Right, so as others are saying, for Goodness' sake change your email address; but this time, do it right.
Set up an email forwarder such as bigfoot.net (free [as in beer] for a single forwarding address). Tell bigfoot to forward to your true new account, and make sure you never give out your true address - give _everybody_ your bigfoot address.
That way, if you ever need to change your true email address again for any reason, it will just be between you and bigfoot.
Why a tablet? Do you really want to spend all day holding the damned thing? Forget that. Your problem is being hunched over the keyboard & mouse. Your solution is to buy an Alphagrip:
Then you can lift your screen to eye level, enlarge the fonts, and finally lean back just like in the old days, touch-typing away in full ergonomic comfort, just like I am now. I would _never_ go back to a crappy old qwerty board mate. Hell, just watch one of the typing demos and you'll get it:
Don't you have a disclaimer up front that downloaders of open source software accept all risks themselves? If not, why not? If so, can't you just refer them back to that?
In the case of Slashdot moderation, I think you're forgetting something. Working through a page of comments, reading each one, and assessing whether the existing moderation seems fair and accurate takes a significant amount of time. In that time it is entirely likely that others have also moderated the same page.
I'm sure that all moderators will have been caught at least once by seeing a particular comment end up with an inappropriate score as a result. Conscientious moderators will probably then decide that when moderating, they should reload frequently.
I think that that is exactly the right thing to do; and that is what I _would_ do...except that I don't have to because the/. developers have made it unnecessary by invoking the full reload you describe.
If the page were served as you are suggesting, all that would happen is that I would immediately reload the entire page manually; and my action taken with your partial AJAX reload would add up to _more_ traffic, not less.
"When someone is reported as being a cheater, that should give them a significant probability (10%? 20%?) of Matchmaking placing them in a game filled only with other cheaters. That keeps them out of the way for a little while..."
So obviously another way to cheat is to spoof your IP/MAC address a few times and report some other innocent schmuck. I suppose this just reminds us of why we and our PCs will never be secure: whatever the human mind can invent, another human mind can circumvent.
Oh dear. Another person who formerly swooned over the American Dream has now grasped the American Reality (Show). It's a pity s/he doesn't yet seem to have grasped that what the US overlords can do, any overlord can do including the NZ overlords and--what with our 'special relationship' and all--my own.
Yes of course there are many decent people in the US, just as there are in NZ, here and everywhere else. But the rest of the world doesn't experience those people, we experience US culture, which is a loathsome creation encouraging humans to place their own personal greed, self-indulgence and basest desires before everything and everyone else. It's really no surprise that the US government exemplifies the culture of which it is a product.
The sooner the USA falls apart from its own internal divisions and power struggles, the better off the world will be.
Go right ahead, mod me to hell. I really couldn't care less.:)
"Researchers from eEye Digital Security Inc. of California., discovered the vulnerability and provided evidence to Symantec engineers this week, said eEye's chief hacking officer, Marc Maiffret. He demonstrated the attack for The Associated Press."
So it's probably genuine.
"Maiffret said eEye's testing showed the problem affects Norton Antivirus Version 10, including its corporate editions."
"He said Symantec's current security suite - which includes both antivirus and firewall features - did not appear to be vulnerable."
But it doesn't affect the Symantec most used by consumers.
Yes, and therein lies the entire problem. The 'average' person (whatever _that_ is) just wants to _use_ the computer, in exactly the same way that they use a car, or a TV set.
However, it's not a car. It's not a TV set. And now that we have the Intarweb, bad people who want to rob you or use you to rob somebody else, can make your PC do it for them.
There are about two choices:
(a) Disconnect from the Intarweb. Some people are already doing this. Most people don't want to.
2. Learn how to protect yourself. Some people are already doing this. Most people don't want to.
And thus we find ourselves in this same, endlessly looping conversation.
Rhetoric is old-fashioned and therefore had to be thrown out along with logic and philosophy. Nowadays we want jobs, so it's Word, Excel and Powerpoint please.
"Which gives you more control, being handed car keys, or being handed a root password?"
If I want to get to Taco Bell, give me the car keys every time. Mind you, they don't have root passwords there; but there again they do have root beer and I quite like that stuff.
