I think google did it anonymously because a great % of google ads income is from ebay. This could wery well piss ebay off, and decide to spend their money elsewhere (if ebay is stupid enough - but I don't think so). It sure makes google look like a coward not to file the complain signed.
As for Microsoft service packs, should a patch really count? They are Software. So if they want to set a world record for the most software downloaded in 24 hours of course service packs count.
Since Eclipse is an IDE, and I don't really like IDEs, I use Jedit in Windows, and Kate in linux for my development. What editor do you other slashdotters use? Maybe you know one I have never heard of that is the holy grail.
I agree. There is no solution. There are hardware keyloggers, software keyloggers, the spouse could log all traffic to/from the machine or take a screenshot every now and then. There is no solution to this. Trust your spouse or grap your computer and lock it somewhere only you have the key to.
The border agent is likely to start this whole process with a 'please type in your password.' This is no problem at all: just use a steganographic filesystem hidden on your crypted filesystem. When asked to enter your password, enter the password for the first fs. The second will still be safe and you can even deny it is there. But: the US is becoming more and more a police state. I would have liked to come and see NY, California, Washington and all your nice cities you have over there, but all this bullshit stuff you throw at normal people who would like to come and spend some money in your stores and restaurants an hotels just pisses me off. Really. Just stay all by yourself if you wish so.
Open source software doesn't mean you can just LOOK at the source. It means you can look at it AND modify it and use it (redistributing it is another matter, and depends on the specific license). What you are talking about is the OSI definition of Open Source. There are a lot of definitions for Open Source. I think we can say that there are OSI Approved Licenses, and Shared Source licenses. Both grant the user a right to *see* the source code, but the big difference is that an OSI license also gives the user additional rights, as explained here.
Once this is clear, we can discuss about what the term "Open Source" means, and what rights it grans to the user. Personally I think that the "rights" part should be determined by the license attached to the code, not by a term like "Open Source" or "Shared Source", but that is just me.
"shared source" is not open source, and shouldn't be confused with it." I think this is not true. Open Source means nothing more that the source is "open", that you can see it. I never interpreted the term "open source" whit the meaning that you are free to modify it and distribute it. That is GPLed code for me. A piece of code is Open Source when you can see the code. So, shared source *is* open source, because the code is there for you to see. What you can do with the code, is part of the licence agreement attached with the code. There is no "open source" license, but there is a GPL, BSD, Apache, MIT and so on license. Am I the only one seeing it like this? Am I wrong?
It would be really useful to be able to move the cursor only by looking at the point on the sceen I want it to be. That could save my wrist from carpal tunnel syndrome and it could also incement my productivity by making the pointer go quicker to where I want it to be. I hope it will have pixel accuracy, but even if it does not, I am sure, time a few years, it could become the perfect input device.
No. They have could start their little program using the windows scheduler instead writing this mess of service-frontend stuff. From one of the comments:
The problem simply is that the old registry keys for autostart have no way of specifying whether the started program should be elevated. Automatically (silently) elevating all autostart programs is a bad idea (non-elevated code can add autostart programs), and showing an elevation prompt pop up after every login is also a bad idea (I need to confirm a UAC prompt to login?). So Microsoft ended up with that "autostart program was blocked" solution. It's not a good idea, but it's less bad than the alternatives. But there was no intention of blocking programs from starting silently elevated, provided they are registered for autostart somewhere were only admins have access and where elevation can be explicitly controlled (because silently elevating just because some program says so is a bad idea). This is not possible with the Run registry key, but it's possible with the task scheduler. Sure, the task scheduler is a service, but the tasks it starts run in the user's session, so they can display UI. There's no need to write a custom service and use inter-process communication between a non-elevated UI and a service. This is not Vistas fault. It's just that the programmer did not know how to do it the windows way and ended up writing something insanely complicated to do the job, when something really simple would have been sufficient. Now he knows how to do it right, and in the next version he can use the scheduler to start his program, and trash all the service-frontend code he wrote:)
and go back to providing a good web search service. What are you talking about? Google is still the best search service provider on the net. Who is better? MSN? Yahoo!? Baidu?
