Yes, I'm trying to suggest that the selection of a language isn't encouraging bad practice. The problem allowing the bad practice that sneaks into development.
The solution I propose is to defend your software from attack through completing the software you're trying to write.
If you are compelled or desire to use an environment, language, or solution where you can only submit SQL strings (and especially when you don't have an option to use parameterized input), the right thing to do is escape the input to avoid injection.
This simple style correction changes the built query using $sql = "select * from sensitive_data where key_id='" + $input + "'" when the evildoer gives you the input ' and 'a'='a from the bad query select * from sensitive_data where key_id='' and 'a'='a' into the safer query select * from sensitive_data where user_id=''' and ''a''=''a' which is no longer a contrived true statement, but is a probably wrong or particular unique ID. This is achieved by the simple addition of escaping around the input akin to SQL = "select * from sensitive_data where key_id='" + mysql_real_escape_string($input)+"'" (none of which, I want to be sure to point out, is either my style or guaranteed to be syntactically correct as it is intended for discussion not use).
This is, after all, essentially what happens when your parameters a re evaluated by the SQL engine anyway. If the system isn't doing it for you, you have to do it. No matter what language.
It's a trivial thing to do, and just like checking that you're not running into buffer size issues adds only a little bit of easy syntax to your code.
So, it's the lazy or inexperienced developer, not the language in which they're developing.
I think you have been fortunate in meeting "most people" who have already had some training to use Windows.
There is nothing more or less intuitive with the Microsoft windowing interface than with Linux or Mac. Stick a person in front of a PC with any OS on it for the first time (we're probably talking 80- or 4-year olds) and they will not be able to do anything substantial without some small guidance, even as small as watching someone else do it first.
Most users can install programs and dork around with the settings for software, but that's not to say they know what they're doing or understand any implications of the "double-click on setup" action they undertake.
And you can destroy a Windows installation by opening an e-mail or visiting a bad link on the Internet. Not so much with the other OSs. That's pretty idiot-friendly, to me. There's plenty of damage to be done by poking in the registry, deleting the wrong file, or even checking the wrong box in a helpful dialog box in Windows. That someone "knows" to avoid those things is a result of some form of training or other experience.
For both of those last two reasons, very few Windows users run systems without anti-virus software...helps with their idiot-proofing.
Given that a drastic majority of people do web browsing and simple word processing (with a stand-alone e-mail program or spreadsheet coming in a close second and third place), there is nothing distinguishing the major OSs or distributions in terms of "intuitive" interface.
I have set up minimal installations for many users built on the automatically-updating Ubuntu, prepared them with the differences between what they're used to (and how ever you might want to label it--trained on) and what they're getting, and have had much fewer support issues.
Perhaps you need to become more familiar with Linux before you put it at the bottom of any list except hyped-to-succeed.
I'm starting to wish I had installed XP instead of Linux on this laptop, because it's idiot-friendly and my brother knows Windows.
I think the second half of that is the core of the truth; he knows Windows, not that Windows is idiot-friendly.
With a little training, and the undoubtedly years' worth of exposure, running any distro of Linux can be as easy and idiot-proof as any other OS. Windows wins this because of the rapid (insert arguable statement here) introduction into nearly every workspace and nearly every computer purchased at nearly every venue in the last nearly 25 years.
The first period of time for anything new is probably going to be difficult for most of us; baking, riding a bike, computers among them. Patience is the key to turning this around.
I'm sure you mean to to say "the Navy even has Windows running ON ships" instead of the implied opposite "ships critical systems are controlled by software run ON Windows."
When I was in the USAF, we used openly available software on our desktop systems for our administrative duties like e-mail and word processing, but on the satellite control systems the software was rigorously controlled. It was not anywhere close to running ON Windows (or Mac or BSD or Linux or Solaris...).