In my country, schools nowadays have nothing to do with teaching children how to go about the process of thinking.
One reason for this is that since human knowledge continues to grow, but children still spend the same eleven to thirteen years at school, some valuable things have to be left out.
Another reason is that some years ago our media whipped up popular opinion to demand that education be made more 'relevant' by focusing more on 'vocational' subjects. In other words, they expend more time and effort on things which _directly_ help you to get a job.
Like it or not, that means Microsoft office products. Not critical analysis, not thought experiments, not logic, not philosophy, not science, not art, not music, not history: Word, Excel and Powerpoint. If you want to get anything better than a minimum wage manual job, then in this country at least, you MUST know Word, Excel and Powerpoint. In this country therefore, those tools constitute computer literacy.
As far as fish are concerned, history suggests it goes more like, "Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll tell his friends. Soon after that there'll be no more fish. Soon after _that_, there'll be no more men. So give a man a fish, and stop playing God.".
Yes. That's because you were looking at just the motherboard box. The HDD is an external. Nearer the end of the video you get to look behind the monitor and the rest of what's normally tucked inside a much bigger box is there, all tangled up in a large mass of cables as you'd expect.
All in all there's nothing new about the Municator except the price. Which doesn't include a monitor. And it's only on sale inside China. So it's not very exciting really.
The salesman at CeBIT states quite clearly that it is intended to help poor Chinese cross the 'digital divide'. It isn't expected to go on sale in the West.
RISE is resilient against brute force attacks because the attacker's work is exponential in the shortest code sequence that will make an externally detectable difference if it is unscrambled properly. We can be optimistic because most IA32 attack codes are at least dozens of bytes long, but if a software flaw existed that was exploitable with, say, a single one-byte opcode, then RISE would be vulnerable, although the process of guessing even a one byte representation would cause system crashes easily detectable by an administrator.
It goes on to explain that almost all of the time, the non-scrambled injected binary code, after being scrambled by RISE's unscrambler, causes an immediate crash, or a no-op, or an infinite loop. The point is that it won't execute.
And yes, it covers a number of both known attacks and theoretical ones.
And yes, it also covers the techniques they used to protect the RISE code itself; and relates RISE's techniques to those used in PaX, stack-smashing protectors (PointGuard et al), etcetera, etcetera. All in all an interesting read: not enough by itself but might make a useful additional layer.
Come on you guys. Surely there aren't any of you left who think that Bush is anything more than a simple downhome Texan carefully selected to deflect criticism and invite ridicule? He's a _figurehead_ guys, just like Blair.
Surely you know that in tribes like Britain and America the real power will always be found _behind_ the throne and never actually on it?
Come on. You guys are smarter than that. While the inattentive are busy posting endless pro- and anti-Bush writings, are any of you watching Cheney?
Blimey yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head here!
All he has to do is take along another personality test of his own and quiz the interviewer(s) right back...
Maybe take along a few friends (5 or 6 should be enough) and bring them in when it's his turn. They could fire personality questions at random between them at whichever interviewer was paying the least attention.
Obviously, he'd first point out that the only reason he's doing it is that, "I had a past employer with real attitude problems and don't want to be anywhere within five miles of anyone like them again".
I like this idea more and more...ohhhh man, the possibilities...:)
As you can see from (#15167154) down below, the professionals involved in this field are indeed highly trained and often highly intelligent.
Points for your consideration:
1. While you thought you were just applying for a job, this potential employer intends to probe every aspect of your private life and personality. Perhaps they consider this perfectly reasonable, given the extreme cost to the employer of making a mistake. Perhaps you don't agree with them.
2. A personality test can be formally written and designed by professionals, or informally conducted at interview. An astute interviewer can probe you more deeply than you think; a professionally designed written test will explore you right to the bottom.
3. Until every job includes a paper test, you might easily prefer to avoid those which do.
4. When every job includes a paper test, it might be time to work for yourself.
Please don't blame the Windows installer. It was written by a programmer but 'developed' by MS management.
Of course the installer _should_ have been offering the newly-created partition as the default, but this is Windows you're talking about. You remember Windows: the thing which always used to simply overwrite your MBR and reformat the entire drive without offering you any choice at all? XP is much more user-friendly. It offers you the choice but makes sure that anyone not paying close attention will still get the same result. This is progress, Redmond-style.
