site. They have general areas as well as separate forums for each of the popular test tools.
No, I never said that. I was talking about brand recognition and market share.
It's too soon to tell if they can maintain their "major player" status.
It would take a momumental cock-up to ruin it. Not unheard of, but Apple aren't daft.
If it ever does control 95% of the MP3 player market, the RIAA companies will still control the rights to the content.
So? If they own the predominate distribution channel, the RIAA would be Apple's bitch. All they would have to do is heavilly promote the non-RIAA affliated acts and labels on the home page of their site and the RIAA would start to panic.
Monopolies themselves are not illegal.
I never said they were. Nor did I say anything to the effect of being for/against them. All I simply said is that Apple stand a good chance of being the brand behind the future of music.
Give it time. Jeez, how much have we seen existing electronics shink in size and become cheaper over the past 20 years? Given that again, I'd say that phone cams will kick the ass out of any existing consumer digicam.
Most phones can sync without cost directly to a PC, via serial, usb, ir or bluetooth. Some are even getting wifi now. This is how you get music/video on and off.
However, I believe that the first phone to break the megapixel barrier didn't allow this and you had to pay to get the images.
Yeah. For now.
Yeah, but the consumer (i.e. the electorate) wins and surely that should be relevant. What ever happened to that whole "for the people, by the people" thing?
If they hold back Real, there's a good chance they will develop near this level of market share. Like Hoovers to vacuums, TIVOs to PVRs, the iPod is likely to be the next Walkman.
And if all your customers are buying music direct from you (iTunes), you are laughing. Ask a random person to name an alternative to the iPod. You'd be pushed to find anyone.
Apple don't really care about that. The threat to their future iTunes profits is likely their number one concern. With eMusic growing in popularity every day, this is a market they want to lead. Right now they are in a position that could threaten the RIAA themselves, potentially owning the entire distribution chain for future music, right down to the playback devices themselfs.
That is quite simply the most un-American statement I've ever heard. It's a shame most Americans miss the point of America.