It took me longer to type "php avoid sql injection" into a Google search than it took for Google to return the number one result from Wikipedia (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/PHP_Programming/SQL_Injection) or the number three result from the PHP website (http://php.net/manual/en/security.database.sql-injection.php). It's the lazy PHP programmer (or other straight SQL writing programmer) that doesn't safely format (e.g., simply SQL-escape) the input before sticking the value straight into the generated string. Your (probably cheeky) 24-second rule still applies to learning how to do it correctly.
Well, for one thing, it shows just how much software is still being written in C & C++ rather than managed languages. For another, it shows that a lot of software written in C++ ignores the higher-level features of the language, and uses old-style code littered with strcpy and the likes.
More to the point, it shows how much software is being written by inexperienced or lazy programmers in those languages. In many cases (like when receiving an input value in a CGI request), it's easy to check for the size of incoming data before using it, or to iterate through the incoming data in appropriately sized chunks to work within your available buffer, or to reallocate your buffer to accommodate the additional incoming data when it's larger than was perhaps expected. Especially if your old-style code is using the likes of strcpy, you can do a quick strlen first.
I would have hoped we can do better in 2010...
I wonder how many of these were done by people who have been writing software for fewer than five or even ten years? It isn't that we've overcome these obstacles as an industry, but that we overcome them individually. Lazy has strong staying-power, so there will be some long-standing lazy developers out there. Experience combats most of these, and I hope that anyone writing software for a few years has fallen away from the naive view of the world that so many fresh developers have that perhaps make them think they don't need to bother with writing protection.
It's probably the case that so many of these bugs exist because so many fresh developers are working on so many projects. I suspect that many of these fresh developers are working for lower wages than the older, more cynical developers; the developers with the experience to avoid these. It isn't the case that us old codgers are slow as we develop the software, it's that we're taking the time to put these protections in place, and it's that experience that makes our larger wages worth paying.
How about the one where someone stole someone else's identity from a poorly written application leaving the victim unable to pay for/acquire/use vital services?
Perhaps there's not a direct bug-to-death relationship, but the trivial-to-defeat bugs that top the list can lead to things going awry, like your Toyota incorrectly controlling the brakes or accelerator (not saying that's what caused the Toyota problem, just saying that can happen with some of these simple errors).
It is more likely this will result in an inconvenience, possibly severe, than a death, but sometimes if you're not the only YOU in the computer world, it's like death.
Let this be a good guide when trying to turn classes into careers: if you need to cheat when you're learning the material, you're probably not cut out for that kind of job.
Even at "big brain schools," nothing should be so hard that the able- and right-minded CS student can't tap it out in a reasonable time. Unless the class is in "software re-usability," there's not an awful lot of need to steal code, especially in your junior year, and especially if you're trying to major in CS. If you can't handle creating the relatively trivial stuff they make you do in your introductory classes (and what you take in your junior year is probably still pretty introductory on the grand scale), what makes you think you'll be able to handle the bizarre and abstract requirements you'll get doing the same thing in the real world?
Fighting that application as an encroachment on the IP of the function of the other device would be a less frivolous lawsuit. I could make such an app for my Droid, too, or on a PC...oh, wait...they already exist...POS integrated with a handheld has been done. Even the Fujitsu app/device isn't unique.
Because one thing has the same name as another thing is not a good reason to do make lawsuits.
There are an awful lot of iPads out there other than the one from Apple. Fujitsu is considering trying to get something for nothing.
I can understand it if there's a chance that someone might be confused between the Apple iPad or the Fujitsu iPad, but that's not likely to happen. Yeah, they're both portable, use batteries, and have plastic cases and digital screens, but there's pretty much where the similarities end. Oh, and one is so like ten years ago that most people wouldn't have even thought of it much less confused it.
Can we stop the stoopid litigations so that people can focus on doing things to make money, instead of suing each other for it. Oh, wait...first we must get rid of all of the lawyers...insert favorite lawyer joke here...
And Apple should have just done us a favor and called it the "iPod Jumbo" and been done with it.