Don't forget that it's the most-used OS out there. Given that there have always been (and will always be) far more stupid people than clever ones, MS is merely correctly addressing its target market. The same approach is taken by truly _democratic_ politicians.
Wise MS knows that, even if you're presently running a MAC, you might still fit their demographic. Do you see how _special_ you nearly were? Repeat after me: "Oooohhh--_shiny_!" No? I guess you're not ready for Aeroglass.:)
Worth remembering: even today, you sometimes have to use your head. Many companies are working hard to overcome this unpleasantness lest you get into the habit of it and start thinking about other things too. By automatically accepting defaults on computer OS installs, you can pave the way for doing the same thing next time you install your country's OS.
The design should be done together. The coding should be done together. The testing should be done together. _Not_ one guy doing a rough design and then the other guy reviewing it (and maybe rewriting it).
The essence of this is _talking_. Talk about what you intend to do before you touch the keyboard. Listen to and assess your partner's replies. Answer your partner's questions. When you reach something approaching consensus, _then_ hit the keys and write some tests. Then implement. Then test. Then review. Then move to the next bit and lather, rinse and repeat.
This will take longer--maybe much longer at first--than working alone; but the code will be vastly better and you'll be producing better code faster as you get used to the technique.
When your partner is doing the talking, follow him/her step by step and pipe up _immediately_ if you've an objection. Don't sit silently analysing one point while your partner runs on. Nobody can listen to one thing and think about another at the same time.
You might want to stay silent because you're afraid you haven't thought it through and have made a mistake. Instead, be completely open, allow yourself to make mistakes, even big ones; even often. It's OK to make a mistake; and mistakes _teach_ you things. Never forget that. Forget your pride instead. You'll become a better programmer.
If you throw yourself into this freely it might just make you into a better person as well; more open, looser, more laid back, more confident, more light-hearted. These are good things. (And guys: women are attracted to these qualities in a man. They've told me so.:)
If something occurs to you while you're typing, stop typing and talk about it. Maybe you've remembered a better way. Maybe you've thought of something new. Maybe it's just an old blind alley. Talk about it and you'll (both) find out. Pair programming is about bringing another mind into your normally internal mental conversation by vocalising.
Although pair programming is a relatively new concept it has many similarities to a development process much favoured in the Eighties: formal code inspections a la Jackson methodology.
For those who don't know: in that process a programmer, having come up with a design, called an inspection meeting _before_ touching the keyboard. (yes, I know about meetings too, but these had a purpose and _worked_). At the meeting were the programmer, a requirements analyst, a DBA, a representative of Ops and a fifth, uninvolved person who did nothing but take notes. The programmer chaired.
The programmer was required to present verbally his or her design and planned implementation. Each of the others was there to offer the view of the design from the POV of their own discipline.
No meeting was allowed to last longer than 20 minutes because being humans, none of the participants could fully focus for longer than that, and _full_ focus was required of everybody present. The last 5 minutes of every meeting was for developing a complete, written task list--for all participants--resulting from the discussion. All tasks on the list had to be at least addressed, if not completed, within a day. Any issues still outstanding at the end required a second, still more focused meeting. There could not be more than 2 meetings. There was no coffee and no doughnuts. There was no time for that.
Like all of my colleagues, I loathed the idea of formal inspections before I did one; and I still loathed them after I'd done a few. The reason? Those guys were picking holes in MY DESIGN! That was my BABY they were criticising. I hated the process; I hated them. And then later, when I saw how much better my baby became, I loved the process; I loved them. IT WORKED. Better code. MUCH better code. Code that would work in the DB. Code which met the requirements. Code that would run silently and sweetly in Ops. Code which scaled well. Code which was efficient and flexible and agile and reuseable. Code which was fast. Code which any programmer woul
...I have to disagree. You should never let it get that far.
The minute your instincts tell you that you are heading towards an abyss (for example an antipattern) you should speak up and question it, pointing out that you happen to know there is a 'bridge out' just around the bend. Then you should explain your reasoning, as it may just be that your partner knows it too but intends to swerve onto a new path which _you_ don't happen to know about. None of us knows everything.
