Oppressive??? Over-throw (sic)??? You seem to be conflating private businesses with governments. You *do* realize that no one is putting a gun to these people's heads and forcing them to use Microsoft/Adobe/Apple/Autodesk products, right? Or don't you? It seems like you think that these companies have governmental powers compelling businesses to use their software.
Of course, the fact you're trying to ignore is that for the majority of business applications there's no F/OSS adoption because, well, the F/OSS alternatives just plain suck. (Seriously, is anyone in the mainstream engineering community actually using PyCADD? How many graphic designers are using GIMP?). This isn't going to change; F/OSS authors are almost universally uninterested in adapting their software to meet business needs (or do not have the time or talent or resources).
One point about the review: The note about the examples being transferrable to C++, etc. is a little off; some of the refactor techniques are basically workarounds for Java quirks. In fact, I've always felt that the book should have been called "Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Java Code".
Not a bad read overall, but it could have been made better by presenting examples in different languages, a la the GOF Design Patterns book.
John Walker (AutoDesk founder) has had a true random number generator available for web access for quite a long time. Looks like his site's currently down, but check out www.fourmilab.ch when it's sorted -- in addition to the random number generator he has a number of other cool gadgets and info. available.
Oh, and this line from the FA is priceless: "...is connected to the internet through advanced computer technologies such as computer clusters and GRID network." Don't get too technical on me...
If you've read the tripe she's written you'd know Hillary isn't just talking about taxes. She's talking about taking away health care choice, gun ownership, property rights, rights of free association...
They did however mention that Sweden recognises electro-sensitivity as an official disability
The show's out of date then. There was a WSJ article last week or the week before that specifically discussed Sweden kicking so-called electro-sensitive people off disability.
The Register says MS arbitrary *drops* e-mails (*not* dumps them into a junk mailbox, but just silently drops them) if it decides the sending mail server belongs on some mystical blacklist. Adding a SenderID or making your e-mail less spammy doesn't do a damn thing if your ISP's mail server was used by someone -- at some point in the distant past -- to send something MS decided was spam. And the only recourse is to pay something like $1,400 to some magical e-mail certification service.
Another boneheaded MS "innovation", right up there with deciding their virus scanner should delete the Outlook mail folders if the user receives an e-mailed virus.
Raymond Chen is also a condescending tool. (Check out Verity Stob's recent article for a good laugh at his expense, or this Joel on Software forumn thread.)
Why are we not requiring that all those products be packed recyclably?
Answer: Because we are a democratic republic and have a long history of not appreciating our freaking government meddling in what should be an individual or corporate choices.
Two times, I've observed that the opensource AV software ClamAV nailed new email virii
about 6 and 12 hours before the commercial alternatives got signatures for them (3-4 examples, names left out to protect the guilty).
So for every new virus but two the commercial alternatives got their signatures updated quicker? Guess I know which I'd choose...
It's certainly not true! I cook tasty lunches on my trusty Coleman camp stove at 11,000 ft. base elevations and the lodge grills work just fine at close to the 13,000 ft. summit elevation of this ski area.
It's a pain-in-the-ass to cook tea, though, 'cause water boils at a pretty tepid temperature at that elevation.
My apologies, and if I could, I'd rate myself -1, troll.
In fact, to an extent you're right. After bashing you about telling people they shouldn't use a virus scanner, I have to admit that I don't use one! And a small part of the reason for this is that I'm running behind a NAT firewall. (I also don't use IE or Outlook and run WindowXP under a limited account.)
My comments were directed at people using Internet Explorer, running an unpatched Windows2000 under an administrator account, and opening all those nice greeting card programs they get through e-mail. For them, anti-virus scanners are preventative, as they can stop the infections from occurring in the first place. It's not a good idea for them to feel secure just because they hide behind a gateway router.
Do I know what a NAT is? Well, let's see...just finished a graduate school course in computer security? Check. 5 years of running my company's servers under a NAT firewall that I designed myself? Check. Guess I do, huh?
Anyways, forgettabout NAT. You seem to be under the dangerous illusion that the standard infection vector for viruses are through block IP scanning/connection attempts to unprotected Windows services. That's patentently false. NAT is nothing more than security through obscurity, and does nothing to block the standard Windows infection vectors of a) e-mail attachments, b) Internet Explorer bug exploitation, and c) social engineering (coaxing a user to run an executable).
