Those are compile-time issues, not run-time issues.
That's not true. I explicitly included both LD_LIBRARY_PATH (runtime linking) and -I/some/src/path (compile-time) so that I could capture both the runtime and compile-time cases. Java's classpath is used at both runtime and compile-time.
The stupid $CLASSPATH. Since I don't do a lot of Java work, I don't actually set this stuff up in.profile or.cshrc or anything, but any time I want to try to compile
How is this any different from LD_LIBRARY_PATH or gcc -I/some/src/path?
No pointers. Real programmers know how to use memory properly. That is all.
That's total BS. Real programmers make mistakes. Real programmers benefit from the abstractions that C provides over assembly. When you write Java, do you find yourself wishing that you could address members by adding pointer offsets? Or do you long for the days when you could conditionally branch to a label instead of writing a for() loop? Pointers are a necessity for many computing environments, but I don't think that PC application software is one of them. You gain nothing, IMO, and risk everything.
Seek out USB Snoop. You can monitor the goings-on between Windows and the USB device's driver. This probably won't replace a hardware USB debugger, but it's a good start.
Your usage description seems to advocate a more node-to-node based relationship between devices on the bus. An interface like firewire seems much better suited to your application than USB (master/slave). Though I suppose it could be considerably more complex to implement?
Motorola's GSM base stations offer extended range cells (120km radius) which do implement the coverage density/cell size tradeoff you describe. I'd imagine it might be easier for CDMA to offer a larger set of grades than these do, though.
How about using a copper-fiber ethernet bridge at the points where you want to isolate? I suppose the cost might be problematic, but it shouldn't be terribly difficult to find.
What incentive does Google have to produce "accurate" results? Merely financial. The fact that google produces what's considered to be dependable search results given some search terms seems totally irrelevant. Google is beholden only to its investors (and it's still privately held, so the list probably isn't enormous). Google's ranking algorithm(s) are susceptible to abuse, and perhaps a competitor of AXA has done just so. But I wouldn't care if Google intentionally produced AXA's competitors as results for searches on "AXA". What right has anyone to demand that Google produce more accurate results (presumes that searching for "AXA" means that AXA's website is the desired result)?
I'm sure that spammers are using these products for their mass emailing instead of custom applications to obscure header information.
Are you serious? I kinda doubt it. I'm almost positive that there are custom spammer apps (some probably do web spidering too). I don't think they use them solely for obscuring header info. Anyways, that's not the point. I'm not suggesting that spammers couldn't mimic S/MIME, because they absolutely could. But assuming message-signing became so prevalent that it was used to help discern "spam" from "ham", once spammers signed their emails using a certificate from a trusted source, their identity could be added to lists of "known spammers" not unlike the RBLs, etc. that exist now. Of course, spammers would no doubt escalate things by continuously purchasing legitimate domains and legitimate domain certs, but as those got blacklisted, I imagine that they would approach some sort of bound (certainly the number of legal characters for a domain name ^ the length of a domain name, I guess). I suppose CRLs might come into play there, too (assuming admins updated their lists).
The reduction of spam (solution is too optimistic) will likely come from a multiple solution approach as a single approach will be circumvented.
I'm not so naive as to think spam would be quieted by any one technical solution. Digital signature-esque solutions like the one(s) I pose are probably slightly more difficult to circumvent brute-force wise.
Just imagine if you could use aggresive email filters, but never had to worry about losing a co-worker's important business message because your company compelled everyone to sign their email messages (at least internally). Maybe your non-work email address(es) would still get spam, but your work address(es) would probably get far fewer!
Hey, dumbass, certificates cost money. Lots of money. If you want to pay through the ass to get every little e-mail server a certificate, then your idea is good. Otherwise, it's pretty stupid.
Certificates do not cost much. I can understand individuals being hesitant to drop $15 or so per annum per domain, but for many businesses across the world (I'm going to guess they're among the largest consumers in email traffic) this is well worth the cost.
If you generate your own certificates, then there isn't much point in having the system, right smartass? Or do you think spammers would have a problem with generating a new certificate for every batch of spam?
Many people/organizations who own domains pay for certificates for their secure web sites. This is really no different. It might help to think of it as "express mail" -- less chance of getting a false positive from a spam filter (because maybe you skip the bayesian filters and go straight to a domain-name check, since you could now have faith in that "from" field). Those who wish to firmly establish their domain's identity can sign all of their outgoing email traffic and those who are curious are free to try to authenticate the signature.
Individuals without the means to purchase certificates issued by trusted certificate authorities may miss the boat a bit on this suggestion, I suppose. But I don't see a reason why governments can't act as CAs and verify the identity of their citizens (especially if their citizens found this service to be worth the cost). Yeah, I know, I don't like to give any more power to the government, but assuming this remained an opt-in service, it seems like a good deal.
If you're going to use a hack, why not use SPF? MS's hack doesn't look any better than SPF, from what I can tell. They both leverage reverse DNS lookups. All we need is for Sun, IBM, Oracle and SCO to develop their own DNS TXT-mail domain identity hacks.
