In the Boston area, comcast fuckers are blocking port 25. So, even though people have legitimate uses for the internet connection they pay for, these companies are taking it on themselves to block standard connection protocols.
First its port 25, because of spam. Then it will be P2P because of copyright. Then it will be ssh because of terrorism. Then it will be, inspired from the new york story yesterday, filtering web content to prevent false alarms.
Fuckers. Bury your head america.
When people talk about fascist Germany, they focus on the extermination of jews and the holocaust, and while those were horrific acts, they are not what the Nazi party was about. They were the result of the acts of fanatical and arguably insane men who had gained power in the Nazi party, not the Nazi party, per se'
The Nazi party was about power and the exercise of it. It was about bringing pressure on the citizens from all aspects of society to conform to it. It used social structures and industries and laws to bring people under control. It is EXACTLY what is happening in america today. Its all the little things slowly picking away at the big things, until the big things crumble. Freedom of speech? Nope, now we have "free speech zones," where no one will hear you. I could go on, but the/. crowd already knows.
Just like the Reichstag fire in 1933, the world trade center in 2001 gave the neocons the ability to enact limits on freedom. After that, industries which were once regulated in order to protect the citizens are now deregulated and destroying citizens who do not conform, RIAA, MPIAA, walmart, etc.
ISP censorship is just one more piece of it. The internet is becoming the primary conduit of communication and fascist america must have its citizens controlled, just lake Nazi Germany needed its citizens controlled.
All this isn't a conspiracy theory either. No conspiracy theory need exist. Our government (of the people, by the people, bla bla) is supposed to protect us. If it stops protecting us from big companies, those companies will naturally do the work for their own gain.
Now everyone in the USA is afraid. Some of terrorists, some of losing heath care, some of losing their job, their house, what ever. Fear, as the nazi's will tell you is a powerful tool to harness.
Welcome to neocon amaerica where companies sue their customers because they can. Companies dictate what you can do with your property, because they can, and if you do anything about it or protest, you can lose your job which means your house and health care.
Sorry for the rant, but I can't be the only one who sees this whole thing in this way
) The Catholic Church has not hidden pedophiles. SOME PRIESTS AND BISHOPS have.
Well, when one refers to the church, one addresses the control structure, not the flock, so to speak. As for the church NOT hiding pedophiles, coming from Boston, we have had quite a bit of coverage here and there are some interesting numbers and events to think about.
(1) Cardinal Law, while in Boston he routinely moved priests who were accused of molestation and covered it up. He still has a position in the catholic church. As an Archbishop, you can't say he isn't a SERIOUS part of the catholic control structure?
(2) At one point, there were around 800 or so priests in MA and something like 80 credible accusations of abuse. That's about 1 in 10. For years the priests were silent, knowing what was going on but saying silent, to protect the church. You can't say the "church" was not involved.
(3) Lastly, the pope's response to abuse scandal was not to remove Cardinal Law and state that this will not be tolerated, it was to settle claims and get non-disclosure agreements. Cardinal Law is still in the church.
So, what part of "The catholic church has hidden pedophile priests" is not true?
Even today, after all is said and done, they still will not release the records to the Boston press.
In a microkernel, the stability of the system is that of the kernel alone. Hardware drivers are loaded in user-space so that if any driver fails the failure is contained within the memory allocated to that driver. The kernel can then restart the driver at it's leisure and the system can continue to function.
That is exactly true with regards to the kernel proper, but not of the drivers be they hardware or system. What happens to the function the driver is intended to perform? If writing the driver for a microkernel is harder and more complex, then it has a higher probability of failure. Right?
Put it simply, who gives a rats ass if the kernel is fine if services on top of the kernel are less reliable? They are still vital to the functionality of the system. The kernel doesn't need to crash to make the system unusable.
I don't see how it makes the whole system more reliable, it may make certain portions of the system more reliable (the kernel specifically), but the whole system, including the drivers, still needs to be reliable.
The prime issue in the micro vs macro kernel debate is for lack of a better term, expedience and practical improvement. It is easier to develop in a shared resource traditional kernel environment than it is in a microkernel environment. There are, of course, exceptions but it is generally true.
Furthermore, while microkernels can potentially be more reliable and secure, how much more? Is a well tested and mature monolithic/modular kernel much worse than a well tested and mature microkernel? I have Linux and freebsd boxes, on reasonable hardware, with zero system failures over the course of years. So is that microkernel going to be measurably much better?