To force the metaphor entirely beyond reason: anybody who has had to rewrite a whole project either wasn't there when the car passed the forks in the road, or else was asleep in the passenger seat.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, so as others are saying, for Goodness' sake change your email address; but this time, do it right.
Set up an email forwarder such as bigfoot.net (free [as in beer] for a single forwarding address). Tell bigfoot to forward to your true new account, and make sure you never give out your true address - give _everybody_ your bigfoot address.
That way, if you ever need to change your true email address again for any reason, it will just be between you and bigfoot.
Why a tablet? Do you really want to spend all day holding the damned thing? Forget that.
Your problem is being hunched over the keyboard & mouse.
Your solution is to buy an Alphagrip:
http://http//www.alphagrips.com/
Then you can lift your screen to eye level, enlarge the fonts, and finally lean back just like in the old days, touch-typing away in full ergonomic comfort, just like I am now. I would _never_ go back to a crappy old qwerty board mate. Hell, just watch one of the typing demos and you'll get it:
http://www.alphagrips.com/typingdemo.html
No, I don't work for them, I just love the device. Oh, and comfort, I like that too.
Smile, breathe, and go slowly.
S
Don't you have a disclaimer up front that downloaders of open source software accept all risks themselves? If not, why not? If so, can't you just refer them back to that?
In the case of Slashdot moderation, I think you're forgetting something. Working through a page of comments, reading each one, and assessing whether the existing moderation seems fair and accurate takes a significant amount of time. In that time it is entirely likely that others have also moderated the same page.
/. developers have made it unnecessary by invoking the full reload you describe.
I'm sure that all moderators will have been caught at least once by seeing a particular comment end up with an inappropriate score as a result. Conscientious moderators will probably then decide that when moderating, they should reload frequently.
I think that that is exactly the right thing to do; and that is what I _would_ do...except that I don't have to because the
If the page were served as you are suggesting, all that would happen is that I would immediately reload the entire page manually; and my action taken with your partial AJAX reload would add up to _more_ traffic, not less.
So obviously another way to cheat is to spoof your IP/MAC address a few times and report some other innocent schmuck. I suppose this just reminds us of why we and our PCs will never be secure: whatever the human mind can invent, another human mind can circumvent.
Yes of course there are many decent people in the US, just as there are in NZ, here and everywhere else. But the rest of the world doesn't experience those people, we experience US culture, which is a loathsome creation encouraging humans to place their own personal greed, self-indulgence and basest desires before everything and everyone else. It's really no surprise that the US government exemplifies the culture of which it is a product.
The sooner the USA falls apart from its own internal divisions and power struggles, the better off the world will be.
Go right ahead, mod me to hell. I really couldn't care less.
1. Companies, whether public or private, exist _only_ to maximise profits for their owners.
2. Maximum profits derive from monopolies.
3. To achieve monopoly, companies first attempt to crush their competitors.
4. If they cannot, then merging is almost as good.
The correct spelling is 'German'. For Goodness' sake get a dictionary.
So it's probably genuine.
"Maiffret said eEye's testing showed the problem affects Norton Antivirus Version 10, including its corporate editions."
"He said Symantec's current security suite - which includes both antivirus and firewall features - did not appear to be vulnerable."
But it doesn't affect the Symantec most used by consumers.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
YES, THAT'S WHAT WE WANT!!!
Make it EXACTLY like that. And please hurry up.
However, it's not a car. It's not a TV set. And now that we have the Intarweb, bad people who want to rob you or use you to rob somebody else, can make your PC do it for them.
There are about two choices:
(a) Disconnect from the Intarweb. Some people are already doing this. Most people don't want to.
2. Learn how to protect yourself. Some people are already doing this. Most people don't want to.
And thus we find ourselves in this same, endlessly looping conversation.
Rhetoric is old-fashioned and therefore had to be thrown out along with logic and philosophy. Nowadays we want jobs, so it's Word, Excel and Powerpoint please.
If I want to get to Taco Bell, give me the car keys every time. Mind you, they don't have root passwords there; but there again they do have root beer and I quite like that stuff.