I've been to a handful of these shows, and it seldom fails that if you're in the right market in the right vendor's kiosk when the conversation turns the right way, they'll invite you to their room off the floor for a better the peek at the goods. If for no other reason than to remove you from the area of the competition. They shine on with food and drink and free t-shirts, too. If you're a looky-loo, no go, but if you're on the brink of purchasing or implementing, and you're either good with or not full of BS, someone will take you up an elevator to the private party.
Perhaps these folks weren't ALSO displaying their wares on the floor? Someone got crabby because they were bypassing the system, just trying to take advantage of the nearby foot traffic.
I guess I can see the comparison to someone who pulls their van up to the alley beside the bazaar instead of paying for a table within. No one in the flea market likes that.
A retainer, typically, is a fund of money collected in advance that the attorney (they are the lawyers who have passed the bar and have earned the right to practice law..."lawyers" simply have graduated law school...but I digress) bills against. This is to be certain there's money to get paid. As billable work is done the retainer is depleted, and you are possibly billed to refill the retainer (especially if a "buffer" was retained, and not a complete fee). When you end the relationship with the attorney, whatever remains in the retainer, and any investment earned, is returned to you; after all, it is your money, simply being held by your attorney.
The money taken from the retainer is supposed to be used only for billable work, materials, or related costs, not just for having a relationship. Just having a relationship with the attorney shouldn't cost you money--they're (probably) not your spouse.
Attorneys are paid as needed, as you say, on the go. Abuse notwithstanding, of course.
This isn't limited to attorneys, though. I've done this with consulting clients as well, especially ones who believe they will have "nickel and dime" work, or other difficult billing cycles, or who have difficulty paying on time but still need the support.
Nonetheless, you don't get paid just for being ready to work...but only for working.
I remember, way back when, when everyone had to make a programming language. Writing a compiler was part of almost any CSci coursework, and the syntax was up to the author. Sure, most of them ended up being clones of the first-pass language (the one you have to start writing your compiler in before it became self-compiling...not always a requirement), which was probably C, or whatever the author was comfortable with, but it gave an opportunity for all kinds of languages to sprout all over the place.
One of the reasons I prefer Java and C/C++ over Delphi and C#, or Perl over PHP and the others is that they have an available selection of frameworks and libraries that can be added at my discretion, instead of compelling me to begin with the bloated collection of built-in junk that someone else has decided is best for me. Dozens or hundreds of ways to do most of the tasks we have to do, and not any one of them is the best in every situation, and frequently the one chosen to be included isn't the one that meets a need I may have at the time I need it.
The flexibility is what's "fun" about a programming language, which is why we need overloading and reflection, which begs a system that has clean syntax.
Some of the biggest differences, nay, benefits to Solaris/OpenSolaris come when you move away from one system into a network of systems that start to work together. When people compare their single desktop Linux systems to a single OpenSolaris installation, they miss a bit of the boat, and some don't like the parts they miss.
Sun marketed Soalris with the slogan "the network is the computer" for a reason. When you look at their systems, they distribute storage and even processing when they can. They want to help you run everything in a cloud. They want to aggregate storage across systems into single file systems and mount points. They try make it simple to segregate and duplicate applications on the same system using zones.
It isn't just supposed to be a replacement for your desktop where you word process or even play video games, where everyone gets a lot of hot, new, big CPUs and stacks of RAM on or under their desks. OpenSolaris/Solaris (both of which are free as in beer) is meant to be used on a network of systems, not just the one desktop, where the whole of the system is rocking, not necessarily each little bit.
Thanks, but that doesn't seem very netbook-ish. The convertible/tablet/slate PCs that are out there miss the mark when considering the netbook. Particularly when it comes to the all-day battery. Perhaps it's just me, but the netbook fills a different niche than just a smaller or lower-power laptop.
I'm thinking something along the lines of the Touch Book or the announced Asus EEE T91 convertible (which is a compromise...I don't always want yer stinkin' keyboard, yo!). They offer a keyboardless option, but half the battery life goes with it..