Addressing the original author, I have done a good share of kernel development in Windows (DOS and NT based), Linux, FreeBSD, and a whole bunch of embedded work in raw assembly over the years (right down to building my own prom burner in the 70s). I am speaking from first hand knowledge and as someone who has also published work and shipped actual product.
The *only* advantage that Microkernels bring is a lesser amount of code that actually runs in the kernel. The reasoning is a theoretical advantage that with fewer lines of code there is a lesser chance of failure. With kernel modules being simpler and easier to test. To get this advantage, however, you may have to complicate otherwise simpler algorithms. I argue that making the implementation of portions of the system more complex renders those specific systems potentially less reliable. If the kernel is secure and reliable, but the interfaces on top of it are less so, from the application and usability level, what has been gained?
The "system" from application on down to the hardware needs to be reliable. The applications need to be well written. The API libraries have to be well written. The system and hardware drivers have to be well written. The kernel code has to be well written. Even if it is just the application crashing and the kernel is fine, that system is usable and unreliable for the work it is intended to perform.
So, are Microkernels "better?" In a theoretical sense, yea, they are a clean design and really "fit" in the aesthetic of well designed software. Are they ever going to take hold? Who knows? Never say never. I don't think so, because if something is easier to do (monolithic/modular kernels) people would rather do that. Most people will always follow the path of least resistance.
Why would you go looking for a "theater", when you have such a ready-made cause
Yes, I used to have that attitude, but in the past few years, I have sort of changed my mind. When you think that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Time and again, I've seen people too afraid or too unenthusiastic to use or stay with Linux. I've told them the arguments, they all say they agree, they all say they hate Windows, but they go back because they are comfortable with it. That's what "Cheerleaders" and fans do at a football game, they add a psychological support and create "comfort."
With all the marketing that Microsoft puts out, even with all the crap that Windows has/is, people still feel better using it. The cheerleading adds rah! rah! to Windows use. It doesn't make sense to me, but it is a fact.
We Linux users have made that psychological leap that is more than just the facts. People who are more emotional in their thinking, need the emotional comfort probably more than the comfort. To bring it back to the originalk argument, that's why people buy stuff that makes them "feel" secure as opposed to actually being secure.
As a nerd and geek and long time hacker, it is perfectly clear to me that I've been missing the "theater" aspect of the technology that I love.
Take Linux for instance. I have had varying levels of success getting non-geeks to use it, but what is missing is the warm and fuzzies that make it psychologically comfortable to not be using Windows or a Macintosh.
There are two sides to change of any kind. (1) The actual details of change. (2) The psychological affirmation that it is worth the effort. No matter how valid the argument presented by the first, if it does not provide the second, it will fail.
If we wish to push Linux, we have to create theater around it.
As simply a "fact," a properly compiled statistic is usually accurate, however it is impossible to establish relationships with merely one fact.
One of my favorite statistics is: "If you own a gun, you are more likely to die of gun violence."
This, without any real research on my part, is probably true, but it means nothing in and of itself. It needs to be viewed within the proper context to mean something.
It could well be that it isn't "gun ownership" here, but the environment in which gun ownership is seen as necessary. For instance, in a violent neighborhood, more people own guns, and a higher percentage of the people are killed by guns. However, within that context, you may be less likely to die of gun violence if you can protect yourself with a gun. The real relationship is bad neighborhoods and violent crime driving gun ownership, not the gun ownership itself.
The point? The fact may be accurate, but one fact is almost meaningless without other facts and theory supporting it. If it is a fact that there are a disproportionately large number of engineers and science geeks in terrorism circles, I don't see any supporting frame work of theory and other facts to suggest it is any more than that the other idiots blew themselves up somewhere, but the intellectuals sort of didn't want to do that for obvious reasons.
Software has to suck because the market can't afford software that doesn't suck. Kids out of high school and collage or fresh out of joe's web school. aren't qualified to write good software, yet this is what companies hire over more experienced people.
Even then, there is no ability to develop your skills because you spend 99% of your time learning new environments.
