Part of the reason for this is that many ISPs do not provide custom reverse lookups, or do not make it easily acessible. I have my own domain, and I would prefer just to use a forward only SPF lookup to identify what IPs are allowed to send email from my domain.
Sorry, I don't care what tools are available, parsing a comma delimited file when the records are reasonably simple in structure will always be easier. XML is really only usefull when the data resists structure.
Documents are really the only place where I can see XML adding any benifit. ( Unless more bits in the stream are considered benifit. )
Just a bit of a warning, the direct TV arguement has already fallen flat in court. While you do have the right to intercept the signal, you don't have the right to decrypt it. Welcome to the DMCA.
While I agree with most of your analisys, I don't think that the courts are as pure as you have painted them. The legislature often writes laws that violate the constitution, but the courts often do the same thing with rulings that relate to the constitution with logic that only SCOs lawyers could appreciate. It's call "legislating from the bench" and it happens all the time.
Who says the bandwith cap will have anything to do with it? If they are monitoring the traffic at the last hop, they will see the bandwith used even if the cable modem drops the packets.
charge in the order of cents per kilobit per second in excess of whatever the modem cap is.
And then just for fun I'll start generating gobs of traffic from my 7mbps link to anybody I don't like who uses that ISP. If the kbps charge is set high enough to be a deterent, I ought to be able to do some real damage.:)
Actually I would love to see this work just inside my own company. It would really cut down on a lot of the useless inter-company email I get if the sender had to pay a small fee out of their own budget for each recipient.
You definitly nailed me on one point. I was mindlessly using the word deficit when I should have been using the word debt. It wasn't a matter of being confused, just using the wrong word. You should have been listening to what I meant, not what I said!;)
As to the Clinton surpluses, they were only in the two peak years of the boom, and it was debatable that they even existed at all. I don't recall the details, but the bottom line was that the DEBT was larger each year then the last.
As to your assertion that Bush had the luxury of a TRILLION DOLLAR surplus, that is just plain wrong. By the time Bush took office the country had been in a full recession for almost a year.
Government deficit is expected and even good in a down market, in the same way that it is acceptible for a business to take on debt in order to finance new areas of growth. The problem comes in when the debt gets out of hand, or isn't paid down from the results of the investment. I disagree with you assertion that the US has borrowed beyond it's means, but I do agree that we are headed that direction.
I think Bush's record on the environment and individual freedom is terrible, but I don't see that the national debt can be placed at his feet. He was handed an almost 6 trillian dollar debt, a country in recession, an under-funded military, and then 9/11.
If you want to blame him for wasting money on the war in Iraq I could understand that, but that's a much bigger discussion. Those that supported the war will always say it was worth the cost, and those that didn't will always say it was a waste. Were already far enough off topic that I would rather not jump into that mess.
I know I probably shouldn't be encouraging an off-topic post, but I hate to leave these cheap-shots unchallenged.
I agree that deficit spending can be defined as "the current generation stealing from the next" I think it is ignorant to blame it on the Bush administration.
Bill Clinton was fortunate enough to be in office during the dot-com boom that brought unprecedented growth to the US tax base. It was at that time when we should have gotten a balanced budget. If we can't pay off our deficits in a boom, then when can we?
Clinton projected that the massive growth would continue indefinitely, and would balance the budget sometime in the next administration. Then when we went into recession (almost a year before Bush took office) the deficits came right back.
The right way to manage deficits is to shrink them in boom cycles, and allow them to grow in down cycles. For this reason I applaud Clinton for raising taxes in the boom, and I applaud Bush for lowering them in the bust. The most important thing right now is to get the economy back on track.
Bush has faced a lot of problems in his presidency that Clinton was fortunate enough to not have, and it is unfair to criticize him for not balancing the budget in a recession when Clinton couldn't do it in the midst of the dot-com bubble.
I believe that the deficit is too big an issue to try and blame it on any one person or party.
BTW: I didn't vote for Bush in the last election, and it is doubtful that I will vote for him in the next.
Actually I find the fact that Winders tries to bring the formatting with to be very anoying. Most of the time it doesn't work right, and causes all sorts of behavior, Esp in Word and Outlook.
If Linux does get this feature I hope that there will be two different paste methods, to past with or without formating.
I think your missing the point. If the choice is between creating a perfect GUI - whatever that means - and creating a GUI that is similar to what they are already familiar with.
The reality is that, if your goal is to speed adoption of Linux, the second choice is better. If your goal is to create the perfect interface then you should go with the first.