"Long e-mail policy documents. Larger organizations with more complex e-mail topologies may need longer e-mail policy documents. If your organization has a large e-mail policy document, please refer to the Caller-ID specification for information on how to split it up."
This is stupid -- DNS shouldn't have to be twisted into knots to get this to work. These solutions seem to be the lazy way of getting things done: "Distribution of trust is too hard. But we already trust DNS, so let's just mess with DNS until it does what we want it to."
How about a new version of smtp that signs emails using a trusted certificate (yes, I recognize that it's pretty unlikely that I'm the first to suggest this)? If browsers come with lists of trusted root certs, why can't SMTP daemons? Current SMTP servers can ignore the signature, and subsequent SMTP servers could use it as a cue to bypass spam filters (or skip directly to a "domain is known bad?" decision point).
While MS is mucking with stuff, why don't they have Windows automagically generate a cert for someone's identity when a new user is created, and then include email signatures by default in Outlook/OE? Outlook and OE seem to handle S/MIME just about as well as Mozilla/TBird do.
(Cue boilerplate "your solution to the problem of Spam sucks because of..." here).
You'll probably only be able to get timing resolution near that of the OS tick interrupt interval, right? Sounds like the makings of a piss-poor logic analyzer.
I suppose if you were using an open source OS kernel, one where you could change the OS tick interval -- you might be able to make use of your logic analyzer idea.
I think S/MIME is an excellent, well-defined encryption and signature "protocol". Outlook, Outlook Express, and Mozilla(s) seem to have no trouble interoperating. Generating self-signed certificates could be made easier, and distributing trust automatically within and among domains is a little difficult, especially with the need for escrow. But distributing trust one peer at a time is pretty easy, not much more difficult than web-of-trust models like pgp or gpg.
seriously. this brings up the biggest hole in email as a communications medium: it's inherently broadcast.
I would refer to it as "interception-friendly" rather than broadcast.
Will this operate in competition with Digital Radio Mondiale? Do we really need competing digital radio standards? I suppose DRM's goal is not high-def radio, so they're not identical. I think we have a VHS/Beta, DVD +/- RW, 3.5"/5.25" battle on our hands.
Excellent! I appreciate the info. I was considering upgrading some of this stuff lately, but I had not yet seen one of those phone connecting blocks. Home Depot sells a Leviton module for this, but it had RJ11 jacks, rather than punchdowns, and it only had about 6-7 extensions on only one line.
I would not classify PostScript as a markup language merely because it is
capable of formatting content. Perl has extensive support for formats, and
as far as that goes even C has printf, but we don't call them markup languages,
No, I wouldn't classify PostScript as a markup language either. I was trying to provide examples of document file formats, as a generic category. I figured PostScript to be most often used as a document format, but a good exception to an overly broad claim that "no document formats are programming languages." One might read that claim into my post, so I inserted PostScript as a distinction between "document file formats" and "markup languages".
HyperText Markup Language is indeed a programming language. Just because it's child's play compared to C doesn't make it not a programming language. There are only two fundamental differences between coding HTML and coding C:
No way, Jose. Are you trying to contend with the example cited in the summary? You've expanded the acronym, now read it. HTML is a Markup Language. What's often considered the ultimate criterion of a programming language is Turing equivalency. Here's an example of what I mean (lacking any authority, but what the hey). Would you consider an MS Word or document (the binary/ASCII hybrid file that results, not the text contained within) to be source code written in a programming language? Then why should you think HTML files are 'code' either? (Funny aside -- PostScript's processing instructions would probably make it a good exception to these examples -- it probably _is_ Turing equivalent).
I had a similar experience. The self check-in terminals apparently run windows (I saw the blue screen in GRIA, but most/all airlines have these in most/all airports by now) and one of them was idling at a BSOD.
Oh, and the POS terminals at my local cafeteria ran a windows variant (the operator had to power cycle it when it stopped working). POS seems appropriate for windows.
Slashdot Mirror
That's total BS. Real programmers make mistakes. Real programmers benefit from the abstractions that C provides over assembly. When you write Java, do you find yourself wishing that you could address members by adding pointer offsets? Or do you long for the days when you could conditionally branch to a label instead of writing a for() loop? Pointers are a necessity for many computing environments, but I don't think that PC application software is one of them. You gain nothing, IMO, and risk everything.
Seek out USB Snoop. You can monitor the goings-on between Windows and the USB device's driver. This probably won't replace a hardware USB debugger, but it's a good start.
Your usage description seems to advocate a more node-to-node based relationship between devices on the bus. An interface like firewire seems much better suited to your application than USB (master/slave). Though I suppose it could be considerably more complex to implement?
If you still need a hardware analyzer, this one looks more affordable.
I'm guessing that should be "Cue the Visine guy"?
I assume that you're referring to Nixon's former speech writer, later game show host, Ben Stein when you say, "Visine guy"...?
Motorola's GSM base stations offer extended range cells (120km radius) which do implement the coverage density/cell size tradeoff you describe. I'd imagine it might be easier for CDMA to offer a larger set of grades than these do, though.
How about using a copper-fiber ethernet bridge at the points where you want to isolate? I suppose the cost might be problematic, but it shouldn't be terribly difficult to find.