Software is HUGELY complex these days and it takes a log of study, knowledge, and skill to be any good at it. Companies don't want to hear that. They want to increase productivity by "KLOC." (Un)fortunately, there is a lot of "art" and "creativity" in software development and without well defined product specs, rigid test plans, and quality assurance which adds delays and cost to a project you won't get better code.
Standard business upside potential vs downside risk. Upside potential: first to market, profit!!! Downside risk: blame some hacker.
There is something suspicious about this report. Some things can't happen the way people say they happen, and when that is the case we have to look at more likely scenarios.
I would bet the path of the TCP/IP packets route through compromised providers who have an injection strategy. Remember a few months ago how IPSs were injecting their own java script and ads into the pages of other sites?
I have to laugh. I was just having a conversation with a Java/Swing guy and everything you list is precisely what what's missing from the modern "OO" environment.
Yes, I agree, as a concept, well written OO can provide those things that you mention: 1) maintainability 2) understandability 3) code reusability 4) loosely coupled code 5) modular code
Then again, *any* well written code provides those things. What we see, however, is ever growing heaps of interdependent class libraries who's periodic API deltas cause huge amounts of "re-integration" every time a single component is upgraded.
I would say, if you think OO is some magic bullet, spend a week on Java Swing.
PHP, or "Personal Home Page" to us old time users (Not PHP Hypertext Processor, as some revisionists would have to believe.) is a simple web scripting language first envisioned in the 90s for making simple web pages.
For what it is, PHP is pretty good, a quick and dirty scripting language that, if used right, can make some pretty impressive applications.
The real problem with PHP is the bickering and infighting little boys club that is the PHP development community. Over time they've learned a lot, but for the most part they believe they know everything and everyone else is wrong. Even though there are public forums, decisions are made on IRC chats. It is not as transparent or well functioning as groups like Apache, PostgreSQL, and others. A lot of petty crap goes on behind the scenes and a lot of people who would have been active contributors get pissed off and leave.
I could go on with first hand and second hand stories and it is my opinion that it is this lack of professionalism that hinders PHP quality and adoption on an enterprise level.
All that being said, PHP has a solid purpose in the web world. Java and.NET environments, and things like JSF or Swing are HUGELY complex and difficult to manage. With a continuum between simple HTML docs to HUGE applications, PHP sits in a very wide middle ground that it easy to manage and deploy.
Of course it was, but when a small marginal player does something "evil," it's impact is mitigated by its ability to capitalize on it. When a convicted monopolist does something evil, everyone suffers.
As far as being Evil, this isn't much different than what Apple used to do back when I was a kid in the 80s.
I never said it was original. Microsoft doesn't know how to be original. Everything Microsoft has ever done has been stolen, copied, or bought from someone else.
This is an example of how evil Microsoft is. They'll donate some "thing" only as long as it contributes to their business. Why this is wrong is pretty subtle. They have no intention of saving anyone any money. Typically with contributions, the outcome is a net gain for the organization receiving the contribution. Not with this deal, this will be a net loss for the schools receiving the "grants." Only the costs will be differed.
The "training" microsoft is talking about is their typical "training" where general concepts and understanding is not part of the instructional course except where necessary to use their product. If you have ever taken any Microsoft training courses you'll know what I'm talking about. A networking class is not about networking, but about "their" networking tools.
I have taken a couple Microsoft courses for various reasons, and have always come away saying (1) that was a huge waste of time. (2) It was like a big commercial for Microsoft products. (3) It was useless in any practical sense.
Now, all these nicely trained people aren't going to be looking at the cost-saving alternatives like OpenOffice and/or Linux, nope, they'll be revved up to buy MS Office and Windows (because that's what they were trained on!)
My Advice, when Microsoft offers you anything for free, turn it down, because it will always end up costing you.
I wish I could respond to multiple posts with one, but this will have to suffice.
In my not especially humble opinion, you are completely wrong. Computer science is the mathematics of computers
Perhaps my post was misunderstood. Another response stated: Is chemistry the study of theoretical elements and molecules? Of course not. It is the study of "real world" elements and molecules and we have several models which we study and learn, but eventually it is always about "real" molecules and elements.
Similarly, computer science must be about real computers. With real limitations. Yea, sure theoretical models are nice, but algorithms must work on real computers or they don't work.
What is missing from the Java mentality is real knowledge of the science, the real computers and how they work. Memory limits are real. Numerical limits are real i.e. 64 bits vs 32 bits is a real world issue, and knowing that your are on a 32 bit system may allow you to write code that uses half as much memory.