This approach works well for product development, but there is a lot of confidential data that would be useless if it couldn't leave the building. CEOs and marketoids work on confidential data that must be brought on the road to present/negotiate with clients and business partners. These are also the most likely users to cluelessly allow someone to get unapproved access to those files.
Expect to see that laptops will start to be more locked-down tight. Fritz chips will allow for the instalation of a trusted OS that will only allow sanctioned people to add/remove/update software.
As much as I dislike the Microsoft monopoly, I really think the whole diversification arguement ( at least as it is presented )is a crock. If 20% of our banking system, or 20% of our power-grid, or 20% of our 911 call-centers go down it will be enough to cause an economic colapse, or a national disaster with serious loss of life.
Where diversity makes sense is that it can be used within a closed system like a bank to prevent a single vulnerability from allowing an attacker, virus, or cascade failure from getting to the important data. For instance, front-end webservers should be different then the back-end application servers, which should be different from the data-engines, which should be different from the database farm.
The difference doesn't need to be in terms of OS ( although that can help), but in terms of protocol. It is doubtfull that even MS would have the same vulnerability in there implementation of 4 different protocols. ( I am of course ignoring the possibility of a flaw in the IP stack, but such a flaw is more likely to allow a DOS type attack than a breach. )
Where MS really is a problem is the fact that they do not work well in a discrete architecture, because too many of there protocols overlap with RPC, domain-trusts, or other such beasts. This was done in an effort so aid their lock-in strategy by making it easier to use all Windows systems than a mix of platforms. But the end result is that they make it impossible to create reasonable protocol diversity without bringing in non MS products, or disabling much of their features.
Your assuming that the copy and paste functions will work. With the proper DRM switches turned on, neither of those methods will be able to duplicate content from the protected document.
Of course nothing prevents you from manually retyping the data, or taking a picture of the screen with your digital camera.
The key weakness is still that it only takes one person to crack the encryption to distribute it to anyone who wants it.
DRM can only protect the content while it is in digital form, but the content is useless unless it is converted to an analog form that can be understood by your eyes and ears.
Watermarking/fingerprinting can work to a small extent, but that can be overcome by averaging the results of a number of separate originals.
Anonomous file sharing networks will do the rest.
Sounds like your experience is a little bit like mine. Except that I'm a little bit older so when I was in school I spent my class-time hand-writing code in Apple basic.;)
I never got great grades though because I would never get my homework done. I remember sitting for hours in front of a page trying to do the work, but every few seconds I would always get distracted. It wasn't that the work was hard, in fact the easier the work was the less able I was to do it.
Things got a little better for me in high-school when I attended a Catholic / Military school where I was a boarder and had things really structured for me. It still took me a lot longer than everyone else to get my work done, because I really had to struggle to stay on task. We had a closed study-hall every night for 1-2 hours where we had to stay at our desks and work, but my mind was always somewhere else.
Later that year I was diagnosed with ADD, and started taking Rittalin. It really was a big help for me, and I took it for the next couple of years. But then I started thinking that I didn't want to be relient on drugs for the rest of my life so I took myself off the meds. 15 years later I now really believe that was a mistake. I could have gotten much more than I did out of my college years if I had stayed on the meds.
I started taking Rittalin again a few years ago, and it has made a big difference for me again. Both personaly and professionaly it has made a huge difference. I am concidering trying to move to one of the alternative meds though, because dealing with the legal hoops for a controlled substance is a pain.
It could be anything, but usualy the more stimulating somthing is the more likely my brain will "lock-in". Sometimes it can even be an especialy hard technical problem. The stimulation doesn't always have to come from the outside.
Most modern thinking in ADHD is that AAD ( Attention Abnormality Disorder ) would have been a better term. The point is that people with ADHD ( myself being one of them ) can't choose for themselves what they will concentrate on. In fact, when something like a video-game gets my concentration it is almost impossible for me to let it go. Even if I shut the game off my brain will keep trying to play. It's hard to describe and very frustrating. At least ADHD is better than MBD ( Minimal Brain Dysfunction ) which is what they used to call it.
While I agree with the idea that less energy should be spent focusing on exploits, and more should be spent on vulnerabilities, the bilogical angle has been way overdone.
The bological anology is often pushed far past the breaking-point. There are serious differences between the Internet and the biosphere that make this thinking at best flawed, and at worst dangerous.
The first place where the analogy breaks, is that computer worms and viruses do not spread like their biological counterparts. An effective worm can spread worldwide in well under an hour. Gladly, we have never seen a biological virus move that quickly.
Another place where it breaks is that nobody cares if they pick up a virus that kills several million cells before the immune system can shut it down. In fact, this happens all the time and people don't even know they are sick. I don't think that we should have that level of acceptance to losses on our networks. Once a machine gets infected a new filter will not remove the infection, and even a few infected machines can wreak havoc on personal information or corporate liability.
