It is also important that your developers and qa team have access to fresh, live data if at all possible. It is easier to develop when you have real data to develop with; Plan on updating your QA and development data once a week.
In some environments this is a serious security risk, since production data can contain SSN's, medical or other "private" data, etc. Use at your own risk.
He's currently doing dev directly on the production server and is wondering if there is a better way.
His COMPANY was doing dev directly on the server, he has implemented SVN and a Test environment, and is wondering what the Best Practices might be. He knows there's a better way, and rather brilliantly knows he doesn't have all the answers.
For the record just a dev and prod environment isn't enough, ideally you would have multiple dev environments (individual playgrounds plus common test areas, two QA environments (New releases and current release for bugfix testing), and possibly even a User Acceptance Testing area. There should be no code updates a release is migrated through the environments, all environmental variables get read from the environment...
Of course, every dev environment will be different, with different needs, release cycles, etc...
the point I was trying to make is that the judge imposed a penalty against linking to materal, because it was copyrighted.
Your point omits key details. According to your interpretation, property laws mean people can't eat in restaurants anymore, because the proprieter has the right to ban unruly patrons.
If IRTFA correctly, that means I can sue someone for linking to anything I've ever created.
I haven't read the article to discover the details of this case, so I don't know if its based on copyright laws or not. And certainly if that content were at the root of a webpage, this wouldn't apply. And while you could certainly sue for almost anything, I would assume to be successful you would need a history of requests to "cease and dessist" that were ignored.
anything indexed by google can be penalized
You can specifically ask Google to not index your site and they will honor it. The usual method is via robots.txt, though if you wish you can ask to have your content removed from their index.
the standard, BTW, is not to embed
Which doesn't stop thousands of sites whose business model is to frame an existing site with ads they recieve money for. The internet if full of jerks doing things simply because they can.
The Original poster claimed that because technical tricks existed to stop the behavior, that it was therefore OK to engage in that behavior. I presented an analogy to another (very specific, spamming via open relays) behavior that technical tricks existed to stop, spam. I could have suggested Botnets instead, because certainly the technology exists to prevent your computer from becoming a slave. I'm sure there are plenty of others analogies that could be made. The analogy was very relevant.
The point of which is the arguement made, that the behavior is OK because it can be blocked, is foolish
The whole point of HTTP is allowing hypertext to be transported from one place to another.
No, actually, they pretty much broke the internet. There are well-established ways of preventing linking from outside pages (using cookies, checking referrer: tags, etc.).
No, you are over-reacting and ignoring numerous prior precedents. The practice is known as Deep Linking and claiming the technical tricks to block such practices mean its OK to do so is liek claiming Spamming through open relays is ok because there are RBL's that might be able to block it.
This decision in no way forbids linking to deep links, it merely affirms the owner of said targets the right to say "stop".
Thus giving it away is actually required in order to reap those benefits.
Quite the opposite. If they give it away, then I can set up ePhil House o' Classic Literature and reap the benefits of that advertising in place of Google. I can show less advertising because I don't have that nasty overhead of scanning the books. Google's need is to make it available to consumers in exchange for "eyeballs" but keep it away from me. Hammer away on Google's servers and they will cut you off, I ran operations in a company that performed such meta-searches and used to be able to tell you with a high degree of precision where that line was (which we considered business intelligence and thus wouldn't tell you unless you worked there).
And for the record there is no requirement that they give away the content to show you advertising, they choose do to so because a free service attracts more "eyeballs" than a paid service. It up to management to decide which combination of advertising vs subscription fees nets the most profit. Since Google best understands the "charge by advertising" model, the have a predilection for the "advertising-only supported" model.
You know, kinda like how google gives away search engine results and email accounts
Google does not give those things away for free. It exchanges them in return for subjecting you to advertising, which they in turn sell to folks who want to show you advertising.
So not only $1.5 Million in fines, but THOUSANDS more in refunds? So this could cost Sony a total of $1.503 Million dollars? I was going to invest in Sony stock until I noticed that lst little caveat, raising the punishment a potential two or 3 tenths of a percentage point.
If you've got 5 engineers, you make the one with the most seniority the "manager" and I'm betting you get better results than if you bring in a newly minted MBA from one of the Ivies
So you think tying up 50% of the most senior engineers time with management headaches is the key to productivity? No questioning if the guy even wants management responsibilty? If he understands when its time to have the new guy spend 30 hours doing something he can do in 10? If he grasps the financial impact of doing something with cool new tech versus scrounged parts (I've seen senior techs error both ways). Balance the risk/impact of high redundancy versus downtime? Just because a guy bats.300 doesn't make him a great batting coach. How well would any football coach do out on the gridiron today? But appearantly you think a player could coach better than any of the current head coaches out there.
