Looking at the ratio of "insightful" vs. "funny" postings here... it's obviously because programmers just don't have a very good sense of humor!
A Bad Leapfrog Implementation
on
A GUI For Books
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Isn't this pretty much the same thing as the Leapfrog products? Leapfrog uses a magnetic stylist to monitor where the child is pressing on the page but this is certainly nothing new. And definitely nothing exciting or well done.
Let me get this straight. If you don't have the skills to keep someone engaged in conversation, this thing vibrates. Hm. Haven't those devices already been sold for decades in adult stores?
Just suppose we do. And some crazy (Earthling) madman dictatorship country decides to play along - you know, for the protection of all man kind. But, surprisingly, all of his "madmen" seem to be targetted for Washington DC.... Would that mean George W. would change course and all of a sudden become a democrat... or smart...?
The AP ran a story this weekend, captured by Yahoo, talking about Dan Geer and his thoeries of how the Microsoft Monoculture endangers computer security. I have concerns.
Although I know this won't fend off the zealots who just need to speak their mind, else their puny little heads explode off of their shoulders, atrophied from lack of lifting their hands any higher than a keyboard, I offer this caveat: What I'm about to present is merely philosophical rambling, curious wonder, nothing more than an innocent what if. It is, in no way, intended to offer an argument, solution, opposition, or anything else that would offend (other than those puny headed, shoulderless freaks).
Just the facts, Mam
I found it intriguing that, as the AP article mentioned:
"Steven Cooper, the Homeland Security Department's chief information officer... acknowledged [monoculture] was a concern and said the department would likely expand its use of Linux and Unix as a precaution."
Why hasn't Mr. Cooper, the media, and suposed security experts who promote U/Linux as a safe alternative, acknowledge that U/Linux also have their share of security advisories? Take a look at Secunia and their product listing. Doesn't anyone care that Solaris 9 had more advisories (42) in 2003 than Windows 2000 Server (36)? Doesn't it scare anyone that, while Windows XP Home edition had 32 advisories, Red Hat 9 had more than twice as many with 72? Debian 3 had 186!
Doesn't Open Source claim to have a better development model by throwing more eyeballs at the source code, thereby eliminating - or minimizing - security flaws earlier?
Missing the forest for the trees
Take a look at this, also from the AP article:
"Mike Reiter of Carnegie-Mellon University and Stephanie Forrest, a University of New Mexico biologist who has been gleaning lessons for computer security from living organisms for years, recently received a $750,000 National Science Foundation (news - web sites) grant to study methods to automatically diversify software code.
Daniel DuVarney and R. Sekar of the State University of New York-Stony Brook are exploring "benign mutations" that would diversify software, preserving the functional portions of code but shaking up the nonfunctional portions that are often targeted by viruses."
Are these people frickin bonkers? We're barely capable of securing the simplest SMTP and FTP services. Software is already beyond our comprehension. What makes us so arrogant as to assume we can write software that makes other software more secure - without breaking it, without opening unforseen security breaches? We are decades away from being that intelligent.
Of course, on the plus side of this approach, as software gets more complicated, it will be too obfuscated for the Puny Heads to understand and, therefore, will be a great deterrent for attacks! (Yeah, sarcasm)
Miopic Intelligence
Dan Geer likes to compare the information world to that of biology, equating computer viruses with biological viruses. I have one problem with this way of thinking. Biological viruses simply exist, have always existed and will always exist. They don't have an agenda. They don't have malicious intent. They aren't scheduled or targeted. They are nature. It's the way the system works. The global ecosystem is s
Yes, you are misstaken. The patent is very explicitly tied to XML as the container. While the embodiment of the patent mentions other formats, the claims do not.
You need to understand how patents work. It's not the embodiment of the patent that's important; it's the claims. The claims are very specific that this patent covers scripts, marked with the CDATA keyword, within XML files. The XML in the case is merely a container. They're patenting the use of CDATA scripts within XML - not XML (or any other container) itself.
I'm pleased that you returned with such a light hearted response. Although I your inventive e-mail address hints that you are a religious warior, bent of ridding the earth of the evil empire, it's refreshing to see someone respond without taking it all too seriously. And by the way, I just happen to be a M$ evangelist because that's what I'm currently working on. I wasn't born into M$ and I'm sure I don't retire using it either.
Cheers! (And go home already - have a great weekend)
Ouch! Your witty rhetoric is stinging! Good thing I'm not usually up against such brilliant and insightful debaters. (Sit back and watch folks... he won't be able to restrain himself... here comes the storm...)
Firstly, the snide comment on monopolies is simply unwarranted and certainly not as sarcastically entertaining as I'm sure it was intended. Too often the word "monopoly" is used as merely a code-name for "those-who-are-winning-and-who-aren't-me!" So 'nuf said there.
Secondly, the ubiquitous nature of the Internet is the single biggest reason behind it's success. While I agree that the "genetic makeup" of the Internet may also be its weakest link, I have to ask, "What's the alternative?"