Bilogical defences are soft, in that they let an acceptable level of damage to be done in order to address and eliminate the intruder. Computers just don't work that way.
By far, the most dangerous aspect of this thinking is that idea that computer systems must and will always be vulnerable. Filters really only work against eploits or at best vulnerabilities. But if a vulnerability is known, why not just remove it?
Microsoft loves this thinking, because if software is always going to be vulnerable then they can't be blamed for writing insecure software. I do realize that Microsoft is not the source of all vulnerable software, but they are a prime example of how development practices can impact security.
The things that need to happen to make the Internet reasonably secure are really much simpler than the biological analogy makes them out to be.
1. New software development methods, and in some cases new languages, need to be designed and implemented with security as the core requirement.
2. Patches for known vulnerabilities must be relased with just enough code to fix the problem. This should be done in a completely separate process than the release of new or modified functionality. Administrators need to feel confident that security patches wont break their applications.
3. Security patches must be automatic. This will not happen without number 2, because systems administrators will be really slow to start allowing outside parties to push code to their working systems. A good patch system should be de-centralized so that an administrator can point all servers to a single patch source over which he/she has control to push patches as they are made available.
Speaking as a bruised and bloody firewall administrator, implementing anything above layer-3 on a large firewall deployment is a bad idea. I am assuming by the use of Firewall-1 that this is a large deployment.
Many of the firewalls I have been involved with support 10-50 applications, or sometimes even more. When it comes time to do an upgrade I don't have time to properly investigate how the next version of firewall code might affect or be affected by features of each application. This is especialy true when some or all of the applications use overly complex network models like Micro$oft is known to require.
Always push complexity to the edges of the network where it can be managed one app at a time.
Fools ignore complexity; pragmatists suffer it; experts avoid it; geniuses remove it.
A. Perlis
By most methods of moral judgement, morality can only be defined by a choice of will. Science, technology, or objects do not have a moral nature. By themselves they are not moraly good or evil.
It's easy to say that a device that can"peer through battlefield smoke to find human targets" is evil, but if you or someone you care about is being shot at by those "human targets" you may see it diferently.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the reason for this is that many ISPs do not provide custom reverse lookups, or do not make it easily acessible. I have my own domain, and I would prefer just to use a forward only SPF lookup to identify what IPs are allowed to send email from my domain.
Sorry, I don't care what tools are available, parsing a comma delimited file when the records are reasonably simple in structure will always be easier. XML is really only usefull when the data resists structure.
Documents are really the only place where I can see XML adding any benifit. ( Unless more bits in the stream are considered benifit. )
Just a bit of a warning, the direct TV arguement has already fallen flat in court. While you do have the right to intercept the signal, you don't have the right to decrypt it. Welcome to the DMCA.
While I agree with most of your analisys, I don't think that the courts are as pure as you have painted them. The legislature often writes laws that violate the constitution, but the courts often do the same thing with rulings that relate to the constitution with logic that only SCOs lawyers could appreciate. It's call "legislating from the bench" and it happens all the time.
Yeah, it could never happen.
Who says the bandwith cap will have anything to do with it? If they are monitoring the traffic at the last hop, they will see the bandwith used even if the cable modem drops the packets.
charge in the order of cents per kilobit per second in excess of whatever the modem cap is.
And then just for fun I'll start generating gobs of traffic from my 7mbps link to anybody I don't like who uses that ISP. If the kbps charge is set high enough to be a deterent, I ought to be able to do some real damage. :)
Actually I would love to see this work just inside my own company. It would really cut down on a lot of the useless inter-company email I get if the sender had to pay a small fee out of their own budget for each recipient.
The answer is that you really don't force them to perform the computation, you just refuse to read their message unless they do.
You definitly nailed me on one point. I was mindlessly using the word deficit when I should have been using the word debt. It wasn't a matter of being confused, just using the wrong word. You should have been listening to what I meant, not what I said! ;)
As to the Clinton surpluses, they were only in the two peak years of the boom, and it was debatable that they even existed at all. I don't recall the details, but the bottom line was that the DEBT was larger each year then the last.
As to your assertion that Bush had the luxury of a TRILLION DOLLAR surplus, that is just plain wrong. By the time Bush took office the country had been in a full recession for almost a year.
Government deficit is expected and even good in a down market, in the same way that it is acceptible for a business to take on debt in order to finance new areas of growth. The problem comes in when the debt gets out of hand, or isn't paid down from the results of the investment. I disagree with you assertion that the US has borrowed beyond it's means, but I do agree that we are headed that direction.