What incentive does Google have to produce "accurate" results? Merely financial. The fact that google produces what's considered to be dependable search results given some search terms seems totally irrelevant. Google is beholden only to its investors (and it's still privately held, so the list probably isn't enormous). Google's ranking algorithm(s) are susceptible to abuse, and perhaps a competitor of AXA has done just so. But I wouldn't care if Google intentionally produced AXA's competitors as results for searches on "AXA". What right has anyone to demand that Google produce more accurate results (presumes that searching for "AXA" means that AXA's website is the desired result)?
I'm not so naive as to think spam would be quieted by any one technical solution. Digital signature-esque solutions like the one(s) I pose are probably slightly more difficult to circumvent brute-force wise.
Just imagine if you could use aggresive email filters, but never had to worry about losing a co-worker's important business message because your company compelled everyone to sign their email messages (at least internally). Maybe your non-work email address(es) would still get spam, but your work address(es) would probably get far fewer!
Many people/organizations who own domains pay for certificates for their secure web sites. This is really no different. It might help to think of it as "express mail" -- less chance of getting a false positive from a spam filter (because maybe you skip the bayesian filters and go straight to a domain-name check, since you could now have faith in that "from" field). Those who wish to firmly establish their domain's identity can sign all of their outgoing email traffic and those who are curious are free to try to authenticate the signature.
Individuals without the means to purchase certificates issued by trusted certificate authorities may miss the boat a bit on this suggestion, I suppose. But I don't see a reason why governments can't act as CAs and verify the identity of their citizens (especially if their citizens found this service to be worth the cost). Yeah, I know, I don't like to give any more power to the government, but assuming this remained an opt-in service, it seems like a good deal.
If you're going to use a hack, why not use SPF? MS's hack doesn't look any better than SPF, from what I can tell. They both leverage reverse DNS lookups. All we need is for Sun, IBM, Oracle and SCO to develop their own DNS TXT-mail domain identity hacks.
"Long e-mail policy documents. Larger organizations with more complex e-mail topologies may need longer e-mail policy documents. If your organization has a large e-mail policy document, please refer to the Caller-ID specification for information on how to split it up."
This is stupid -- DNS shouldn't have to be twisted into knots to get this to work. These solutions seem to be the lazy way of getting things done: "Distribution of trust is too hard. But we already trust DNS, so let's just mess with DNS until it does what we want it to."
How about a new version of smtp that signs emails using a trusted certificate (yes, I recognize that it's pretty unlikely that I'm the first to suggest this)? If browsers come with lists of trusted root certs, why can't SMTP daemons? Current SMTP servers can ignore the signature, and subsequent SMTP servers could use it as a cue to bypass spam filters (or skip directly to a "domain is known bad?" decision point).
While MS is mucking with stuff, why don't they have Windows automagically generate a cert for someone's identity when a new user is created, and then include email signatures by default in Outlook/OE? Outlook and OE seem to handle S/MIME just about as well as Mozilla/TBird do.
(Cue boilerplate "your solution to the problem of Spam sucks because of..." here).
You'll probably only be able to get timing resolution near that of the OS tick interrupt interval, right? Sounds like the makings of a piss-poor logic analyzer.
I suppose if you were using an open source OS kernel, one where you could change the OS tick interval -- you might be able to make use of your logic analyzer idea.
WTF, would it have killed you to put "*SPOILER*" in the subject line? :)
Will this operate in competition with Digital Radio Mondiale? Do we really need competing digital radio standards? I suppose DRM's goal is not high-def radio, so they're not identical. I think we have a VHS/Beta, DVD +/- RW, 3.5"/5.25" battle on our hands.
I think most motherboards require that the power supply deliver 1A on the +5V during standby, else they don't support the standby mode(s).
Excellent! I appreciate the info. I was considering upgrading some of this stuff lately, but I had not yet seen one of those phone connecting blocks. Home Depot sells a Leviton module for this, but it had RJ11 jacks, rather than punchdowns, and it only had about 6-7 extensions on only one line.
Exactly. A total bs question. If I had been the bonehead to ask it, the only acceptable answer (IMO) would be "man ps".
No, I wouldn't classify PostScript as a markup language either. I was trying to provide examples of document file formats, as a generic category. I figured PostScript to be most often used as a document format, but a good exception to an overly broad claim that "no document formats are programming languages." One might read that claim into my post, so I inserted PostScript as a distinction between "document file formats" and "markup languages".
This just in -- housefly researchers determine that human beings are near immortal, with natural lifespans in excess of two months.
I had a similar experience. The self check-in terminals apparently run windows (I saw the blue screen in GRIA, but most/all airlines have these in most/all airports by now) and one of them was idling at a BSOD.
Oh, and the POS terminals at my local cafeteria ran a windows variant (the operator had to power cycle it when it stopped working). POS seems appropriate for windows.
Now you're just jerking me around...
I don't like science-orientated universities. I prefer science oriented universities.
Seriously, sounds like it would make a great replacement for maintaining uClinux separately. iPod on linux, anyone?
Redundancy, anyone?