I'm very "theory oriented," but pure abstract theory is meaningless unless it has some practical application. The whole field of computer science is a set of maths and logic around getting basically stupid devices to do complex work.
Put another way, thinking in EE terms. Java is to computers what the theoretical op-amp is to electronics. Yes, op-amps are a mathematical model of an amplifier and good for designing circuits, but you wouldn't expect an EE to disregard the work of designing "real" amplifiers as not relevant because op-amps exist. More to the point, like java, op-aps don't work perfectly on the edge conditions either.
I've been in the business for more than a couple decades now, and what I see is the same old problem:Interpretive languages vs Compiled or assembly languages. Make no mistake, Java and.NET are "interpretive" languages. Argue all you want about this or that special case, but the intention and design of these environments is the elimination of physical hardware.
People who are uninterested in the nature of computers chose interpretive languages. People who are interested in computer internals use a directly translatable language like C, Assembler, or C++. This is not a value judgment, it just is.
IMHO, computer science is not about theoretical virtual machines, but the practical implementation of complex concepts on limited physical computers. The way I see it, the former is masturbation and the latter is sex.
First, about 20 years ago I was an electrician, and worked as an EE designing motor and power circuits as my first job, so I kind of know what I'm talking about.
Ahhh... no, not quite. You're referring to the two hot legs of a typical household AC power feed as if they were DC, which is a dangerous misconception at best.
For canonical reference only, it works for discussion, especially when you have a broad audience.
So: My take on this issue is that it is indeed bad design on Dell's part, most likely the result of trying to shave one too many pennies off manufacturing costs. I'm surprised the thing even passed UL approval.
It is still probably bad outlet wiring. Most modern outlets have polarized plugs, if the plug itself is polarized, then it is a valid design to assume neutral is ground.
All it takes is some zipper head to cut the ground prong off a plugstrip and plug it in backwards, and a *lot* of two prong devices will zap you.
As any electrician will tell you, with two phase 110v in the U.S. (most homes and establishments) You have only hot and ground. If you rip open your electrical box you will notice three wires coming in. +120, -120, and ground. All the white wires and grounds get connected to the same buss. The hot (black wire) gets a fuse or breaker to either +120 or -120. (220v appliances get two breakers linked together.)
The people getting a shock probably have their outlet wired incorrectly.
I doubt very much it is Dell's fault. That being said, isolation through a transformer is always a good idea.
How do you create an encryption system between two entities when a 3rd has access to all the same technology and can monitor, intercept, and spoof all communications.
It is an interesting problem, any crypto guys out there want to take a stab at it.
I would suspect that were this brought before lakota justice, the ruling would be carefully considered and very fair.
We indians have an undeserved reputation of being backward, but the truth is that while we were savage in confrontation, we did not seek it out. It was the whites that trespassed, pushed, and killed. The root of the conflict was the so called "manifest destiny," which in short was a bloody movement to steal land from the people who lived on it, by killing them.
Once a war is started, neither side has clean hands. We all fight and kill to survive and win, but we did not start it! The treaties the U.S. signed have not been honored and the Indians, or at least thier descendants, deserve to have a national apology and some sort of reparation.
The U.S.A.'s holocaust was the indian wars. Sure we've painted it with glory through movies and lore, but real civilizations and populations were destroyed and they were vilified by the whites for having the audacity to try to fight against eradication.
"we techies" invented this shit so that it gets used the way we want it.
"we techies" certainly didn't/don't pay for the infrastructure. Government, university, and corporate money developed the hard infrastructure of the internet. Much of the software development was directed and funded.
It isn't "our" realm. It may have been our genius that created it, but it now belongs to everyone, and with that, comes cultural differences. The internet neighborhood is changing. Like it or not, other people's views and opinions have to be heard.
Slashdot Mirror
In the Boston area, comcast fuckers are blocking port 25. So, even though people have legitimate uses for the internet connection they pay for, these companies are taking it on themselves to block standard connection protocols.
/. crowd already knows.
First its port 25, because of spam. Then it will be P2P because of copyright. Then it will be ssh because of terrorism. Then it will be, inspired from the new york story yesterday, filtering web content to prevent false alarms.