I think Bush's record on the environment and individual freedom is terrible, but I don't see that the national debt can be placed at his feet. He was handed an almost 6 trillian dollar debt, a country in recession, an under-funded military, and then 9/11.
If you want to blame him for wasting money on the war in Iraq I could understand that, but that's a much bigger discussion. Those that supported the war will always say it was worth the cost, and those that didn't will always say it was a waste. Were already far enough off topic that I would rather not jump into that mess.
I know I probably shouldn't be encouraging an off-topic post, but I hate to leave these cheap-shots unchallenged.
I agree that deficit spending can be defined as "the current generation stealing from the next" I think it is ignorant to blame it on the Bush administration.
Bill Clinton was fortunate enough to be in office during the dot-com boom that brought unprecedented growth to the US tax base. It was at that time when we should have gotten a balanced budget. If we can't pay off our deficits in a boom, then when can we?
Clinton projected that the massive growth would continue indefinitely, and would balance the budget sometime in the next administration. Then when we went into recession (almost a year before Bush took office) the deficits came right back.
The right way to manage deficits is to shrink them in boom cycles, and allow them to grow in down cycles. For this reason I applaud Clinton for raising taxes in the boom, and I applaud Bush for lowering them in the bust. The most important thing right now is to get the economy back on track.
Bush has faced a lot of problems in his presidency that Clinton was fortunate enough to not have, and it is unfair to criticize him for not balancing the budget in a recession when Clinton couldn't do it in the midst of the dot-com bubble.
I believe that the deficit is too big an issue to try and blame it on any one person or party.
BTW: I didn't vote for Bush in the last election, and it is doubtful that I will vote for him in the next.
Actually I find the fact that Winders tries to bring the formatting with to be very anoying. Most of the time it doesn't work right, and causes all sorts of behavior, Esp in Word and Outlook.
If Linux does get this feature I hope that there will be two different paste methods, to past with or without formating.
I think your missing the point. If the choice is between creating a perfect GUI - whatever that means - and creating a GUI that is similar to what they are already familiar with.
The reality is that, if your goal is to speed adoption of Linux, the second choice is better. If your goal is to create the perfect interface then you should go with the first.
This approach works well for product development, but there is a lot of confidential data that would be useless if it couldn't leave the building. CEOs and marketoids work on confidential data that must be brought on the road to present/negotiate with clients and business partners. These are also the most likely users to cluelessly allow someone to get unapproved access to those files.
Expect to see that laptops will start to be more locked-down tight. Fritz chips will allow for the instalation of a trusted OS that will only allow sanctioned people to add/remove/update software.
As much as I dislike the Microsoft monopoly, I really think the whole diversification arguement ( at least as it is presented )is a crock. If 20% of our banking system, or 20% of our power-grid, or 20% of our 911 call-centers go down it will be enough to cause an economic colapse, or a national disaster with serious loss of life.
Where diversity makes sense is that it can be used within a closed system like a bank to prevent a single vulnerability from allowing an attacker, virus, or cascade failure from getting to the important data. For instance, front-end webservers should be different then the back-end application servers, which should be different from the data-engines, which should be different from the database farm.
The difference doesn't need to be in terms of OS ( although that can help), but in terms of protocol. It is doubtfull that even MS would have the same vulnerability in there implementation of 4 different protocols. ( I am of course ignoring the possibility of a flaw in the IP stack, but such a flaw is more likely to allow a DOS type attack than a breach. )
Where MS really is a problem is the fact that they do not work well in a discrete architecture, because too many of there protocols overlap with RPC, domain-trusts, or other such beasts. This was done in an effort so aid their lock-in strategy by making it easier to use all Windows systems than a mix of platforms. But the end result is that they make it impossible to create reasonable protocol diversity without bringing in non MS products, or disabling much of their features.
Your assuming that the copy and paste functions will work. With the proper DRM switches turned on, neither of those methods will be able to duplicate content from the protected document.
Of course nothing prevents you from manually retyping the data, or taking a picture of the screen with your digital camera.
The key weakness is still that it only takes one person to crack the encryption to distribute it to anyone who wants it. DRM can only protect the content while it is in digital form, but the content is useless unless it is converted to an analog form that can be understood by your eyes and ears. Watermarking/fingerprinting can work to a small extent, but that can be overcome by averaging the results of a number of separate originals. Anonomous file sharing networks will do the rest.