If blogger sucks, why don't you just buy your own domain and start blogging on that? I am sure it does it's job for most people who are using it. btw I think most people stopped blogging when myspace came along, and the other, more serious bloggers, have their own host or got a better service.
I think we are really getting philosophical here, but there is no controller. You (the office document) fetch the data from the DB. So, office document = view and DB = model. There is no controller. The definition of controller I have is: "Processes and responds to events, typically user actions, and may invoke changes on the model." - The office document does not do that. It only displays the data.
I'd say that in my experience users actually having accounts on database servers is pretty uncommon.
I agree. Usually users in an enterprice are stored on an LDAP server.
Most applications just connect to the database using an obfuscated password, or they have a business-logic tier that does the data manipulation.
That's also true, but in a sane environment you have your users/accounts on an LDAP server and Authenticate them against it (usually with Kerberos tickets).
ctrl+c ctrl+v from Oracle Security and Identity Management: "If your infrastructure is like most, you have an LDAP server that stores your user identities, roles and privileges for the purpose of authenticating your users against their application. The LDAP server also gives you a place to centrally manage your users and the ability to apply a consistent security policy to all of your applications. The LDAP server also gives you the ability to easily delegate administration tasks to others. Traditionally, database authentication is done by creating database schema users in the database itself. These schema users have their user identities, passwords, roles and privileges stored in the database. When the user logs into the database either directly using SQLPlus or through some application, the users credentials and privileges are checked inside the database. This model creates fragmented administrative control of users that access their applications. Every database you have creates a new administrative management point and a potential for fragmented administration and security policies in your corporate infrastructure. A better model would be to have these users created as "Enterprise Users" in the OID LDAP server. This model allows you to have your users authenticate against the LDAP server and to apply a consistent security policy for all of your users accessing your databases and database applications. It is also an easier way of managing users and their access to applications. This model also limits the number database schema user accounts in the database to just those that are actually administering the database."
This also violates the (good) Model/View/Controller software architectural model by kludging the view and controller together in the same product.
No, not really. Think a simple mailmerge with data from the database. There is no Controller, only a model (the DB) and the View (the document). You fetch the data from the database and mailmerge it.
I'd be interested in what is the alternative to storing them in plaintext in the document format.
We use Kerberos to authenticate the user with the database, and something like Row Level Security or/and Database Roles for authorization on the actual data. That's actually the only secure way I know of (and that I use) to connect to a database from an office document.
Did someone here actually use callcc for something "real" in production code that could not be done someway else or was best implemented with callcc? For what? Can you make an example? I am really just curious (personally I love callcc, but only ever used it as a style exercise).
Slashdot Mirror
I think google did it anonymously because a great % of google ads income is from ebay. This could wery well piss ebay off, and decide to spend their money elsewhere (if ebay is stupid enough - but I don't think so).
It sure makes google look like a coward not to file the complain signed.
Since Eclipse is an IDE, and I don't really like IDEs, I use Jedit in Windows, and Kate in linux for my development.
:)
What editor do you other slashdotters use? Maybe you know one I have never heard of that is the holy grail.
(Emacs vs vi posts coming in 3..2..1..)
I agree. There is no solution. There are hardware keyloggers, software keyloggers, the spouse could log all traffic to/from the machine or take a screenshot every now and then. There is no solution to this. Trust your spouse or grap your computer and lock it somewhere only you have the key to.
But: the US is becoming more and more a police state. I would have liked to come and see NY, California, Washington and all your nice cities you have over there, but all this bullshit stuff you throw at normal people who would like to come and spend some money in your stores and restaurants an hotels just pisses me off. Really. Just stay all by yourself if you wish so.
I think we can say that there are OSI Approved Licenses, and Shared Source licenses. Both grant the user a right to *see* the source code, but the big difference is that an OSI license also gives the user additional rights, as explained here.