Fuckers. Bury your head america.
When people talk about fascist Germany, they focus on the extermination of jews and the holocaust, and while those were horrific acts, they are not what the Nazi party was about. They were the result of the acts of fanatical and arguably insane men who had gained power in the Nazi party, not the Nazi party, per se'
The Nazi party was about power and the exercise of it. It was about bringing pressure on the citizens from all aspects of society to conform to it. It used social structures and industries and laws to bring people under control. It is EXACTLY what is happening in america today. Its all the little things slowly picking away at the big things, until the big things crumble. Freedom of speech? Nope, now we have "free speech zones," where no one will hear you. I could go on, but the
Just like the Reichstag fire in 1933, the world trade center in 2001 gave the neocons the ability to enact limits on freedom. After that, industries which were once regulated in order to protect the citizens are now deregulated and destroying citizens who do not conform, RIAA, MPIAA, walmart, etc.
ISP censorship is just one more piece of it. The internet is becoming the primary conduit of communication and fascist america must have its citizens controlled, just lake Nazi Germany needed its citizens controlled.
All this isn't a conspiracy theory either. No conspiracy theory need exist. Our government (of the people, by the people, bla bla) is supposed to protect us. If it stops protecting us from big companies, those companies will naturally do the work for their own gain.
Now everyone in the USA is afraid. Some of terrorists, some of losing heath care, some of losing their job, their house, what ever. Fear, as the nazi's will tell you is a powerful tool to harness.
Welcome to neocon amaerica where companies sue their customers because they can. Companies dictate what you can do with your property, because they can, and if you do anything about it or protest, you can lose your job which means your house and health care.
Sorry for the rant, but I can't be the only one who sees this whole thing in this way
) The Catholic Church has not hidden pedophiles. SOME PRIESTS AND BISHOPS have.
Well, when one refers to the church, one addresses the control structure, not the flock, so to speak. As for the church NOT hiding pedophiles, coming from Boston, we have had quite a bit of coverage here and there are some interesting numbers and events to think about.
(1) Cardinal Law, while in Boston he routinely moved priests who were accused of molestation and covered it up. He still has a position in the catholic church. As an Archbishop, you can't say he isn't a SERIOUS part of the catholic control structure?
(2) At one point, there were around 800 or so priests in MA and something like 80 credible accusations of abuse. That's about 1 in 10. For years the priests were silent, knowing what was going on but saying silent, to protect the church. You can't say the "church" was not involved.
(3) Lastly, the pope's response to abuse scandal was not to remove Cardinal Law and state that this will not be tolerated, it was to settle claims and get non-disclosure agreements. Cardinal Law is still in the church.
So, what part of "The catholic church has hidden pedophile priests" is not true?
Even today, after all is said and done, they still will not release the records to the Boston press.
In a microkernel, the stability of the system is that of the kernel alone. Hardware drivers are loaded in user-space so that if any driver fails the failure is contained within the memory allocated to that driver. The kernel can then restart the driver at it's leisure and the system can continue to function.
That is exactly true with regards to the kernel proper, but not of the drivers be they hardware or system. What happens to the function the driver is intended to perform? If writing the driver for a microkernel is harder and more complex, then it has a higher probability of failure. Right?
Put it simply, who gives a rats ass if the kernel is fine if services on top of the kernel are less reliable? They are still vital to the functionality of the system. The kernel doesn't need to crash to make the system unusable.
I don't see how it makes the whole system more reliable, it may make certain portions of the system more reliable (the kernel specifically), but the whole system, including the drivers, still needs to be reliable.
The prime issue in the micro vs macro kernel debate is for lack of a better term, expedience and practical improvement. It is easier to develop in a shared resource traditional kernel environment than it is in a microkernel environment. There are, of course, exceptions but it is generally true.
Furthermore, while microkernels can potentially be more reliable and secure, how much more? Is a well tested and mature monolithic/modular kernel much worse than a well tested and mature microkernel? I have Linux and freebsd boxes, on reasonable hardware, with zero system failures over the course of years. So is that microkernel going to be measurably much better?
Addressing the original author, I have done a good share of kernel development in Windows (DOS and NT based), Linux, FreeBSD, and a whole bunch of embedded work in raw assembly over the years (right down to building my own prom burner in the 70s). I am speaking from first hand knowledge and as someone who has also published work and shipped actual product.
