Um. What's the difference between "=" vs ==" in C and Pascal's use of ":=" and "="? They both seem to serve the same purpose, and there's nothing confusing about that, is there?
C will accept '=' in comparison statements e.g. if (i = 0) is completely valid. It will assign the variable i the value of 0, and follow the 'false path', as in C, 1 = true, everything else equals false. The problem is that most of the time, that's the complete opposite of what people want. Pascal won't let you do that, because it doesn't let assignments occur within comparison statements.
No array bounding, no memory protection, casts all over the place without any errors, subtleties like '==' vs '='. C is a language for people who already know how to program (well), not those who're learning.
I like C a lot, however I'd hate to have learned to program in it. Fortunately I'd learned and had a strong foundation in Pascal first.
So what would you counterfeit? For the small cost of printing a Cisco label that knock off SFP will make you far more profit than the Finisar equivalent.
Before I knew what was being paid, I lobbied for Cisco branded Finisar SFPs, because I assumed the mark-up was going to be no more than 20%. It's not - it's in the order of at least 80%. If Cisco say that they provide far more QA to justify the huge mark up, that tends to imply that Finisar are very low quality... so why are Cisco using them in the first place? IOW, it's impossible to see how Cisco's markup margin justifies likely no more than 1/100th, 1/1000th or 1/10000th of a percent better quality.
Even then, a properly designed network won't have a single point of failure, and won't have a relatively low cost item such as the SFP being the single point of failure.
If Finisar are good enough for Cisco, they're good enough for me.
The only case in which server encryption would do a bit of good is if the datacenter has no physical security, and every time a system boots, someone has to walk over to it and type a 20+ character random password.
So you're saying that no data is important enough to encrypt such that if a server fails and reboots, somebody has to spend time entering a password back into it's console? Even at a 24 x 7 staffed facility? Even with on-call people no more than an hour away?
I know of servers with 1700+ day up times. I've run networking equipment that has 1200+ day year up times. I expect, at a minimum, highly available systems carrying sensitive data should have up times of at least six months, meaning no more than one password entry ever six months.
I hardly think the inconvenience of having to type in a password upon boot justifies not encrypting important and sensitive information.
Yes, I work in IT security.
It concerns me that you do. You seem too willing to give up security for convenience.
Bullied kids are the embryos of IT profession. For the future of the industry, we need kids to retreat to their parent's basements and get good at computering. Who's going to run the Internet in the future? Who's going to endlessly debate Macs verses PCs? Who's going to "meep"? Who's going to "grok"?
Britain is gone. British no longer have the will or the means to save themselves, they have already in spirit surrendered to muslims and while the process will take some time, it will happen unless they find a fucking clue and stop treating their own british-born citizen like sheep.
It's not the Muslim religion's agenda to take over the world. It was the British Empire's. If you're going to make sterotypical comments like that, then you ought to remember what your "british-born" citizens have to atone for.
and sitting in front of it. Windows is therefore vulernable to every user of Windows. So what makes you trust that everybody whos using Windows can be trusted not to exploit it? Why do they need to lock down desktops in corporate environments if everybody who uses Windows is trustworthy?
As other people have said, IT is a support function for most businesses. In some cases, this can create an authority problem - the IT section is expected to do what ever the rest of the organisation requests, and also to then wear that cost. It also can mean that as the rest of organisation aren't in the "IT business" they don't know or don't allow for internal and ongoing IT originated work to be performed.
Because businesses are in th business of making money, there should always be a business case for what ever the organisation does, including the work that the IT section performs. The business case should identify how what is being requested either makes money or saves money.
The charge back model not only enforces requiring business cases, but also attributes the costs of the work back to where it both originates and where it should be providing a benefit.
The main drawback is that it can create a monopoly provider issue - if the senior management dictate that all IT work must be done by the IT section, then IT sections can be tempted to become profit centres, and therefore not be competitive. One way to handle that situation is to set corporate standards and requirements for IT itegration, and then allow sections outside IT to compete for the work.
It isn't a perfect solution, however I think one if it's fundmental benefits is enforcing the business case requirement - and having had to work on projects which don't necessarily provide the return to the organisation that they should, mainly because a business case wasn't done before the work commenced, I see real value in that.
And why do you think you wield such power to make heads role? What "community" do you lead? Why are you hiding behind a pseudonym of "unity100" when you're supposedly well known?
This family don't own and have never owned the words "Nexus One" - both valid words from the dictionary, and not trademarked in the context of a phone.
The IETF will happily accept individual Internet-Draft submissions for review. They'll publish them as RFCs if they have merit.
And this is the problem. These articles on Slashdot bring out all the people with "wonderful" ideas about how IPv6 is wrong, and how they'd have fixed it or done "better" instead. But as they say, "the proof is in the pudding", and these people never seem to be bothered even going into the kitchen, let alone trying to actually cook anything.