Also, there *are* ways to locate and fingerprint computers hiding behind NAT.
Oh, and by the way, you *did* say "disregard antivirus". You said "therefore you dont really need an antivirus.". Your words.
For example, a stand alone machine should use a NAT box so that the IP address becomes a non-routable address and that would keep the malicious programs from getting into the system, therefore you dont really need an antivirus.
Question: How the hell does a NAT box prevent e-mail virus attacks? How about viruses that are auto-installed through a malicious webpage attacking web browser holes? What about that neat shareware program you downloaded last night?
Your statement is beyond stupid...you're treading into weapons-grade stupidity territory. How many people have you been telling this nonsense to?
Let's see...which side of the aisle would you associate with a government that has had the biggest increase in domestic spending since Johnson, massive new social programs, huge increase in regulatory power over private business, gigantic deficit spending, etc.? As much as you might hate Bush, you need to admit to your self that his actions (bar the idiotic praying-in-public-schools, ban abortion nonsense) have all the hallmarks of left-winger politics.
Throw in the stifling of free speech (a fav. of all left-wing types from PC campus nazis to Stalin, Pol Pot, Noriega, Mao, Kim, etc.) and you've got a good candidate for a socialist's Man of the Year award.
You just call him "fascist" because by calling him a socialist you're peeing in your own pool.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but records are restrictive in the fact that you can't just push a button to skip tracks.
Not true. My linear turntable senses track gaps -- you can push buttons to jump to a particular track, or to skip a track.
"Swaine", not "Swine" ! But yes it is an excellent book.
Oppressive??? Over-throw (sic)??? You seem to be conflating private businesses with governments. You *do* realize that no one is putting a gun to these people's heads and forcing them to use Microsoft/Adobe/Apple/Autodesk products, right? Or don't you? It seems like you think that these companies have governmental powers compelling businesses to use their software.
Of course, the fact you're trying to ignore is that for the majority of business applications there's no F/OSS adoption because, well, the F/OSS alternatives just plain suck. (Seriously, is anyone in the mainstream engineering community actually using PyCADD? How many graphic designers are using GIMP?). This isn't going to change; F/OSS authors are almost universally uninterested in adapting their software to meet business needs (or do not have the time or talent or resources).
One point about the review: The note about the examples being transferrable to C++, etc. is a little off; some of the refactor techniques are basically workarounds for Java quirks. In fact, I've always felt that the book should have been called "Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Java Code".
Not a bad read overall, but it could have been made better by presenting examples in different languages, a la the GOF Design Patterns book.
1TB would cost you about $500
Sorry buddy, but you musta blinked: Newegg's now selling Samsung 1TB drives for half that amount. (Linky)
Petty, but it goes to prove your point about rapidly-shrinking storage costs, no?
I dont see why computers should be immune from this kind of policing.
Umm...because the Internet is not a government-financed project like the public roads?
general idiocy of comments
You're a fine one to talk...since when is the Secret Service "the authorities" to call when you think someone's trying to use a stolen printer?
See also Robert Forward's book about creatures living on a neutron star. Argh...the name escapes me. Anyone know the book?
John Walker (AutoDesk founder) has had a true random number generator available for web access for quite a long time. Looks like his site's currently down, but check out www.fourmilab.ch when it's sorted -- in addition to the random number generator he has a number of other cool gadgets and info. available.
Oh, and this line from the FA is priceless: "...is connected to the internet through advanced computer technologies such as computer clusters and GRID network." Don't get too technical on me...
If you've read the tripe she's written you'd know Hillary isn't just talking about taxes. She's talking about taking away health care choice, gun ownership, property rights, rights of free association...
Quoth the leading Democratic presidental contender: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
-- Hillary Clinton, 6/28/2004
They did however mention that Sweden recognises electro-sensitivity as an official disability
The show's out of date then. There was a WSJ article last week or the week before that specifically discussed Sweden kicking so-called electro-sensitive people off disability.
Quote: I remember reading that many astrologers estimate....
Your confusion of astrologers with astronomers doesn't lend much credence to the rest of your argument...
Sorry, my bad, I did misread your comment. And good point about the market statement.