The *only* advantage that Microkernels bring is a lesser amount of code that actually runs in the kernel. The reasoning is a theoretical advantage that with fewer lines of code there is a lesser chance of failure. With kernel modules being simpler and easier to test. To get this advantage, however, you may have to complicate otherwise simpler algorithms. I argue that making the implementation of portions of the system more complex renders those specific systems potentially less reliable. If the kernel is secure and reliable, but the interfaces on top of it are less so, from the application and usability level, what has been gained?
The "system" from application on down to the hardware needs to be reliable. The applications need to be well written. The API libraries have to be well written. The system and hardware drivers have to be well written. The kernel code has to be well written. Even if it is just the application crashing and the kernel is fine, that system is usable and unreliable for the work it is intended to perform.
So, are Microkernels "better?" In a theoretical sense, yea, they are a clean design and really "fit" in the aesthetic of well designed software. Are they ever going to take hold? Who knows? Never say never. I don't think so, because if something is easier to do (monolithic/modular kernels) people would rather do that. Most people will always follow the path of least resistance.
Why would you go looking for a "theater", when you have such a ready-made cause
Yes, I used to have that attitude, but in the past few years, I have sort of changed my mind. When you think that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Time and again, I've seen people too afraid or too unenthusiastic to use or stay with Linux. I've told them the arguments, they all say they agree, they all say they hate Windows, but they go back because they are comfortable with it. That's what "Cheerleaders" and fans do at a football game, they add a psychological support and create "comfort."
With all the marketing that Microsoft puts out, even with all the crap that Windows has/is, people still feel better using it. The cheerleading adds rah! rah! to Windows use. It doesn't make sense to me, but it is a fact.
We Linux users have made that psychological leap that is more than just the facts. People who are more emotional in their thinking, need the emotional comfort probably more than the comfort. To bring it back to the originalk argument, that's why people buy stuff that makes them "feel" secure as opposed to actually being secure.
As a nerd and geek and long time hacker, it is perfectly clear to me that I've been missing the "theater" aspect of the technology that I love.
Take Linux for instance. I have had varying levels of success getting non-geeks to use it, but what is missing is the warm and fuzzies that make it psychologically comfortable to not be using Windows or a Macintosh.
There are two sides to change of any kind. (1) The actual details of change. (2) The psychological affirmation that it is worth the effort. No matter how valid the argument presented by the first, if it does not provide the second, it will fail.
If we wish to push Linux, we have to create theater around it.
As simply a "fact," a properly compiled statistic is usually accurate, however it is impossible to establish relationships with merely one fact.
One of my favorite statistics is: "If you own a gun, you are more likely to die of gun violence."
This, without any real research on my part, is probably true, but it means nothing in and of itself. It needs to be viewed within the proper context to mean something.
It could well be that it isn't "gun ownership" here, but the environment in which gun ownership is seen as necessary. For instance, in a violent neighborhood, more people own guns, and a higher percentage of the people are killed by guns. However, within that context, you may be less likely to die of gun violence if you can protect yourself with a gun. The real relationship is bad neighborhoods and violent crime driving gun ownership, not the gun ownership itself.
The point? The fact may be accurate, but one fact is almost meaningless without other facts and theory supporting it. If it is a fact that there are a disproportionately large number of engineers and science geeks in terrorism circles, I don't see any supporting frame work of theory and other facts to suggest it is any more than that the other idiots blew themselves up somewhere, but the intellectuals sort of didn't want to do that for obvious reasons.
So, in short, what is it that can't be done?
I did some looking around and what I find questionable is that they can't find any evidence of hacking. That the administrators can't find it.
The end result is obviously common, but the mode of attack is suspect.
Infected ad-servers would be the easiest.
But it doesn't fit the available facts.
Software has to suck because the market can't afford software that doesn't suck. Kids out of high school and collage or fresh out of joe's web school. aren't qualified to write good software, yet this is what companies hire over more experienced people.
Even then, there is no ability to develop your skills because you spend 99% of your time learning new environments.
Software is HUGELY complex these days and it takes a log of study, knowledge, and skill to be any good at it. Companies don't want to hear that. They want to increase productivity by "KLOC." (Un)fortunately, there is a lot of "art" and "creativity" in software development and without well defined product specs, rigid test plans, and quality assurance which adds delays and cost to a project you won't get better code.