IPv6 is specified, has been implemented in most OSes and works. It may not be perfect, and may not be as widely deployed as it should be by now, but it's better than IPv4, and solves one of the fundamental problems IPv4 has (i.e. lack of address space), as well as incorporating a number of better ideas that were shown to be useful from the experience of IPX, Appletalk and IPv4.
IOW, I'm basically saying, you should have "put up or shut up", and as you and other "punters" here on Slashdot haven't put up... well...
The thing is, Intel don't make CPUs for "some people", they make CPUs for "most people". IOW, the common case. People on slashdot, including the OP I originally replied to, usually aren't the common case. When judged by what I think the market is for this CPU, then I think 35% CPU utilsation while displaying a HD movie is arguably lower than it needs to be. If it was 65% utilsation, it'd still be acceptable.
"In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice they aren't"
Most people don't multitask on their desktop, or better described, "significantly multitask", meaning run multiple programs are once that are intensively using the CPU(s). Typically, they're running one application, which they're focussed on, and other background applications, while they are running, are mostly idle, or utilising no more than the occasiona few percent.
Ripping a movie, on an Atom CPU PC (likely a netbook) at the same time as watch one? I think that's an unlikely event.
Running a highly trafficed web server, on an Atom CPU? I think that's even less likely that ripping a move while watching one.
Remember the OP's criticism? 35% CPU utilsation, which of course still allows 65% CPU for any other tasks, such as ripping a movie, running a web server etc. was unacceptable. So how much unused CPU is enough for more than likely theortical, rather than in practice, use? 70%, 80%, 90%? Any free CPU is CPU you've paid for but aren't getting any value from. The greater the unutilised CPU percentage, the less value for money you're getting.
People buy CPU capacity based on their peak usage, not their average usage. My fundamental point, and why I agree with "Solid HD" performance, is that the typical high load use of a PC while watching a movie is only watching that movie. If these new Intel CPUs with GPUs still have 65% capacity left while the movie is playing, you could say they're significantly overspec'd for their likely peak use - by 65% or so percent.
Slashdot Mirror
E.g. http://www.openafs.org/, http://www.gluster.org/
Um. What's the difference between "=" vs ==" in C and Pascal's use of ":=" and "="? They both seem to serve the same purpose, and there's nothing confusing about that, is there?
C will accept '=' in comparison statements e.g. if (i = 0) is completely valid. It will assign the variable i the value of 0, and follow the 'false path', as in C, 1 = true, everything else equals false. The problem is that most of the time, that's the complete opposite of what people want. Pascal won't let you do that, because it doesn't let assignments occur within comparison statements.
No array bounding, no memory protection, casts all over the place without any errors, subtleties like '==' vs '='. C is a language for people who already know how to program (well), not those who're learning.
I like C a lot, however I'd hate to have learned to program in it. Fortunately I'd learned and had a strong foundation in Pascal first.
So what would you counterfeit? For the small cost of printing a Cisco label that knock off SFP will make you far more profit than the Finisar equivalent.
Before I knew what was being paid, I lobbied for Cisco branded Finisar SFPs, because I assumed the mark-up was going to be no more than 20%. It's not - it's in the order of at least 80%. If Cisco say that they provide far more QA to justify the huge mark up, that tends to imply that Finisar are very low quality ... so why are Cisco using them in the first place? IOW, it's impossible to see how Cisco's markup margin justifies likely no more than 1/100th, 1/1000th or 1/10000th of a percent better quality.
Even then, a properly designed network won't have a single point of failure, and won't have a relatively low cost item such as the SFP being the single point of failure.
If Finisar are good enough for Cisco, they're good enough for me.
and realise that to easily comply with this law, you encrypt the filesystem underneath the database, not the data in the database itself.
Then again, anybody who declares themselves to be a guru at something probably is suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect.
The only case in which server encryption would do a bit of good is if the datacenter has no physical security, and every time a system boots, someone has to walk over to it and type a 20+ character random password.
So you're saying that no data is important enough to encrypt such that if a server fails and reboots, somebody has to spend time entering a password back into it's console? Even at a 24 x 7 staffed facility? Even with on-call people no more than an hour away?
I know of servers with 1700+ day up times. I've run networking equipment that has 1200+ day year up times. I expect, at a minimum, highly available systems carrying sensitive data should have up times of at least six months, meaning no more than one password entry ever six months.
I hardly think the inconvenience of having to type in a password upon boot justifies not encrypting important and sensitive information.
Yes, I work in IT security.
It concerns me that you do. You seem too willing to give up security for convenience.
De-perimeterization (perimeter erosion) Explained
Distributed Firewalls
On your MB? What about your discrete USB ports?
Multitouch enhancing a keyboard I could perhaps see as valid.
That's where Apple got the technology from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks
I would have loved to have bought one, but IIRC, the cost was around US$370, and that was well out of my price range.
Bullied kids are the embryos of IT profession. For the future of the industry, we need kids to retreat to their parent's basements and get good at computering. Who's going to run the Internet in the future? Who's going to endlessly debate Macs verses PCs? Who's going to "meep"? Who's going to "grok"?
Who's going to visit Slashdot?