One reason for this is that since human knowledge continues to grow, but children still spend the same eleven to thirteen years at school, some valuable things have to be left out.
Another reason is that some years ago our media whipped up popular opinion to demand that education be made more 'relevant' by focusing more on 'vocational' subjects. In other words, they expend more time and effort on things which _directly_ help you to get a job.
Like it or not, that means Microsoft office products. Not critical analysis, not thought experiments, not logic, not philosophy, not science, not art, not music, not history: Word, Excel and Powerpoint. If you want to get anything better than a minimum wage manual job, then in this country at least, you MUST know Word, Excel and Powerpoint. In this country therefore, those tools constitute computer literacy.
As far as fish are concerned, history suggests it goes more like, "Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll tell his friends. Soon after that there'll be no more fish. Soon after _that_, there'll be no more men. So give a man a fish, and stop playing God.".
Yes. That's because you were looking at just the motherboard box. The HDD is an external. Nearer the end of the video you get to look behind the monitor and the rest of what's normally tucked inside a much bigger box is there, all tangled up in a large mass of cables as you'd expect.
All in all there's nothing new about the Municator except the price. Which doesn't include a monitor. And it's only on sale inside China. So it's not very exciting really.
Like it says above.
The salesman at CeBIT states quite clearly that it is intended to help poor Chinese cross the 'digital divide'. It isn't expected to go on sale in the West.
It goes on to explain that almost all of the time, the non-scrambled injected binary code, after being scrambled by RISE's unscrambler, causes an immediate crash, or a no-op, or an infinite loop. The point is that it won't execute.
And yes, it covers a number of both known attacks and theoretical ones.
And yes, it also covers the techniques they used to protect the RISE code itself; and relates RISE's techniques to those used in PaX, stack-smashing protectors (PointGuard et al), etcetera, etcetera. All in all an interesting read: not enough by itself but might make a useful additional layer.
Come on you guys. Surely there aren't any of you left who think that Bush is anything more than a simple downhome Texan carefully selected to deflect criticism and invite ridicule? He's a _figurehead_ guys, just like Blair.
Surely you know that in tribes like Britain and America the real power will always be found _behind_ the throne and never actually on it?
Come on. You guys are smarter than that. While the inattentive are busy posting endless pro- and anti-Bush writings, are any of you watching Cheney?
Blimey yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head here!
:)
All he has to do is take along another personality test of his own and quiz the interviewer(s) right back...
Maybe take along a few friends (5 or 6 should be enough) and bring them in when it's his turn. They could fire personality questions at random between them at whichever interviewer was paying the least attention.
Obviously, he'd first point out that the only reason he's doing it is that, "I had a past employer with real attitude problems and don't want to be anywhere within five miles of anyone like them again".
I like this idea more and more...ohhhh man, the possibilities...
As you can see from (#15167154) down below, the professionals involved in this field are indeed highly trained and often highly intelligent.
Points for your consideration:
1. While you thought you were just applying for a job, this potential employer intends to probe every aspect of your private life and personality. Perhaps they consider this perfectly reasonable, given the extreme cost to the employer of making a mistake. Perhaps you don't agree with them.
2. A personality test can be formally written and designed by professionals, or informally conducted at interview. An astute interviewer can probe you more deeply than you think; a professionally designed written test will explore you right to the bottom.
3. Until every job includes a paper test, you might easily prefer to avoid those which do.
4. When every job includes a paper test, it might be time to work for yourself.
Please don't blame the Windows installer. It was written by a programmer but 'developed' by MS management.
:)
Of course the installer _should_ have been offering the newly-created partition as the default, but this is Windows you're talking about. You remember Windows: the thing which always used to simply overwrite your MBR and reformat the entire drive without offering you any choice at all? XP is much more user-friendly. It offers you the choice but makes sure that anyone not paying close attention will still get the same result. This is progress, Redmond-style.
Don't forget that it's the most-used OS out there. Given that there have always been (and will always be) far more stupid people than clever ones, MS is merely correctly addressing its target market. The same approach is taken by truly _democratic_ politicians.