Sounds like your experience is a little bit like mine. Except that I'm a little bit older so when I was in school I spent my class-time hand-writing code in Apple basic. ;)
I never got great grades though because I would never get my homework done. I remember sitting for hours in front of a page trying to do the work, but every few seconds I would always get distracted. It wasn't that the work was hard, in fact the easier the work was the less able I was to do it.
Things got a little better for me in high-school when I attended a Catholic / Military school where I was a boarder and had things really structured for me. It still took me a lot longer than everyone else to get my work done, because I really had to struggle to stay on task. We had a closed study-hall every night for 1-2 hours where we had to stay at our desks and work, but my mind was always somewhere else.
Later that year I was diagnosed with ADD, and started taking Rittalin. It really was a big help for me, and I took it for the next couple of years. But then I started thinking that I didn't want to be relient on drugs for the rest of my life so I took myself off the meds. 15 years later I now really believe that was a mistake. I could have gotten much more than I did out of my college years if I had stayed on the meds.
I started taking Rittalin again a few years ago, and it has made a big difference for me again. Both personaly and professionaly it has made a huge difference. I am concidering trying to move to one of the alternative meds though, because dealing with the legal hoops for a controlled substance is a pain.
It could be anything, but usualy the more stimulating somthing is the more likely my brain will "lock-in". Sometimes it can even be an especialy hard technical problem. The stimulation doesn't always have to come from the outside.
Most modern thinking in ADHD is that AAD ( Attention Abnormality Disorder ) would have been a better term. The point is that people with ADHD ( myself being one of them ) can't choose for themselves what they will concentrate on. In fact, when something like a video-game gets my concentration it is almost impossible for me to let it go. Even if I shut the game off my brain will keep trying to play. It's hard to describe and very frustrating. At least ADHD is better than MBD ( Minimal Brain Dysfunction ) which is what they used to call it.
While I agree with the idea that less energy should be spent focusing on exploits, and more should be spent on vulnerabilities, the bilogical angle has been way overdone.
/she has control to push patches as they are made available.
The bological anology is often pushed far past the breaking-point. There are serious differences between the Internet and the biosphere that make this thinking at best flawed, and at worst dangerous.
The first place where the analogy breaks, is that computer worms and viruses do not spread like their biological counterparts. An effective worm can spread worldwide in well under an hour. Gladly, we have never seen a biological virus move that quickly.
Another place where it breaks is that nobody cares if they pick up a virus that kills several million cells before the immune system can shut it down. In fact, this happens all the time and people don't even know they are sick. I don't think that we should have that level of acceptance to losses on our networks. Once a machine gets infected a new filter will not remove the infection, and even a few infected machines can wreak havoc on personal information or corporate liability.
Bilogical defences are soft, in that they let an acceptable level of damage to be done in order to address and eliminate the intruder. Computers just don't work that way.
By far, the most dangerous aspect of this thinking is that idea that computer systems must and will always be vulnerable. Filters really only work against eploits or at best vulnerabilities. But if a vulnerability is known, why not just remove it?
Microsoft loves this thinking, because if software is always going to be vulnerable then they can't be blamed for writing insecure software. I do realize that Microsoft is not the source of all vulnerable software, but they are a prime example of how development practices can impact security.
The things that need to happen to make the Internet reasonably secure are really much simpler than the biological analogy makes them out to be.
1. New software development methods, and in some cases new languages, need to be designed and implemented with security as the core requirement.
2. Patches for known vulnerabilities must be relased with just enough code to fix the problem. This should be done in a completely separate process than the release of new or modified functionality. Administrators need to feel confident that security patches wont break their applications.
3. Security patches must be automatic. This will not happen without number 2, because systems administrators will be really slow to start allowing outside parties to push code to their working systems. A good patch system should be de-centralized so that an administrator can point all servers to a single patch source over which he
Speaking as a bruised and bloody firewall administrator, implementing anything above layer-3 on a large firewall deployment is a bad idea. I am assuming by the use of Firewall-1 that this is a large deployment.
Many of the firewalls I have been involved with support 10-50 applications, or sometimes even more. When it comes time to do an upgrade I don't have time to properly investigate how the next version of firewall code might affect or be affected by features of each application. This is especialy true when some or all of the applications use overly complex network models like Micro$oft is known to require.
Always push complexity to the edges of the network where it can be managed one app at a time.
Fools ignore complexity; pragmatists suffer it; experts avoid it; geniuses remove it.
A. Perlis
By most methods of moral judgement, morality can only be defined by a choice of will. Science, technology, or objects do not have a moral nature. By themselves they are not moraly good or evil.
It's easy to say that a device that can"peer through battlefield smoke to find human targets" is evil, but if you or someone you care about is being shot at by those "human targets" you may see it diferently.