There a lot of problems where making the proper asumptions renders the solution almost authomatically.
I'll go first for the question: How can I securely send data to someone outside the firewall? I can go through a lengthy reasonement, but I'll just say: given the fact that you need to ask for such info, don't try. Just burn it on a CD or DVD or put it on a USB stick, an external hard disk or something like this and tell the consultant come to your office and give it to her with your HR Director testifying the transaction. It'll be cost-effective and it will be the most secure way you will find: since you got off the sending phase, there's not chance to mistake it. If it's terribly valuable data, it might happen that your consultor will be suplanted, but then any problem will be for the HR Director; remember he was there.
But then, do you really think the real problem is the transit? What if somebody hacks your consultor's PC? What if she's a villaine and just sells your data to the Russian mafia? That's the real problem. And once you have spotted the real problem, the answer rises by itself: Don't give your consultant the data! It's so easy it almost hurts.
Your company doesn't need a consultor to move your data from the old app to the new. Your company needs a consultor to write a program that will automatically migrate the data. But then, how will the consultor write the program without access to the real data? It can surely be corner-cases, exceptions... You need to provide her with "shaked" data: you just need to take the real data and randomly reorder the columns, then pass it to the programmer to test his program against it.
So, if your data is: John Doe|123456|57 Some Street Abe Avellin|789012|42 God's answer Bob Bukowsky|345678|101 Nowhere's Lane
Your consultor will work against: John Doe|789012|57 Some Street Bob Bukowsky|345678|101 Nowhere's Lane Abe Avellin|123456|42 God's answer
Any data nuisance is guaranteed to still be there, but the consultor will never put his hands on significative data (there's no Abe Avellin living in 42 God's answer with SSN 123456). Your consultor will never be able to reconstruct the deshuffled data but even then, if you still have any scrupples, you can shuffle the data even within any single register so "John Doe" becomes "oJDnh oe", etc.
"Ok, brute for this: DOJ DSKN it uses a one time pad if you are interested in the encryption"
While I see your point, one time pad *is* crackeable. A message is never an island (if it is valuable, that is) and lives within a context. In this article, you already know the decyphered data will render "SSN, Name, Birth date, etc.". Not to say such a big message would be decipherable, but given the same amount of previous knowledge, yours would be trivial, provided it's a text message (a number would be undecipherable anyway, due to the lack of redundance on the message in the clear).
"Old fart who still uses -print, even though in every modern implementation it's implied now.:P"
Yes. Firstly I wrote it without the "-print", but then, when I was previewing, I saw I said it would work on any unix-like system so I went for the safe side (I really don't know for sure if, say, HP-Ux or AIX will default to print or still do it the old way).
"Yeah, it works, but on Linux using the package manager is always much quicker"
Well, I explicitly said "find" would work surely but slowerly, so I fart a "-1 redundant" on your general direction. And then, do you really know the syntax to ask the package manager on Debian, Red Hat, Gentoo, Lunar, Arch and, oh my god, Slackware? If you don't, your answer is not a general one (and it is not anyway to find a file not under package management), and if you do, then you probably don't qualify just as "moderately competent".
"Convenience."
Using two tools when you can use just one with more or less the same level of complexity is neither convenient nor "the unix way".
"Remembering all of the steps and switches to create a certificate can be difficult for someone (like me) who doesn't do it very often. I usually have to look it up in the (very well-written) OpenSSL docs."
Me too. But then again, if you do like me and "copy/paste" the recipe from anywhere else, it's just the same copying "CA.sh something" than "openssl something" so depending on two tools (CA.sh and openssl) is still inconvenient and unnecesary.
"True management is hard- in a different way than engineering."
I'm afraid you are taking your desires for facts.
"True" is whatever the world makes true (what you think it should be it's not "true" but "ideal").
"It involves motivation, a good workplace morale."
If somehow a manager can get better profits with bad workplace morale than with good one, what do you think the manager will do? In fact, what do you think the manager *should* do? (and sorry but what you are thinking is a false asumption: there's a lot of places where good workplace morale unluckily won't make better profits neither in the short nor in the long run where management-wise is better to allow for big turnarounds and having people in a perpetual death march; being there, seen that, got the T-shirt).