Once upon a time I had a (working...still have it, technically) Sharp TriPad, which was kind of like a flip-top notebook format, but it ran Windows CE, instead of a full-blown OS/OE like the netbooks do, and had small memory and storage.
Gimme a GB of RAM, GHz of CPU, touch display, and USB ports...is that too much?
I like the idea of the portability of netbooks, sacrificing power for size and battery life, but would still like to see a good one that can (at least optionally) go without a keyboard. Gimme a nice size (sheet-of-paper is fine), outdoor readable, finger-touchable display with some USB and/or bluetooth keyboard support with that all-day battery, and close to (if not passing) gigahertz performance. If done right, I can add my own storage (USB, flash, whatever) as well as attach to network storage (NFS, SSHFS, FTP...). Sure, there are tablet PCs out there, but they all cost $2K or have tiny displays.
I want to see a workstation/small server based on the "cool threads" multi-core chips. The servers are nice, but with their rack-mount-only designs, they're either unreasonably expensive or loud (or both). Especially now that VMs are catching on like wildfire, I'd like to be able to throw a ton of RAM and HDD at a single box and have a bunch of zones and VM'd OSs running all at once. Of course, it'd have to have SLI or Crossfire...and allow big graphics to back up that multi-core/multi-threading.
I've got one in my garage. Still works. 170K floppy AND tape drive. I've got an Amiga 500, too. Even have an old Apple III (or was it IIi?). Sometimes called "the museum" by the wife. AFAIK they all work still.
I'm more interested in the wireless modem dealing with the 18 miles (or more) from the users' computer to the balloon. Surely it'd be easy enough, at least in more populated areas, to put a long-distance WiMAX-like solution in place.
Exactly! I don't own a car, just a couple of motorcycles.
I ignored the calls (usually ignore calls from "unknown number" or even just numbers I don't know) at first, but they came twice a day...to an office desk phone...to which I had no actual (e.g., phone directory) relationship.
I eventually answered one, receiving the expected robot. I pressed the number as instructed, intending to tell them to remove the number, knowing it probably wouldn't matter. The kind gentlemen asked me about my car, you know, to be sure we were on the same page. I replied with a "do you mean my 1980 Yamaha, or my 1989 Honda?" He chuckled and said "it must be the Honda; what model is that?" I replied honestly with "the 1500cc Valkyrie Tourer."
Then he hung up.
I repeated the exercise during a period of boredom, but this time just kindly told the woman who asked me about my car that I didn't own a car and wasn't planning to buy one, and asked if she'd remove me from their list. She apologized, said it was a done deal and politely hung up. The calls stopped, but only for the rest of the week.
While a computer-based solution, like OLPC, would be dandy, it may be overkill, as I'm sure some will point out. Instead, use a device that takes advantage of "e-paper" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_paper) such as the Amazon Kindle (http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Amazons-Original-Wireless-generation/dp/B000FI73MA) or Sony Reader (http://www.sony.com/reader).
The current $200-400 price tag puts the current selections in the realm of "just get a cheap computer," but perhaps with the volume necessary the production could go up, allowing costs to be driven down, bringing these to within reasonable for every student. Especially when considering that students with a computer, PDA, phone, or other device capable of document handling wouldn't necessarily need such a device.
My Commodore 64 and Amiga 500 are still functioning, 'though not pulled out of the garage in a while. So I've got mid-1980s tech. Got an old Apple Mac II out there, too, but I think that was from later in the '80s or early '90s...got it second-hand.
My favorite cell phone is still in the basement, but no carriers around here support the original Motorola brick. Got mine about 1991-92. Sweet 9-number memory, and one-line 10-digit display!
Slashdot Mirror
Understood and agreed.
Guessing AC isn't one of those, though, as he wants a $75 laptop instead of a tablet. Instead of a tablet of any kind, I'd guess.
If you want a keyboard, plug it in the USB port or connect it with Bluetooth, tablet willing...
Yes, I'm trying to suggest that the selection of a language isn't encouraging bad practice. The problem allowing the bad practice that sneaks into development.
