Or,
1. Research frantically
2. Make up shit
3. Fill paper with sparsely researched citations to make badly researched stuff look credible
4. Hope the tenure board doesn't look too closely.
Is this a logical result of "publish or perish"? What's next?
They're measuring human-computer input in gigabytes? Seems like the hardware would have a lot to do with that. A single user using a bit-intensive input device would be weighted disproportionately, wouldn't they?
Couldn't they just count by input device? X keyboards, Y modems, Z neurocannular jacks?
You could have a whole "weight class" for obfuscated CSS, since browser support for that standard is so uneven. (As usual, it's getting better, but I still deal regularly with users still "standardized" on Netscape 4.7x by their support people.)
Sounds like that low-friction, win-win side of him coming out. Any bets that his new software geeks are/. Linux fans and he just didn't want to argue with them?
If I recall correctly, the original SHP was not even released in response to a specific vulnerability, but as the name implies, was a package intended to provide general "hardening" against unspecified and/or unknown exploits. Most/many savvy server operators had already applied the fixes retail.
If you want to slam Sun/Cobalt on this one, I think you'd be better off picking on them for implying that an out-of-the-box server appliance is secure as shipped, rather than requiring some careful attention. The cobalt-users list makes that point quite regularly - and constructively.
Slashdot Mirror
Really?
Judging from my mail logs, Mr. Ralsky lost that particular postcard among all the other mail.
Or, 1. Research frantically 2. Make up shit 3. Fill paper with sparsely researched citations to make badly researched stuff look credible 4. Hope the tenure board doesn't look too closely. Is this a logical result of "publish or perish"? What's next?
They're measuring human-computer input in gigabytes? Seems like the hardware would have a lot to do with that. A single user using a bit-intensive input device would be weighted disproportionately, wouldn't they? Couldn't they just count by input device? X keyboards, Y modems, Z neurocannular jacks?
You could have a whole "weight class" for obfuscated CSS, since browser support for that standard is so uneven. (As usual, it's getting better, but I still deal regularly with users still "standardized" on Netscape 4.7x by their support people.)
Sounds like that low-friction, win-win side of him coming out. Any bets that his new software geeks are /. Linux fans and he just didn't want to argue with them?
If I recall correctly, the original SHP was not even released in response to a specific vulnerability, but as the name implies, was a package intended to provide general "hardening" against unspecified and/or unknown exploits. Most/many savvy server operators had already applied the fixes retail. If you want to slam Sun/Cobalt on this one, I think you'd be better off picking on them for implying that an out-of-the-box server appliance is secure as shipped, rather than requiring some careful attention. The cobalt-users list makes that point quite regularly - and constructively.