Standard business upside potential vs downside risk. Upside potential: first to market, profit!!! Downside risk: blame some hacker.
There is something suspicious about this report. Some things can't happen the way people say they happen, and when that is the case we have to look at more likely scenarios.
I would bet the path of the TCP/IP packets route through compromised providers who have an injection strategy. Remember a few months ago how IPSs were injecting their own java script and ads into the pages of other sites?
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070703
This is the most likely scenario I can think of.
I disagree. If he was found having 10000+ files on his hard drive, then he would be screwed.
An important point:
You do not need to prove ownership of the files. It is not illegal or wrong to have the copies, it is illegal to distribute copyrighted material.
They have to prove you distributed the works. There is already precedent that RIAA's argument of "merely making available" is not sufficient.
I have to laugh. I was just having a conversation with a Java/Swing guy and everything you list is precisely what what's missing from the modern "OO" environment.
Yes, I agree, as a concept, well written OO can provide those things that you mention:
1) maintainability
2) understandability
3) code reusability
4) loosely coupled code
5) modular code
Then again, *any* well written code provides those things. What we see, however, is ever growing heaps of interdependent class libraries who's periodic API deltas cause huge amounts of "re-integration" every time a single component is upgraded.
I would say, if you think OO is some magic bullet, spend a week on Java Swing.
PHP, or "Personal Home Page" to us old time users (Not PHP Hypertext Processor, as some revisionists would have to believe.) is a simple web scripting language first envisioned in the 90s for making simple web pages.
.NET environments, and things like JSF or Swing are HUGELY complex and difficult to manage. With a continuum between simple HTML docs to HUGE applications, PHP sits in a very wide middle ground that it easy to manage and deploy.
For what it is, PHP is pretty good, a quick and dirty scripting language that, if used right, can make some pretty impressive applications.
The real problem with PHP is the bickering and infighting little boys club that is the PHP development community. Over time they've learned a lot, but for the most part they believe they know everything and everyone else is wrong. Even though there are public forums, decisions are made on IRC chats. It is not as transparent or well functioning as groups like Apache, PostgreSQL, and others. A lot of petty crap goes on behind the scenes and a lot of people who would have been active contributors get pissed off and leave.
I could go on with first hand and second hand stories and it is my opinion that it is this lack of professionalism that hinders PHP quality and adoption on an enterprise level.
All that being said, PHP has a solid purpose in the web world. Java and
So was it Evil when Jobs did it?
Of course it was, but when a small marginal player does something "evil," it's impact is mitigated by its ability to capitalize on it. When a convicted monopolist does something evil, everyone suffers.
As far as being Evil, this isn't much different than what Apple used to do back when I was a kid in the 80s.
I never said it was original. Microsoft doesn't know how to be original. Everything Microsoft has ever done has been stolen, copied, or bought from someone else.
This is an example of how evil Microsoft is. They'll donate some "thing" only as long as it contributes to their business. Why this is wrong is pretty subtle. They have no intention of saving anyone any money. Typically with contributions, the outcome is a net gain for the organization receiving the contribution. Not with this deal, this will be a net loss for the schools receiving the "grants." Only the costs will be differed.
The "training" microsoft is talking about is their typical "training" where general concepts and understanding is not part of the instructional course except where necessary to use their product. If you have ever taken any Microsoft training courses you'll know what I'm talking about. A networking class is not about networking, but about "their" networking tools.
I have taken a couple Microsoft courses for various reasons, and have always come away saying (1) that was a huge waste of time. (2) It was like a big commercial for Microsoft products. (3) It was useless in any practical sense.
Now, all these nicely trained people aren't going to be looking at the cost-saving alternatives like OpenOffice and/or Linux, nope, they'll be revved up to buy MS Office and Windows (because that's what they were trained on!)
My Advice, when Microsoft offers you anything for free, turn it down, because it will always end up costing you.
I wish I could respond to multiple posts with one, but this will have to suffice.
In my not especially humble opinion, you are completely wrong. Computer science is the mathematics of computers
Perhaps my post was misunderstood. Another response stated: Is chemistry the study of theoretical elements and molecules? Of course not. It is the study of "real world" elements and molecules and we have several models which we study and learn, but eventually it is always about "real" molecules and elements.