That would be awesome, except Urchin IS Google Analytics. Google bought the package, and while it looks like they may have revived the paid version for those who don't trust Google with their weblogs, I would be nevrous giving them my money.
If, however, you're like 99% of companies out there and make your money from selling support, opening your source code will not change the bottom line one bit.
Except now a competitor can also sell support of your software and undercut your prices. Since they are now selling the exact same software, your only selling point is your understanding of it. And when you split to form your own company (or any other senior engineer), that competitor now has potentially more of that than you do!
Really, he hasn't given one compelling reason to Open Source his project. Why does he want to do this?
And do you think most companies give out free hardware to get "C" grade reviews?
Which is why Consumer Reports has always bought their own hardware. Review sites get customized, tweaked hardware, versions not sold in stores, and are effectively on the the dole by accepting both advertisements and "review" hardware from advertisers. The only thing thats surprising here is the the Marketing Drone actually let the review know the reality, not done for precisely this reason. Obviously this reviewer is new to the scene, in that he's at all surprised by this.
One of the car rags touched on this years ago, they described it as "damning with faint praise", when you get a bad product in you still give a positive review, but throw in lots of qualifiers. "Quality is what you expect at this price point", "Ample ashtrays are provided", etc.
They have always had over-priced, flashy cases with mediocre hardware.
And what is your gripe? Are you the reviewer? Overpriced, perhaps, but you are flat out lying with the statement "mediocre hardware". Premium hardware at premium prices is far more accurate, the one thing I don't recall them ever doing is skimping on the $5,000 desktops.
What about gyroscopic forces? turn the drive 90 degrees and teh spinning disks will want to turn a different way. Light weight helps reduce this, but it sstill must be strong enough not to shear itself off the spindle....
But if they're actual Cisco parts, being sold "unauthorized" (perhaps the factory they're outsourcing the assembly to decided to run an extra production shift or something, make a little money on the side), then the situation could be a lot different.
The summary refers to this as "grey-market", which it doesn't seem to be. Grey market goods are legitimate goods sold outside the authorized distribution channels, it could be imported from outside the US (think Canadian Pharmacies, though many of those are fake), it could be bought on the cheap to be resold. The Key being Grey market goods are by definition the "real thing", obtained legally but resold without the backing of the maker. Its up to company policies then whether they will support grey market goods. On the other hand, Black market goods may not legally obtained, may not be legal for possession, or may not be what they are represented as being, and are certainly not supported by their "makers". Note that "black market" goods might be represented as "grey market", turns out purveyers of black market goods tend to be dishonest in their dealings.
So which is it? A fake Rolex that actually has a $0.25 quartz movement inside? Or the real deal in terms of functionality and hardware, being made somehow without Cisco's approval and without going through their distribution chain?
Either way the part is called "counterfeit". When it breaks, Cisco won't support it. A Fake Rolex w/ a cheap Quartz movement will likely keep time better than a knock off that tried to replicate the delicate and intricate movement of a true "automatic" watch. If it was made w/o Cisco's approval, they likely made it w/ substandard components and w/o the proper QA procedures, so they can actually make money when the sell it at a deep discount. What do they care, they don't have to worry about supporting it.
He's figured out how to sell hardware that has little to no technological advantages over many of its competitors
Maybe, just maybe, he's figured out that many people care about usability more than technical specs? Geeks know this, case manufacturers broke down and started eliminating the case full of razor wire issues when the geeks started flocking to a case that cost 10% more but had smooth edges and wouldn't shred their hands every time they swapped a component. But when Apple does this for consumer electronics, they assume Jedi mind tricks and marketing brainwashing...
Of course you would meet many people that way who are not familiar with internet spam, but the "Hormel spam" is not very well known over here.
Which is surprising, since the name came from a Monty Python sketch that was itself an homage to the English love of the canned meat product, developed during WWII and after when it was the only reliable and healty way to ship meat to the Europeans.
Unfortunatly, almost all canned meat became known as "Spam" to GI's, even if it was awful war profiteering product that Hormel had nothing to do with.
How about some sort of shortwave radar system that tracks inbound threats, combined with a fast-firing gatling gun that shoots thousands of projectiles per second at the incoming material in order to deflect or destroy it.
Is that why they had that gun in the moon jeep in Armegedon?
I imagine this second screen is driven by a Pocket PC type PDA that updates a small cache of info while the system is on and piggybacks on the WiFi to identify available network connections.
Will anyone be brave enough to buy a third-party implementation of FairPlay?
Anyone who wants to produce a music player (cough Zune cough) without having their customers walk away from any purchased iTMS purchased or go through headaches of burning the CD's and reentering all the track info.