The solution I propose is to defend your software from attack through completing the software you're trying to write.
If you are compelled or desire to use an environment, language, or solution where you can only submit SQL strings (and especially when you don't have an option to use parameterized input), the right thing to do is escape the input to avoid injection.
This simple style correction changes the built query using $sql = "select * from sensitive_data where key_id='" + $input + "'" when the evildoer gives you the input ' and 'a'='a from the bad query select * from sensitive_data where key_id='' and 'a'='a' into the safer query select * from sensitive_data where user_id=''' and ''a''=''a' which is no longer a contrived true statement, but is a probably wrong or particular unique ID. This is achieved by the simple addition of escaping around the input akin to SQL = "select * from sensitive_data where key_id='" + mysql_real_escape_string($input)+"'" (none of which, I want to be sure to point out, is either my style or guaranteed to be syntactically correct as it is intended for discussion not use).
This is, after all, essentially what happens when your parameters a re evaluated by the SQL engine anyway. If the system isn't doing it for you, you have to do it. No matter what language.
It's a trivial thing to do, and just like checking that you're not running into buffer size issues adds only a little bit of easy syntax to your code.
So, it's the lazy or inexperienced developer, not the language in which they're developing.
I think you have been fortunate in meeting "most people" who have already had some training to use Windows.
There is nothing more or less intuitive with the Microsoft windowing interface than with Linux or Mac. Stick a person in front of a PC with any OS on it for the first time (we're probably talking 80- or 4-year olds) and they will not be able to do anything substantial without some small guidance, even as small as watching someone else do it first.
Most users can install programs and dork around with the settings for software, but that's not to say they know what they're doing or understand any implications of the "double-click on setup" action they undertake.
And you can destroy a Windows installation by opening an e-mail or visiting a bad link on the Internet. Not so much with the other OSs. That's pretty idiot-friendly, to me. There's plenty of damage to be done by poking in the registry, deleting the wrong file, or even checking the wrong box in a helpful dialog box in Windows. That someone "knows" to avoid those things is a result of some form of training or other experience.
For both of those last two reasons, very few Windows users run systems without anti-virus software...helps with their idiot-proofing.
Given that a drastic majority of people do web browsing and simple word processing (with a stand-alone e-mail program or spreadsheet coming in a close second and third place), there is nothing distinguishing the major OSs or distributions in terms of "intuitive" interface.
I have set up minimal installations for many users built on the automatically-updating Ubuntu, prepared them with the differences between what they're used to (and how ever you might want to label it--trained on) and what they're getting, and have had much fewer support issues.
Perhaps you need to become more familiar with Linux before you put it at the bottom of any list except hyped-to-succeed.
I'm starting to wish I had installed XP instead of Linux on this laptop, because it's idiot-friendly and my brother knows Windows.
I think the second half of that is the core of the truth; he knows Windows, not that Windows is idiot-friendly.
With a little training, and the undoubtedly years' worth of exposure, running any distro of Linux can be as easy and idiot-proof as any other OS. Windows wins this because of the rapid (insert arguable statement here) introduction into nearly every workspace and nearly every computer purchased at nearly every venue in the last nearly 25 years.
The first period of time for anything new is probably going to be difficult for most of us; baking, riding a bike, computers among them. Patience is the key to turning this around.
Perhaps the Navy isn't quite as smart as the USAF
Heh...we always thought that. In good fun, to be sure.
The navy even has Windows running ships.
I'm sure you mean to to say "the Navy even has Windows running ON ships" instead of the implied opposite "ships critical systems are controlled by software run ON Windows."
When I was in the USAF, we used openly available software on our desktop systems for our administrative duties like e-mail and word processing, but on the satellite control systems the software was rigorously controlled. It was not anywhere close to running ON Windows (or Mac or BSD or Linux or Solaris...).
Regarding #2, I'm inclined to blame PHP...