"It involves deciding which of three employees will have to work a holiday in a way that people respect even if they are unhappy with the fact that decision has to be made"
Or it just involves telling one "you: you will work tomorrow, the heck with respect". When there's no difference to the manager bonus one way or the other, that's what you get (and it's easier for the manager as long as he has the guts).
"It involves listening to all the projects being pitched and correctly picking the two that will result in the best success vs. the resources used"
Or it involves just randomly taking two (after all nobody will never know what the profit *would* have been for the others, since they ended up in the trash can: as long as your results are more or less on line with those of your colleagues, you ass is covered -even more than being too good: you will have a hard day if you make jaleous and angry a dozen perverse people -I told you they make people work on holidays just because that makes them feel powerul, did I? with good soft interpersonal abilities, easy access to the big bosses and too much free time). Or, if the manager has some cell brains, taking the two which will return the best short time profits, even if that means the company will be broken in five years (after all he already collected his bonus and is working on a different company with a higher salary due to his documented profit achievements).
"It involves correctly scheduling work so your engineers are not allowed to work themselves to death."
Or, more reallistically, it involves correctly scheduling work so his engineers are so overburdened they have no time even to search for a different job on the web.
"And it involves getting the paperwork out of the worker's way."
Mwahahahahahaha! Or it involves collect enough paper to cover his own ass with it.
" If you use OpenSuSE (or any other RPM-based distro) and are moderately competent, then you should know how to query the RPM database to get such information. If you didn't, you don't qualify as 'moderately competent'"
If you are moderately competent, and much more on the lines of the book itself (since it seems it tries to be distribution-agnostic) you wouldn't query the RPM database when `find / -type f -name CA.sh -print`, while certainly slowerly, will find the file 100 times out of 100, no matter what the distribution is (it won't even need to be Linux, any unix-like will fit).
On the other hand, I don't see why the heck using the CA.sh script, specially if you are going to use openssl directly for everything else. Being so, why just don't use openssl for everything and avoid the CA.sh script dependency?
There's a kind of people that are always upset because the world in not the way they'd like instead of trying to understand it. Just a fact of life.
"If we had one hundred developers working on one project rather than one hundred projects by one developer each, then we'd see much better quality software."
The point is not that if we had one hundred developers... The point is that *You* Don't Have One Hundred Developers. If you want to have one hundred developers, you'd better pay them, and then they'll move at your command.
Meanwhile, the expectable output of one hundred people (not "developers" but just plain people of any kind) moving by they own interests (not yours) is that they'll wander wherever they like to, probably one hundred different paths.
"From what I recall it was more general than that."
Yes, of course. But we were talking about chapter 2 (which is the one called "the mythical man month" itself, by the way).
"Software projects require a great deal of intercommunication, so scaling them is hard."
While this is the "first read" from MMM, there's a slight point to be noted. It is not software projects that require a great deal of intercommunication, but that *when* a great deal of intercommunication is needed, there's a curve with a point beyond that adding more "horsepower" won't lead to an earlier finish (and probably it will make it later). The point is needed, because as long as there are "communication islands" the problem won't appear. And, as the author states himself in its 20-year revision, there can be practices (like OO programming) that can heavily reduce communication needs thus making room for more people.
"The MMM further postulates that there is a point at which the disadvantages of communicating with a large team outweighs the advantages of having more people. So a team of 20 might be able to outperform a team of 60."
That's true, once you add the "*if* some constraints appear (like heavy intercommunication dependance) there will be a point that...". Not to say that *all* inter-communication channels can be closed (or even that it's benefitial trying to close them), but they can be diminished, and by doing so, you are certainly killing (to a point) the mythical man-month.
"There is much evidence that collaboration does not improve developer productivity."