Look at how the Internet, much like the telephone, has made communication so much more efficient. It has opened channels across the world, across socio-economic cultures, across demographic diversities that have never been accessible before - at least to the average Joe/Jane. This would have been impossible if, say, every country was forced to use its own network transport layer. Sure, Cisco would love it - they'd be able to sell country-specific routers to automate the traffic translations. They'd make a fortune!
Is the article suggesting that we create multiple network infrastructure to obfuscate malicious interrogation? If so, how could it be done without public standards - which would defeat the purpose anyway?
The article's viewpoint is short-sighted. The answer is not to mutate the DNA of the Internet (Ethernet/TCP/IP/etc), but rather to enhance its perimeter defenses, such as SMTP. That protocol itself is way to vulnerable. Outlook is a fine product; I doubt anyone would argue that. But look how much it's been [editorially] attacked recently because it's based on an ancient protocol and has been jerryrigged to overcome the security holes of its communication layer.
I don't know, maybe I'm rambling, but the article irked me. Just a bad day I guess.
1. (Do you mean 100 concurrent "users" or "hits"? There's a big difference! Let's assume you know what you're talking about, as much as we can pretend anyway.) While 100 concurrent users may not be a huge load, it's not exactly a slugish business day either. I would ask this: if your clients are getting 100 concurrent users then they're getting a respectable amount of traffic and I would hope that translates into cash flow... so why the hell can't they afford the $20K?
2. You're very vague. Apparently, this isn't just a Web site if you're also serving SOAP requests. Yes, any XML-based protocol is going to be slower simply because of bandwidth.
3. Although SQL Server doesn't support C# triggers, its stored procedure mechanisms are quite efficient.
4. I think you need to find a new SQL Server DBA if he's (or she's) providing poor performance numbers as you suggest and feeding you crap about real-time replication. I've done r/t repl across multiple servers, across multiple continents, using high bandwidth with no problem.
5. Why would you want to convert an ASP/HTML page to a WebService page? If you convert them to ASP.NET pages instead, you'll see a higher performance. Use WebServices only where they make sense (to satisfy requests from remote software requests - not Internet browsers with humans behind them.)
6. Why are you using "quite a bit of reflection"? If you don't know what your code looks like, maybe you should open up an editor some time.
we're kinda stuck with Merant PVCS here since we'rea regulated environment and can't switch very easily. PVCS has proven to be ok, but lacks stable integration with VS.NET, making it harder to use. And the comment above is correct: the GUI is horribly slow even in the smallest projects - even if installed on your local workstation. their tech support staff is about average and typically needs 2 or 3 days to solve your problems.
in the past, i've actually used vss quite successfully in small to moderately sized projects with about 10 developers. i've never lost data.
Slashdot Mirror
Looking at the ratio of "insightful" vs. "funny" postings here... it's obviously because programmers just don't have a very good sense of humor!
Isn't this pretty much the same thing as the Leapfrog products? Leapfrog uses a magnetic stylist to monitor where the child is pressing on the page but this is certainly nothing new. And definitely nothing exciting or well done.
RE: "Most of the responses in said blog posting aren't positive" Hm. Sounds like \.
Let me get this straight. If you don't have the skills to keep someone engaged in conversation, this thing vibrates. Hm. Haven't those devices already been sold for decades in adult stores?
"Certainly you can never underestimate the level of malicious people out there"
And he can?
It takes one to know one!
Just suppose we do. And some crazy (Earthling) madman dictatorship country decides to play along - you know, for the protection of all man kind. But, surprisingly, all of his "madmen" seem to be targetted for Washington DC.... Would that mean George W. would change course and all of a sudden become a democrat... or smart...?
Monoculture or Diversity?
The AP ran a story this weekend, captured by Yahoo, talking about Dan Geer and his thoeries of how the Microsoft Monoculture endangers computer security. I have concerns.
Although I know this won't fend off the zealots who just need to speak their mind, else their puny little heads explode off of their shoulders, atrophied from lack of lifting their hands any higher than a keyboard, I offer this caveat: What I'm about to present is merely philosophical rambling, curious wonder, nothing more than an innocent what if. It is, in no way, intended to offer an argument, solution, opposition, or anything else that would offend (other than those puny headed, shoulderless freaks).
Just the facts, Mam
I found it intriguing that, as the AP article mentioned:
Why hasn't Mr. Cooper, the media, and suposed security experts who promote U/Linux as a safe alternative, acknowledge that U/Linux also have their share of security advisories? Take a look at Secunia and their product listing. Doesn't anyone care that Solaris 9 had more advisories (42) in 2003 than Windows 2000 Server (36)? Doesn't it scare anyone that, while Windows XP Home edition had 32 advisories, Red Hat 9 had more than twice as many with 72? Debian 3 had 186!
Doesn't Open Source claim to have a better development model by throwing more eyeballs at the source code, thereby eliminating - or minimizing - security flaws earlier?