It took me longer to type "php avoid sql injection" into a Google search than it took for Google to return the number one result from Wikipedia (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/PHP_Programming/SQL_Injection) or the number three result from the PHP website (http://php.net/manual/en/security.database.sql-injection.php). It's the lazy PHP programmer (or other straight SQL writing programmer) that doesn't safely format (e.g., simply SQL-escape) the input before sticking the value straight into the generated string. Your (probably cheeky) 24-second rule still applies to learning how to do it correctly.
Well, for one thing, it shows just how much software is still being written in C & C++ rather than managed languages. For another, it shows that a lot of software written in C++ ignores the higher-level features of the language, and uses old-style code littered with strcpy and the likes.
More to the point, it shows how much software is being written by inexperienced or lazy programmers in those languages. In many cases (like when receiving an input value in a CGI request), it's easy to check for the size of incoming data before using it, or to iterate through the incoming data in appropriately sized chunks to work within your available buffer, or to reallocate your buffer to accommodate the additional incoming data when it's larger than was perhaps expected. Especially if your old-style code is using the likes of strcpy, you can do a quick strlen first.
I would have hoped we can do better in 2010...
I wonder how many of these were done by people who have been writing software for fewer than five or even ten years? It isn't that we've overcome these obstacles as an industry, but that we overcome them individually. Lazy has strong staying-power, so there will be some long-standing lazy developers out there. Experience combats most of these, and I hope that anyone writing software for a few years has fallen away from the naive view of the world that so many fresh developers have that perhaps make them think they don't need to bother with writing protection.
It's probably the case that so many of these bugs exist because so many fresh developers are working on so many projects. I suspect that many of these fresh developers are working for lower wages than the older, more cynical developers; the developers with the experience to avoid these. It isn't the case that us old codgers are slow as we develop the software, it's that we're taking the time to put these protections in place, and it's that experience that makes our larger wages worth paying.
How about the one where someone stole someone else's identity from a poorly written application leaving the victim unable to pay for/acquire/use vital services?
Perhaps there's not a direct bug-to-death relationship, but the trivial-to-defeat bugs that top the list can lead to things going awry, like your Toyota incorrectly controlling the brakes or accelerator (not saying that's what caused the Toyota problem, just saying that can happen with some of these simple errors).
It is more likely this will result in an inconvenience, possibly severe, than a death, but sometimes if you're not the only YOU in the computer world, it's like death.
Hear, here.
Let this be a good guide when trying to turn classes into careers: if you need to cheat when you're learning the material, you're probably not cut out for that kind of job.
Even at "big brain schools," nothing should be so hard that the able- and right-minded CS student can't tap it out in a reasonable time. Unless the class is in "software re-usability," there's not an awful lot of need to steal code, especially in your junior year, and especially if you're trying to major in CS. If you can't handle creating the relatively trivial stuff they make you do in your introductory classes (and what you take in your junior year is probably still pretty introductory on the grand scale), what makes you think you'll be able to handle the bizarre and abstract requirements you'll get doing the same thing in the real world?
If you need to cheat...well, I already said that.
Fighting that application as an encroachment on the IP of the function of the other device would be a less frivolous lawsuit. I could make such an app for my Droid, too, or on a PC...oh, wait...they already exist...POS integrated with a handheld has been done. Even the Fujitsu app/device isn't unique.
Because one thing has the same name as another thing is not a good reason to do make lawsuits.
There are an awful lot of iPads out there other than the one from Apple. Fujitsu is considering trying to get something for nothing.
(http://www.google.com/search?q=ipad+-apple)
Just with "ipad" in the URL:
http://ipad.primate.wisc.edu/
http://www.ipad.com/
http://www.ipad.net.nz/
http://www.ipadowners.org/
I hope Fujitsu realizes how dumb it'd be to sue and proves to not be stoopid.
I can understand it if there's a chance that someone might be confused between the Apple iPad or the Fujitsu iPad, but that's not likely to happen. Yeah, they're both portable, use batteries, and have plastic cases and digital screens, but there's pretty much where the similarities end. Oh, and one is so like ten years ago that most people wouldn't have even thought of it much less confused it.