Surely it doesn't, so what? How cares about developer productivity, except for the developer himself? Everybody else is interested about *project* productivity. What is the interest of a "full productivity" environment (i.e.: a single guru, jack-of-all-trades that warranties the lowest man-hour count for a project) if the target date is missed by three years? I very much will use a five-people team with an overall productivity of only 80% giving me a time-to market of one year than a single-developer show that will retain the product four years. In fact, the very interesting point is being able to find on a repeteable manner the "sweet spot" where you can optimize, at the same time, man hours (money) and time-to-market.
"It isn't that bringing newcomers up to speed delays progress.
Yes it is.
"The newcomers bog things down no matter how fast they come up to speed."
Bullshit. Just add in proper time ie. a database expert to a team that has noone for a three-tier project and you will see how things do *not* bog down.
"If you have read the book, read it again."
I read it, thanks, and I'm quite aware about what the differences are between partionable and non-partitionable tasks (the bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned) as I'm about how communication complexities can grow exponentially.
Still, it doesn't mean that bringing more heads to a project will delay it. It means that trying to partition what's unpartitionable (or, in other words, trying to parallelize what is serial in nature) won't give you earlier results, and it means that bringing new heads to an already delayed project will add a further delay that it is function of the bringing to speed effort (both technically-wise and due to integration on the team) and it means that adding one man-month more to the project won't allow for the project to be finished one month earlier, NOT that it won't be finished earlier.
Maybe you should re-read the book too, trying this time to *understand* the overall concepts, not only the sentences.
""The Mythical Man Month" points out that adding people to a project often/usually slows it down."
Does "stupidly stupid" exists? I'd say that's what you earned with such a claim.
As a previous answer to you post already stated, that would mean that the fastest project would be that with *no* resources at all asigned.
What the Mythical Man Month points out is that adding people to *an already delayed project* will usually delay it even more (due to the need to bring to speed the new resource). Quite a different thing.
"You imply people should accept using buggy software."
I didn't read that way. I'd say he implies that people should accept beta software is buggy and that using beta software and filling bugs against it it's the best way for such a software to become as buggy-free as possible when launched as stable.
"Why should I use something that causes aggravation with the most simple task? I think it's ridiculous that canonical should have used such a cheesy piece of crap for a browser in the first place"
That's quite a different assumption from the grandparent's poster and I have to say I do agree with both of them: specially when talking about open source software, betatesting and filling bugs is the best way to improve software quality for a non-developer but it's ridiculous and misleading shipping a quoted-to-be stable and "production-ready" OS release full of beta-quality software. Still, too many Linux distributions follow the featuritis trend instead of following strong engineering advices. Just as an example, I feel OK for Fedora to be released with beta-quality software (Fedora is aimed to be a "technology-preview" and enthusiast testing field) while I don't feel the same to be OK for Ubuntu which is told to be a production-ready, non-technical user-friendly one.
But then, I think Linux distributions not to be so different to any other "market" products: it is the consumer responsibility (within legal requirements) to practice their own "due-diligence" and see how good the *product*, not the marketroid speech, stands against their requirements.
"Sometime traffic shaping can be a good thing. For example, on a VOIP call you really do want to give priority to the packets associated with the call"
Yes. And it's a good thing for your ISP to know you are, for example, on VoIP to really *slowdown* the packets associated with the call so they can push through your throat their "premium service for VoIP" which is just de-capping again your VoIP calls.
Oh! and *they* -not you, are the owners of the device so, what of those two "good things" do you thing you will see on a very near future?
"The description in Genesis of God bringing forth Day and Night on the earth can be understood in..."
In quite a lot different ways, and that's part of the point too. Is not compatible with Science to made up an explanation "backwards" just trying to find a way that can make what you read in the Bible to fit with whatever happens to say Science. Nor it's compatible with Science to take apart from its context some element from an argument to see if you can make up a counterargument, changing elements when challenged to see if you can pass away that way (you went into your idea about what meant God by day and night but you "forgot" for instance about the little fact that Science doesn't support humankind coming to be directly out of basic elements, be it mud or whatever, and without evolution).