Similarly, computer science must be about real computers. With real limitations. Yea, sure theoretical models are nice, but algorithms must work on real computers or they don't work.
What is missing from the Java mentality is real knowledge of the science, the real computers and how they work. Memory limits are real. Numerical limits are real i.e. 64 bits vs 32 bits is a real world issue, and knowing that your are on a 32 bit system may allow you to write code that uses half as much memory.
I'm very "theory oriented," but pure abstract theory is meaningless unless it has some practical application. The whole field of computer science is a set of maths and logic around getting basically stupid devices to do complex work.
Put another way, thinking in EE terms. Java is to computers what the theoretical op-amp is to electronics. Yes, op-amps are a mathematical model of an amplifier and good for designing circuits, but you wouldn't expect an EE to disregard the work of designing "real" amplifiers as not relevant because op-amps exist. More to the point, like java, op-aps don't work perfectly on the edge conditions either.
I've been in the business for more than a couple decades now, and what I see is the same old problem:Interpretive languages vs Compiled or assembly languages. Make no mistake, Java and .NET are "interpretive" languages. Argue all you want about this or that special case, but the intention and design of these environments is the elimination of physical hardware.
People who are uninterested in the nature of computers chose interpretive languages. People who are interested in computer internals use a directly translatable language like C, Assembler, or C++. This is not a value judgment, it just is.
IMHO, computer science is not about theoretical virtual machines, but the practical implementation of complex concepts on limited physical computers. The way I see it, the former is masturbation and the latter is sex.
First, about 20 years ago I was an electrician, and worked as an EE designing motor and power circuits as my first job, so I kind of know what I'm talking about.
Ahhh... no, not quite. You're referring to the two hot legs of a typical household AC power feed as if they were DC, which is a dangerous misconception at best.
For canonical reference only, it works for discussion, especially when you have a broad audience.
So: My take on this issue is that it is indeed bad design on Dell's part, most likely the result of trying to shave one too many pennies off manufacturing costs. I'm surprised the thing even passed UL approval.
It is still probably bad outlet wiring. Most modern outlets have polarized plugs, if the plug itself is polarized, then it is a valid design to assume neutral is ground.
All it takes is some zipper head to cut the ground prong off a plugstrip and plug it in backwards, and a *lot* of two prong devices will zap you.
As any electrician will tell you, with two phase 110v in the U.S. (most homes and establishments) You have only hot and ground. If you rip open your electrical box you will notice three wires coming in. +120, -120, and ground. All the white wires and grounds get connected to the same buss. The hot (black wire) gets a fuse or breaker to either +120 or -120. (220v appliances get two breakers linked together.)
The people getting a shock probably have their outlet wired incorrectly.
I doubt very much it is Dell's fault. That being said, isolation through a transformer is always a good idea.
It all depends on what is *really* legal vs what they say is illegal. These bastards have so muddied the waters that even judges don't know anymore.
How do you create an encryption system between two entities when a 3rd has access to all the same technology and can monitor, intercept, and spoof all communications.
It is an interesting problem, any crypto guys out there want to take a stab at it.
I would suspect that were this brought before lakota justice, the ruling would be carefully considered and very fair.
We indians have an undeserved reputation of being backward, but the truth is that while we were savage in confrontation, we did not seek it out. It was the whites that trespassed, pushed, and killed. The root of the conflict was the so called "manifest destiny," which in short was a bloody movement to steal land from the people who lived on it, by killing them.
Once a war is started, neither side has clean hands. We all fight and kill to survive and win, but we did not start it! The treaties the U.S. signed have not been honored and the Indians, or at least thier descendants, deserve to have a national apology and some sort of reparation.
The U.S.A.'s holocaust was the indian wars. Sure we've painted it with glory through movies and lore, but real civilizations and populations were destroyed and they were vilified by the whites for having the audacity to try to fight against eradication.
"we techies" invented this shit so that it gets used the way we want it.
"we techies" certainly didn't/don't pay for the infrastructure. Government, university, and corporate money developed the hard infrastructure of the internet. Much of the software development was directed and funded.
It isn't "our" realm. It may have been our genius that created it, but it now belongs to everyone, and with that, comes cultural differences. The internet neighborhood is changing. Like it or not, other people's views and opinions have to be heard.
It ain't Darpa any more.