In other words, a lot of people with a lot of money riding on it.
So even if a Blackhat is more qualified, they're probably just dismissed since a thousand other people are eager for the work and meet the basic qualifications. Unfortunate, but something to think about if you want to delve into the dark side of computers and networks.
My question is, why would they know of their "Black Hat" exploits? I have to admit I've skipped applicants who admitted to "hacking" in a black hat context (Not "I sniffed my neighbors WiFi to get free internet", but I hacked into a potential employers network and explored). It shows an inability to set bounds and a lack of understanding of appropriate/inappropriate. I'd rather have lower skills that I can trust over high skills that might be working against me.
As far as I'm concerned it won't matter what happens, just as long as I get my soma.
The key question, is when do we get our matching jumpsuits? I'm especially looking forward to the skimpy female models and the elimination of non-attractive people.
Slashdot Mirror
In some environments this is a serious security risk, since production data can contain SSN's, medical or other "private" data, etc. Use at your own risk.
His COMPANY was doing dev directly on the server, he has implemented SVN and a Test environment, and is wondering what the Best Practices might be. He knows there's a better way, and rather brilliantly knows he doesn't have all the answers.
For the record just a dev and prod environment isn't enough, ideally you would have multiple dev environments (individual playgrounds plus common test areas, two QA environments (New releases and current release for bugfix testing), and possibly even a User Acceptance Testing area. There should be no code updates a release is migrated through the environments, all environmental variables get read from the environment...
Of course, every dev environment will be different, with different needs, release cycles, etc...
Your point omits key details. According to your interpretation, property laws mean people can't eat in restaurants anymore, because the proprieter has the right to ban unruly patrons.
If IRTFA correctly, that means I can sue someone for linking to anything I've ever created.
I haven't read the article to discover the details of this case, so I don't know if its based on copyright laws or not. And certainly if that content were at the root of a webpage, this wouldn't apply. And while you could certainly sue for almost anything, I would assume to be successful you would need a history of requests to "cease and dessist" that were ignored.
anything indexed by google can be penalized
You can specifically ask Google to not index your site and they will honor it. The usual method is via robots.txt, though if you wish you can ask to have your content removed from their index.
the standard, BTW, is not to embed
Which doesn't stop thousands of sites whose business model is to frame an existing site with ads they recieve money for. The internet if full of jerks doing things simply because they can.
The Original poster claimed that because technical tricks existed to stop the behavior, that it was therefore OK to engage in that behavior. I presented an analogy to another (very specific, spamming via open relays) behavior that technical tricks existed to stop, spam. I could have suggested Botnets instead, because certainly the technology exists to prevent your computer from becoming a slave. I'm sure there are plenty of others analogies that could be made. The analogy was very relevant.
The point of which is the arguement made, that the behavior is OK because it can be blocked, is foolish
The whole point of HTTP is allowing hypertext to be transported from one place to another.
Thanks for the laugh.
No, you are over-reacting and ignoring numerous prior precedents. The practice is known as Deep Linking and claiming the technical tricks to block such practices mean its OK to do so is liek claiming Spamming through open relays is ok because there are RBL's that might be able to block it.
This decision in no way forbids linking to deep links, it merely affirms the owner of said targets the right to say "stop".
Quite the opposite. If they give it away, then I can set up ePhil House o' Classic Literature and reap the benefits of that advertising in place of Google. I can show less advertising because I don't have that nasty overhead of scanning the books. Google's need is to make it available to consumers in exchange for "eyeballs" but keep it away from me. Hammer away on Google's servers and they will cut you off, I ran operations in a company that performed such meta-searches and used to be able to tell you with a high degree of precision where that line was (which we considered business intelligence and thus wouldn't tell you unless you worked there).
And for the record there is no requirement that they give away the content to show you advertising, they choose do to so because a free service attracts more "eyeballs" than a paid service. It up to management to decide which combination of advertising vs subscription fees nets the most profit. Since Google best understands the "charge by advertising" model, the have a predilection for the "advertising-only supported" model.
So your grade for Google 101 is an F
Google does not give those things away for free. It exchanges them in return for subjecting you to advertising, which they in turn sell to folks who want to show you advertising.
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Sony is Doomed.
So you think tying up 50% of the most senior engineers time with management headaches is the key to productivity? No questioning if the guy even wants management responsibilty? If he understands when its time to have the new guy spend 30 hours doing something he can do in 10? If he grasps the financial impact of doing something with cool new tech versus scrounged parts (I've seen senior techs error both ways). Balance the risk/impact of high redundancy versus downtime? Just because a guy bats .300 doesn't make him a great batting coach. How well would any football coach do out on the gridiron today? But appearantly you think a player could coach better than any of the current head coaches out there.