I don't know about the "slightly higher probability" though. I'm not sure what's out there, but ebay does seem to be the 800# gorilla.
You're right in one respect -- Craigslist does booming business, and I think a big reason is the lack of fees.
Why should they be able to increase prices? Because they own the damn company?
Or (Comrade) do you think you have the right to tell ebay what they can charge you?
The Register says MS arbitrary *drops* e-mails (*not* dumps them into a junk mailbox, but just silently drops them) if it decides the sending mail server belongs on some mystical blacklist. Adding a SenderID or making your e-mail less spammy doesn't do a damn thing if your ISP's mail server was used by someone -- at some point in the distant past -- to send something MS decided was spam. And the only recourse is to pay something like $1,400 to some magical e-mail certification service.
Another boneheaded MS "innovation", right up there with deciding their virus scanner should delete the Outlook mail folders if the user receives an e-mailed virus.
Raymond Chen is also a condescending tool. (Check out Verity Stob's recent article for a good laugh at his expense, or this Joel on Software forumn thread.)
Why are we not requiring that all those products be packed recyclably?
Answer: Because we are a democratic republic and have a long history of not appreciating our freaking government meddling in what should be an individual or corporate choices.
Go back to Civics 101.Two times, I've observed that the opensource AV software ClamAV nailed new email virii about 6 and 12 hours before the commercial alternatives got signatures for them (3-4 examples, names left out to protect the guilty).
So for every new virus but two the commercial alternatives got their signatures updated quicker? Guess I know which I'd choose...
So, there are no fires at that height?
It's certainly not true! I cook tasty lunches on my trusty Coleman camp stove at 11,000 ft. base elevations and the lodge grills work just fine at close to the 13,000 ft. summit elevation of this ski area.
It's a pain-in-the-ass to cook tea, though, 'cause water boils at a pretty tepid temperature at that elevation.
My apologies, and if I could, I'd rate myself -1, troll.
In fact, to an extent you're right. After bashing you about telling people they shouldn't use a virus scanner, I have to admit that I don't use one! And a small part of the reason for this is that I'm running behind a NAT firewall. (I also don't use IE or Outlook and run WindowXP under a limited account.)
My comments were directed at people using Internet Explorer, running an unpatched Windows2000 under an administrator account, and opening all those nice greeting card programs they get through e-mail. For them, anti-virus scanners are preventative, as they can stop the infections from occurring in the first place. It's not a good idea for them to feel secure just because they hide behind a gateway router.
you are obviously much older
Touché!
Do I know what a NAT is? Well, let's see...just finished a graduate school course in computer security? Check. 5 years of running my company's servers under a NAT firewall that I designed myself? Check. Guess I do, huh?
Anyways, forgettabout NAT. You seem to be under the dangerous illusion that the standard infection vector for viruses are through block IP scanning/connection attempts to unprotected Windows services. That's patentently false. NAT is nothing more than security through obscurity, and does nothing to block the standard Windows infection vectors of a) e-mail attachments, b) Internet Explorer bug exploitation, and c) social engineering (coaxing a user to run an executable).
Also, there *are* ways to locate and fingerprint computers hiding behind NAT.
Oh, and by the way, you *did* say "disregard antivirus". You said "therefore you dont really need an antivirus.". Your words.
Question: How the hell does a NAT box prevent e-mail virus attacks? How about viruses that are auto-installed through a malicious webpage attacking web browser holes? What about that neat shareware program you downloaded last night?
Your statement is beyond stupid...you're treading into weapons-grade stupidity territory. How many people have you been telling this nonsense to?
All of slashdot bows before the power of your logic.
Let's see...which side of the aisle would you associate with a government that has had the biggest increase in domestic spending since Johnson, massive new social programs, huge increase in regulatory power over private business, gigantic deficit spending, etc.? As much as you might hate Bush, you need to admit to your self that his actions (bar the idiotic praying-in-public-schools, ban abortion nonsense) have all the hallmarks of left-winger politics.
Throw in the stifling of free speech (a fav. of all left-wing types from PC campus nazis to Stalin, Pol Pot, Noriega, Mao, Kim, etc.) and you've got a good candidate for a socialist's Man of the Year award.
You just call him "fascist" because by calling him a socialist you're peeing in your own pool.