College degrees are way overrated. This is coming from someone with multiple degrees from MIT, Harvard, and Oxford.
Are those colleges doing a bulk deal if you buy all of them at once?
Britain is gone. British no longer have the will or the means to save themselves, they have already in spirit surrendered to muslims and while the process will take some time, it will happen unless they find a fucking clue and stop treating their own british-born citizen like sheep.
It's not the Muslim religion's agenda to take over the world. It was the British Empire's. If you're going to make sterotypical comments like that, then you ought to remember what your "british-born" citizens have to atone for.
And when you're only getting no where near IPv6's address space for the same upgrade cost, it'd be a very large effort for very little value.
131/8 was used in one or a few books or TCP/IP training courses. I can't remember which, I think it might have been Novell's TCP/IP course.
and sitting in front of it. Windows is therefore vulernable to every user of Windows. So what makes you trust that everybody whos using Windows can be trusted not to exploit it? Why do they need to lock down desktops in corporate environments if everybody who uses Windows is trustworthy?
As other people have said, IT is a support function for most businesses. In some cases, this can create an authority problem - the IT section is expected to do what ever the rest of the organisation requests, and also to then wear that cost. It also can mean that as the rest of organisation aren't in the "IT business" they don't know or don't allow for internal and ongoing IT originated work to be performed.
Because businesses are in th business of making money, there should always be a business case for what ever the organisation does, including the work that the IT section performs. The business case should identify how what is being requested either makes money or saves money.
The charge back model not only enforces requiring business cases, but also attributes the costs of the work back to where it both originates and where it should be providing a benefit.
The main drawback is that it can create a monopoly provider issue - if the senior management dictate that all IT work must be done by the IT section, then IT sections can be tempted to become profit centres, and therefore not be competitive. One way to handle that situation is to set corporate standards and requirements for IT itegration, and then allow sections outside IT to compete for the work.
It isn't a perfect solution, however I think one if it's fundmental benefits is enforcing the business case requirement - and having had to work on projects which don't necessarily provide the return to the organisation that they should, mainly because a business case wasn't done before the work commenced, I see real value in that.
away.
CRS1 maybe, but not CMTS routers.
And why do you think you wield such power to make heads role? What "community" do you lead? Why are you hiding behind a pseudonym of "unity100" when you're supposedly well known?
http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2009/09/who-put-the-ipv6-in-my-internet/
? Those bastards should be taxed the most!
This family don't own and have never owned the words "Nexus One" - both valid words from the dictionary, and not trademarked in the context of a phone.
The IETF will happily accept individual Internet-Draft submissions for review. They'll publish them as RFCs if they have merit.
And this is the problem. These articles on Slashdot bring out all the people with "wonderful" ideas about how IPv6 is wrong, and how they'd have fixed it or done "better" instead. But as they say, "the proof is in the pudding", and these people never seem to be bothered even going into the kitchen, let alone trying to actually cook anything.
IPv6 is specified, has been implemented in most OSes and works. It may not be perfect, and may not be as widely deployed as it should be by now, but it's better than IPv4, and solves one of the fundamental problems IPv4 has (i.e. lack of address space), as well as incorporating a number of better ideas that were shown to be useful from the experience of IPX, Appletalk and IPv4.
IOW, I'm basically saying, you should have "put up or shut up", and as you and other "punters" here on Slashdot haven't put up ... well...
speeding bullet, and was able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Fabrice needs to lift his game.
The thing is, Intel don't make CPUs for "some people", they make CPUs for "most people". IOW, the common case. People on slashdot, including the OP I originally replied to, usually aren't the common case. When judged by what I think the market is for this CPU, then I think 35% CPU utilsation while displaying a HD movie is arguably lower than it needs to be. If it was 65% utilsation, it'd still be acceptable.
"In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice they aren't"
Most people don't multitask on their desktop, or better described, "significantly multitask", meaning run multiple programs are once that are intensively using the CPU(s). Typically, they're running one application, which they're focussed on, and other background applications, while they are running, are mostly idle, or utilising no more than the occasiona few percent.
Ripping a movie, on an Atom CPU PC (likely a netbook) at the same time as watch one? I think that's an unlikely event.
Running a highly trafficed web server, on an Atom CPU? I think that's even less likely that ripping a move while watching one.
Remember the OP's criticism? 35% CPU utilsation, which of course still allows 65% CPU for any other tasks, such as ripping a movie, running a web server etc. was unacceptable. So how much unused CPU is enough for more than likely theortical, rather than in practice, use? 70%, 80%, 90%? Any free CPU is CPU you've paid for but aren't getting any value from. The greater the unutilised CPU percentage, the less value for money you're getting.
People buy CPU capacity based on their peak usage, not their average usage. My fundamental point, and why I agree with "Solid HD" performance, is that the typical high load use of a PC while watching a movie is only watching that movie. If these new Intel CPUs with GPUs still have 65% capacity left while the movie is playing, you could say they're significantly overspec'd for their likely peak use - by 65% or so percent.