That would be awesome, except Urchin IS Google Analytics. Google bought the package, and while it looks like they may have revived the paid version for those who don't trust Google with their weblogs, I would be nevrous giving them my money.
Except now a competitor can also sell support of your software and undercut your prices. Since they are now selling the exact same software, your only selling point is your understanding of it. And when you split to form your own company (or any other senior engineer), that competitor now has potentially more of that than you do!
Really, he hasn't given one compelling reason to Open Source his project. Why does he want to do this?
Exactly. I think the first one was called "Marathon". Shame those guys aren't making games anymore.
Which is why Consumer Reports has always bought their own hardware. Review sites get customized, tweaked hardware, versions not sold in stores, and are effectively on the the dole by accepting both advertisements and "review" hardware from advertisers. The only thing thats surprising here is the the Marketing Drone actually let the review know the reality, not done for precisely this reason. Obviously this reviewer is new to the scene, in that he's at all surprised by this.
One of the car rags touched on this years ago, they described it as "damning with faint praise", when you get a bad product in you still give a positive review, but throw in lots of qualifiers. "Quality is what you expect at this price point", "Ample ashtrays are provided", etc.
They have always had over-priced, flashy cases with mediocre hardware.
And what is your gripe? Are you the reviewer? Overpriced, perhaps, but you are flat out lying with the statement "mediocre hardware". Premium hardware at premium prices is far more accurate, the one thing I don't recall them ever doing is skimping on the $5,000 desktops.
What about gyroscopic forces? turn the drive 90 degrees and teh spinning disks will want to turn a different way. Light weight helps reduce this, but it sstill must be strong enough not to shear itself off the spindle....
The summary refers to this as "grey-market", which it doesn't seem to be. Grey market goods are legitimate goods sold outside the authorized distribution channels, it could be imported from outside the US (think Canadian Pharmacies, though many of those are fake), it could be bought on the cheap to be resold. The Key being Grey market goods are by definition the "real thing", obtained legally but resold without the backing of the maker. Its up to company policies then whether they will support grey market goods. On the other hand, Black market goods may not legally obtained, may not be legal for possession, or may not be what they are represented as being, and are certainly not supported by their "makers". Note that "black market" goods might be represented as "grey market", turns out purveyers of black market goods tend to be dishonest in their dealings.
So which is it? A fake Rolex that actually has a $0.25 quartz movement inside? Or the real deal in terms of functionality and hardware, being made somehow without Cisco's approval and without going through their distribution chain?
Either way the part is called "counterfeit". When it breaks, Cisco won't support it. A Fake Rolex w/ a cheap Quartz movement will likely keep time better than a knock off that tried to replicate the delicate and intricate movement of a true "automatic" watch. If it was made w/o Cisco's approval, they likely made it w/ substandard components and w/o the proper QA procedures, so they can actually make money when the sell it at a deep discount. What do they care, they don't have to worry about supporting it.
Feh! The introduction of the blink tag signaled the downfall of the web to me!
Maybe, just maybe, he's figured out that many people care about usability more than technical specs? Geeks know this, case manufacturers broke down and started eliminating the case full of razor wire issues when the geeks started flocking to a case that cost 10% more but had smooth edges and wouldn't shred their hands every time they swapped a component. But when Apple does this for consumer electronics, they assume Jedi mind tricks and marketing brainwashing...
Which is surprising, since the name came from a Monty Python sketch that was itself an homage to the English love of the canned meat product, developed during WWII and after when it was the only reliable and healty way to ship meat to the Europeans.
Unfortunatly, almost all canned meat became known as "Spam" to GI's, even if it was awful war profiteering product that Hormel had nothing to do with.
Is that why they had that gun in the moon jeep in Armegedon?
I imagine this second screen is driven by a Pocket PC type PDA that updates a small cache of info while the system is on and piggybacks on the WiFi to identify available network connections.
Awesome sig, shame few will understand it...
Anyone who wants to produce a music player (cough Zune cough) without having their customers walk away from any purchased iTMS purchased or go through headaches of burning the CD's and reentering all the track info.
In other words, a lot of people with a lot of money riding on it.
My question is, why would they know of their "Black Hat" exploits? I have to admit I've skipped applicants who admitted to "hacking" in a black hat context (Not "I sniffed my neighbors WiFi to get free internet", but I hacked into a potential employers network and explored). It shows an inability to set bounds and a lack of understanding of appropriate/inappropriate. I'd rather have lower skills that I can trust over high skills that might be working against me.
Personally I'm going to wait for 2013 when the 160 core CPU's are finally out. Only a fool will be in 5 years
The key question, is when do we get our matching jumpsuits? I'm especially looking forward to the skimpy female models and the elimination of non-attractive people.