Missing the forest for the trees
Take a look at this, also from the AP article:
Are these people frickin bonkers? We're barely capable of securing the simplest SMTP and FTP services. Software is already beyond our comprehension. What makes us so arrogant as to assume we can write software that makes other software more secure - without breaking it, without opening unforseen security breaches? We are decades away from being that intelligent.
Of course, on the plus side of this approach, as software gets more complicated, it will be too obfuscated for the Puny Heads to understand and, therefore, will be a great deterrent for attacks! (Yeah, sarcasm)
Miopic Intelligence
Dan Geer likes to compare the information world to that of biology, equating computer viruses with biological viruses. I have one problem with this way of thinking. Biological viruses simply exist, have always existed and will always exist. They don't have an agenda. They don't have malicious intent. They aren't scheduled or targeted. They are nature. It's the way the system works. The global ecosystem is s
Yes, you are misstaken. The patent is very explicitly tied to XML as the container. While the embodiment of the patent mentions other formats, the claims do not.
You need to understand how patents work. It's not the embodiment of the patent that's important; it's the claims. The claims are very specific that this patent covers scripts, marked with the CDATA keyword, within XML files. The XML in the case is merely a container. They're patenting the use of CDATA scripts within XML - not XML (or any other container) itself.
I'm pleased that you returned with such a light hearted response. Although I your inventive e-mail address hints that you are a religious warior, bent of ridding the earth of the evil empire, it's refreshing to see someone respond without taking it all too seriously. And by the way, I just happen to be a M$ evangelist because that's what I'm currently working on. I wasn't born into M$ and I'm sure I don't retire using it either. Cheers! (And go home already - have a great weekend)
Ouch! Your witty rhetoric is stinging! Good thing I'm not usually up against such brilliant and insightful debaters. (Sit back and watch folks... he won't be able to restrain himself... here comes the storm...)
Firstly, the snide comment on monopolies is simply unwarranted and certainly not as sarcastically entertaining as I'm sure it was intended. Too often the word "monopoly" is used as merely a code-name for "those-who-are-winning-and-who-aren't-me!" So 'nuf said there.
Secondly, the ubiquitous nature of the Internet is the single biggest reason behind it's success. While I agree that the "genetic makeup" of the Internet may also be its weakest link, I have to ask, "What's the alternative?"
Look at how the Internet, much like the telephone, has made communication so much more efficient. It has opened channels across the world, across socio-economic cultures, across demographic diversities that have never been accessible before - at least to the average Joe/Jane. This would have been impossible if, say, every country was forced to use its own network transport layer. Sure, Cisco would love it - they'd be able to sell country-specific routers to automate the traffic translations. They'd make a fortune!
Is the article suggesting that we create multiple network infrastructure to obfuscate malicious interrogation? If so, how could it be done without public standards - which would defeat the purpose anyway?
The article's viewpoint is short-sighted. The answer is not to mutate the DNA of the Internet (Ethernet/TCP/IP/etc), but rather to enhance its perimeter defenses, such as SMTP. That protocol itself is way to vulnerable. Outlook is a fine product; I doubt anyone would argue that. But look how much it's been [editorially] attacked recently because it's based on an ancient protocol and has been jerryrigged to overcome the security holes of its communication layer.
I don't know, maybe I'm rambling, but the article irked me. Just a bad day I guess.
re Title: Dr. Seuss' Yertle the Turtle
1. (Do you mean 100 concurrent "users" or "hits"? There's a big difference! Let's assume you know what you're talking about, as much as we can pretend anyway.) While 100 concurrent users may not be a huge load, it's not exactly a slugish business day either. I would ask this: if your clients are getting 100 concurrent users then they're getting a respectable amount of traffic and I would hope that translates into cash flow... so why the hell can't they afford the $20K?
2. You're very vague. Apparently, this isn't just a Web site if you're also serving SOAP requests. Yes, any XML-based protocol is going to be slower simply because of bandwidth.
3. Although SQL Server doesn't support C# triggers, its stored procedure mechanisms are quite efficient.
4. I think you need to find a new SQL Server DBA if he's (or she's) providing poor performance numbers as you suggest and feeding you crap about real-time replication. I've done r/t repl across multiple servers, across multiple continents, using high bandwidth with no problem.
5. Why would you want to convert an ASP/HTML page to a WebService page? If you convert them to ASP.NET pages instead, you'll see a higher performance. Use WebServices only where they make sense (to satisfy requests from remote software requests - not Internet browsers with humans behind them.)
6. Why are you using "quite a bit of reflection"? If you don't know what your code looks like, maybe you should open up an editor some time.
we're kinda stuck with Merant PVCS here since we'rea regulated environment and can't switch very easily. PVCS has proven to be ok, but lacks stable integration with VS.NET, making it harder to use. And the comment above is correct: the GUI is horribly slow even in the smallest projects - even if installed on your local workstation. their tech support staff is about average and typically needs 2 or 3 days to solve your problems. in the past, i've actually used vss quite successfully in small to moderately sized projects with about 10 developers. i've never lost data.