Wise MS knows that, even if you're presently running a MAC, you might still fit their demographic. Do you see how _special_ you nearly were? Repeat after me: "Oooohhh--_shiny_!" No? I guess you're not ready for Aeroglass.
Worth remembering: even today, you sometimes have to use your head. Many companies are working hard to overcome this unpleasantness lest you get into the habit of it and start thinking about other things too. By automatically accepting defaults on computer OS installs, you can pave the way for doing the same thing next time you install your country's OS.
d5
The design should be done together. The coding should be done together. The testing should be done together.
:)
_Not_ one guy doing a rough design and then the other guy reviewing it (and maybe rewriting it).
The essence of this is _talking_. Talk about what you intend to do before you touch the keyboard. Listen to and assess your partner's replies. Answer your partner's questions. When you reach something approaching consensus, _then_ hit the keys and write some tests. Then implement. Then test. Then review. Then move to the next bit and lather, rinse and repeat.
This will take longer--maybe much longer at first--than working alone; but the code will be vastly better and you'll be producing better code faster as you get used to the technique.
When your partner is doing the talking, follow him/her step by step and pipe up _immediately_ if you've an objection. Don't sit silently analysing one point while your partner runs on. Nobody can listen to one thing and think about another at the same time.
You might want to stay silent because you're afraid you haven't thought it through and have made a mistake. Instead, be completely open, allow yourself to make mistakes, even big ones; even often. It's OK to make a mistake; and mistakes _teach_ you things. Never forget that. Forget your pride instead. You'll become a better programmer.
If you throw yourself into this freely it might just make you into a better person as well; more open, looser, more laid back, more confident, more light-hearted. These are good things. (And guys: women are attracted to these qualities in a man. They've told me so.
If something occurs to you while you're typing, stop typing and talk about it. Maybe you've remembered a better way. Maybe you've thought of something new. Maybe it's just an old blind alley. Talk about it and you'll (both) find out. Pair programming is about bringing another mind into your normally internal mental conversation by vocalising.
Although pair programming is a relatively new concept it has many similarities to a development process much favoured in the Eighties: formal code inspections a la Jackson methodology.
For those who don't know: in that process a programmer, having come up with a design, called an inspection meeting _before_ touching the keyboard. (yes, I know about meetings too, but these had a purpose and _worked_). At the meeting were the programmer, a requirements analyst, a DBA, a representative of Ops and a fifth, uninvolved person who did nothing but take notes. The programmer chaired.
The programmer was required to present verbally his or her design and planned implementation. Each of the others was there to offer the view of the design from the POV of their own discipline.
No meeting was allowed to last longer than 20 minutes because being humans, none of the participants could fully focus for longer than that, and _full_ focus was required of everybody present. The last 5 minutes of every meeting was for developing a complete, written task list--for all participants--resulting from the discussion. All tasks on the list had to be at least addressed, if not completed, within a day. Any issues still outstanding at the end required a second, still more focused meeting. There could not be more than 2 meetings. There was no coffee and no doughnuts. There was no time for that.
Like all of my colleagues, I loathed the idea of formal inspections before I did one; and I still loathed them after I'd done a few. The reason? Those guys were picking holes in MY DESIGN! That was my BABY they were criticising. I hated the process; I hated them. And then later, when I saw how much better my baby became, I loved the process; I loved them. IT WORKED. Better code. MUCH better code. Code that would work in the DB. Code which met the requirements. Code that would run silently and sweetly in Ops. Code which scaled well. Code which was efficient and flexible and agile and reuseable. Code which was fast. Code which any programmer woul
...I have to disagree. You should never let it get that far.
The minute your instincts tell you that you are heading towards an abyss (for example an antipattern) you should speak up and question it, pointing out that you happen to know there is a 'bridge out' just around the bend. Then you should explain your reasoning, as it may just be that your partner knows it too but intends to swerve onto a new path which _you_ don't happen to know about. None of us knows everything.
To force the metaphor entirely beyond reason: anybody who has had to rewrite a whole project either wasn't there when the car passed the forks in the road, or else was asleep in the passenger seat.
Two heads are nearly always better than one.
...absolutely the only commodity anywhere in the world which you can give away freely to everybody you meet--and still yourself possess.
Though of course they might also be there to effect their affectation...