Can we stop the stoopid litigations so that people can focus on doing things to make money, instead of suing each other for it. Oh, wait...first we must get rid of all of the lawyers...insert favorite lawyer joke here...
And Apple should have just done us a favor and called it the "iPod Jumbo" and been done with it.
I've been to a handful of these shows, and it seldom fails that if you're in the right market in the right vendor's kiosk when the conversation turns the right way, they'll invite you to their room off the floor for a better the peek at the goods. If for no other reason than to remove you from the area of the competition. They shine on with food and drink and free t-shirts, too. If you're a looky-loo, no go, but if you're on the brink of purchasing or implementing, and you're either good with or not full of BS, someone will take you up an elevator to the private party.
Perhaps these folks weren't ALSO displaying their wares on the floor? Someone got crabby because they were bypassing the system, just trying to take advantage of the nearby foot traffic.
I guess I can see the comparison to someone who pulls their van up to the alley beside the bazaar instead of paying for a table within. No one in the flea market likes that.
I don't think a retainer is what you think it is.
A retainer, typically, is a fund of money collected in advance that the attorney (they are the lawyers who have passed the bar and have earned the right to practice law..."lawyers" simply have graduated law school...but I digress) bills against. This is to be certain there's money to get paid. As billable work is done the retainer is depleted, and you are possibly billed to refill the retainer (especially if a "buffer" was retained, and not a complete fee). When you end the relationship with the attorney, whatever remains in the retainer, and any investment earned, is returned to you; after all, it is your money, simply being held by your attorney.
The money taken from the retainer is supposed to be used only for billable work, materials, or related costs, not just for having a relationship. Just having a relationship with the attorney shouldn't cost you money--they're (probably) not your spouse.
Attorneys are paid as needed, as you say, on the go. Abuse notwithstanding, of course.
This isn't limited to attorneys, though. I've done this with consulting clients as well, especially ones who believe they will have "nickel and dime" work, or other difficult billing cycles, or who have difficulty paying on time but still need the support.
Nonetheless, you don't get paid just for being ready to work...but only for working.
I remember, way back when, when everyone had to make a programming language. Writing a compiler was part of almost any CSci coursework, and the syntax was up to the author. Sure, most of them ended up being clones of the first-pass language (the one you have to start writing your compiler in before it became self-compiling...not always a requirement), which was probably C, or whatever the author was comfortable with, but it gave an opportunity for all kinds of languages to sprout all over the place.
One of the reasons I prefer Java and C/C++ over Delphi and C#, or Perl over PHP and the others is that they have an available selection of frameworks and libraries that can be added at my discretion, instead of compelling me to begin with the bloated collection of built-in junk that someone else has decided is best for me. Dozens or hundreds of ways to do most of the tasks we have to do, and not any one of them is the best in every situation, and frequently the one chosen to be included isn't the one that meets a need I may have at the time I need it.
The flexibility is what's "fun" about a programming language, which is why we need overloading and reflection, which begs a system that has clean syntax.
Some of the biggest differences, nay, benefits to Solaris/OpenSolaris come when you move away from one system into a network of systems that start to work together. When people compare their single desktop Linux systems to a single OpenSolaris installation, they miss a bit of the boat, and some don't like the parts they miss.
Sun marketed Soalris with the slogan "the network is the computer" for a reason. When you look at their systems, they distribute storage and even processing when they can. They want to help you run everything in a cloud. They want to aggregate storage across systems into single file systems and mount points. They try make it simple to segregate and duplicate applications on the same system using zones.
It isn't just supposed to be a replacement for your desktop where you word process or even play video games, where everyone gets a lot of hot, new, big CPUs and stacks of RAM on or under their desks. OpenSolaris/Solaris (both of which are free as in beer) is meant to be used on a network of systems, not just the one desktop, where the whole of the system is rocking, not necessarily each little bit.
Thanks, but that doesn't seem very netbook-ish. The convertible/tablet/slate PCs that are out there miss the mark when considering the netbook. Particularly when it comes to the all-day battery. Perhaps it's just me, but the netbook fills a different niche than just a smaller or lower-power laptop.