Once this is clear, we can discuss about what the term "Open Source" means, and what rights it grans to the user. Personally I think that the "rights" part should be determined by the license attached to the code, not by a term like "Open Source" or "Shared Source", but that is just me.
Am I the only one seeing it like this? Am I wrong?
It would be really useful to be able to move the cursor only by looking at the point on the sceen I want it to be. That could save my wrist from carpal tunnel syndrome and it could also incement my productivity by making the pointer go quicker to where I want it to be. I hope it will have pixel accuracy, but even if it does not, I am sure, time a few years, it could become the perfect input device.
Hmmm... then why should they? Their search engine is still the best we have, why should they not do other things as well if they have money to burn? :)
Sure, the task scheduler is a service, but the tasks it starts run in the user's session, so they can display UI. There's no need to write a custom service and use inter-process communication between a non-elevated UI and a service. This is not Vistas fault. It's just that the programmer did not know how to do it the windows way and ended up writing something insanely complicated to do the job, when something really simple would have been sufficient. Now he knows how to do it right, and in the next version he can use the scheduler to start his program, and trash all the service-frontend code he wrote
I did that too. Looks like we are a lot doing that lately :)
If blogger sucks, why don't you just buy your own domain and start blogging on that? I am sure it does it's job for most people who are using it. btw I think most people stopped blogging when myspace came along, and the other, more serious bloggers, have their own host or got a better service.
This type of touring test is defeated with a probability of 50%, so unfortunately it's not a real solution.
I think we are really getting philosophical here, but there is no controller. You (the office document) fetch the data from the DB. So, office document = view and DB = model. There is no controller. The definition of controller I have is: "Processes and responds to events, typically user actions, and may invoke changes on the model." - The office document does not do that. It only displays the data.
I agree. Usually users in an enterprice are stored on an LDAP server.
That's also true, but in a sane environment you have your users/accounts on an LDAP server and Authenticate them against it (usually with Kerberos tickets).
ctrl+c ctrl+v from Oracle Security and Identity Management:
"If your infrastructure is like most, you have an LDAP server that stores your user identities, roles and privileges for the purpose of authenticating your users against their application. The LDAP server also gives you a place to centrally manage your users and the ability to apply a consistent security policy to all of your applications. The LDAP server also gives you the ability to easily delegate administration tasks to others.
Traditionally, database authentication is done by creating database schema users in the database itself. These schema users have their user identities, passwords, roles and privileges stored in the database. When the user logs into the database either directly using SQLPlus or through some application, the users credentials and privileges are checked inside the database. This model creates fragmented administrative control of users that access their applications. Every database you have creates a new administrative management point and a potential for fragmented administration and security policies in your corporate infrastructure.
A better model would be to have these users created as "Enterprise Users" in the OID LDAP server. This model allows you to have your users authenticate against the LDAP server and to apply a consistent security policy for all of your users accessing your databases and database applications. It is also an easier way of managing users and their access to applications. This model also limits the number database schema user accounts in the database to just those that are actually administering the database."
No, not really. Think a simple mailmerge with data from the database. There is no Controller, only a model (the DB) and the View (the document). You fetch the data from the database and mailmerge it.
We use Kerberos to authenticate the user with the database, and something like Row Level Security or/and Database Roles for authorization on the actual data. That's actually the only secure way I know of (and that I use) to connect to a database from an office document.
Just because it remained me the old times... you know Making it the other way around is funny and brilliant.
I didn't know about COMEFROM. This is pure genius:
Did someone here actually use callcc for something "real" in production code that could not be done someway else or was best implemented with callcc? For what? Can you make an example? I am really just curious (personally I love callcc, but only ever used it as a style exercise).
I would buy one of those.
... The Pirate Bay in the past. With a really hilarious response from TPB:
White Stripes / WEB SHERIFF: email our response 2nd mail and response our fax (invoice) 3rd mail attached document We tell Faxxsheriff about our new site 4th mail our response.