I'm thinking something along the lines of the Touch Book or the announced Asus EEE T91 convertible (which is a compromise...I don't always want yer stinkin' keyboard, yo!). They offer a keyboardless option, but half the battery life goes with it..
Once upon a time I had a (working...still have it, technically) Sharp TriPad, which was kind of like a flip-top notebook format, but it ran Windows CE, instead of a full-blown OS/OE like the netbooks do, and had small memory and storage.
Gimme a GB of RAM, GHz of CPU, touch display, and USB ports...is that too much?
I like the idea of the portability of netbooks, sacrificing power for size and battery life, but would still like to see a good one that can (at least optionally) go without a keyboard. Gimme a nice size (sheet-of-paper is fine), outdoor readable, finger-touchable display with some USB and/or bluetooth keyboard support with that all-day battery, and close to (if not passing) gigahertz performance. If done right, I can add my own storage (USB, flash, whatever) as well as attach to network storage (NFS, SSHFS, FTP...). Sure, there are tablet PCs out there, but they all cost $2K or have tiny displays.
I want to see a workstation/small server based on the "cool threads" multi-core chips. The servers are nice, but with their rack-mount-only designs, they're either unreasonably expensive or loud (or both). Especially now that VMs are catching on like wildfire, I'd like to be able to throw a ton of RAM and HDD at a single box and have a bunch of zones and VM'd OSs running all at once. Of course, it'd have to have SLI or Crossfire...and allow big graphics to back up that multi-core/multi-threading.
I've got one in my garage. Still works. 170K floppy AND tape drive. I've got an Amiga 500, too. Even have an old Apple III (or was it IIi?). Sometimes called "the museum" by the wife. AFAIK they all work still.
I'm more interested in the wireless modem dealing with the 18 miles (or more) from the users' computer to the balloon. Surely it'd be easy enough, at least in more populated areas, to put a long-distance WiMAX-like solution in place.
Exactly! I don't own a car, just a couple of motorcycles.
I ignored the calls (usually ignore calls from "unknown number" or even just numbers I don't know) at first, but they came twice a day...to an office desk phone...to which I had no actual (e.g., phone directory) relationship.
I eventually answered one, receiving the expected robot. I pressed the number as instructed, intending to tell them to remove the number, knowing it probably wouldn't matter. The kind gentlemen asked me about my car, you know, to be sure we were on the same page. I replied with a "do you mean my 1980 Yamaha, or my 1989 Honda?" He chuckled and said "it must be the Honda; what model is that?" I replied honestly with "the 1500cc Valkyrie Tourer."
Then he hung up.
I repeated the exercise during a period of boredom, but this time just kindly told the woman who asked me about my car that I didn't own a car and wasn't planning to buy one, and asked if she'd remove me from their list. She apologized, said it was a done deal and politely hung up. The calls stopped, but only for the rest of the week.
While a computer-based solution, like OLPC, would be dandy, it may be overkill, as I'm sure some will point out. Instead, use a device that takes advantage of "e-paper" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_paper) such as the Amazon Kindle (http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Amazons-Original-Wireless-generation/dp/B000FI73MA) or Sony Reader (http://www.sony.com/reader). The current $200-400 price tag puts the current selections in the realm of "just get a cheap computer," but perhaps with the volume necessary the production could go up, allowing costs to be driven down, bringing these to within reasonable for every student. Especially when considering that students with a computer, PDA, phone, or other device capable of document handling wouldn't necessarily need such a device.
My Commodore 64 and Amiga 500 are still functioning, 'though not pulled out of the garage in a while. So I've got mid-1980s tech. Got an old Apple Mac II out there, too, but I think that was from later in the '80s or early '90s...got it second-hand.
My favorite cell phone is still in the basement, but no carriers around here support the original Motorola brick. Got mine about 1991-92. Sweet 9-number memory, and one-line 10-digit display!