Oh, and by the way, you can say that God bringing day and night can be understood as an allegory about the atmosphere cleaning so Sun, Moon and the stars finally were seen from the Earth, but the fact is that Genesis 16 explicitly says "And God MADE the two great lights" (emphasis mine). Why it says MADE when, in fact, they were made much earlier? Why it doesn't say, for instance, "and then the Sun, and the Moon, and the stars were seen from land so seasons and days and years could be measured". Or is it that the Hebrew word for "make" can be translated as "see" too?
But let's take your argument that, in fact, "God's division of Day and Night was accomplished by parting that cloud barrier gradually, thereby allowing light from the Sun to shine in." That was forth day, remember? But then, what happened on third day, whatever "day" means? "God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth."". So are you really saying that there were "trees bearing fruit" prior for the Sun being visible from the Earth? And do you think that's in accordance with Science saying? And then, remember that all kind of land creatures were made up by fith day. So do you really think that there can be "trees bearing fruit" in a world without insects which only came to life two "days" later?
And, please have a look at Genesis 2.5 and following. Do you remeber why the Sun was not visible from the Earth by your own account? It was because of the thick clouds, wasn't it? But then, by that time "the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth". There was no rain but, still, there were thick clouds. There was no rain but still there were waters under the Heaven (on Earth), so deep indeed that there was no land surfacing. And still you sustain that there's some kind of general agreement between Science and the Bible.
"Given your extremely argumentative nature and your resort to reviling, it's quite evident you're not really open to reason."
Rejecting nonsenses vocally is not being closed to reason. But still, I sustained argument against your reasonements quite lengthy and quite deeply, and I do here again.
""Six days" is not prescribed as a literal figure in the Bible. The word in Hebrew that was here rendered "day" actually referred to an indeterminate time period"
Yeah, of course... The word in Hebrew (yôm) actually *can* refer to an indeterminate time period... ON SOME CIRCUMNSTANCES! In fact, "day" is an indeterminated time span in English and other modern languages too -in some circumnstances. You can say for instance, "in Caesar's day, Rome ruled the world".
But in Genesis, yôm referes to an "indeterminate time period" that happens to actually be divided in evenings and mornings and it is modified by numbers, like "in the fifth day" or "in the seventh day" or, as it reads on Gen. 14, "And there was evening and there was morning, a third day." An "indeterminate time period"? My ass.
" and seeing how the Bible shows that these things all happened within their own, separate periods, what we're left seeing is the general progression of events. Science agrees with that basic progression."
Yeah, that there is a basic, general progression in were the Earth is older than Sun and Moon, and all living creatures became to life in the same "generic time period", that dinosaurs, and fishes, and birds became more or less at the same time and in an independent form is what basically Science agrees with. Yeah, sure. My ass.
"The Bible also does not credit the mud with man's formation. It was God utilizing those basic elements and then infusing his power"
Yeah, that humankind became directly from basic elements into which God infused Its Almighty power not from a very long and complex chain of evolutionary development of previous life forms is what Science basically agrees with. Yeah, sure. My ass.
I beg you, please, to recheck this whole thread. You are completly right in that Christian Theology and Science indeed overlap. As you clearly state, it's untrue that Christian Theology and Science can somehow coexist since they both are about different things, the true being that Christian Theology is a superset of Science: it is about *how* things became to be (and that's what Science is about too) and then more: *why* things became that way.
On the other hand, you are lamely wrong about Christian Theology and Science being compatible, even in general terms. Not only the very facts show clearly this (the Genesis is utterly wrong about how things happened, not only literally but conceptually too, no matter how vagely you try to interpret it) but as a general concept it is terribly dobious too (why the heck should be God to be so imprecise? Heck, God is almighty and omniscient; how is it that He didn't find a brilliant way to tell us, all of us, those living in a desert six thousand years ago and those that saw the man walking over the Moon at the same time that "verily, verily I say that the electron mass is truly 9.10938188 × 10^-31 kilograms" and He had to restort to a very doubtful traslation of yôm to spread His Message? That's expectable from a snake oil seller, not Almighty God).
Just as a side note I'd say that even the previous paragraphs being basically true, Catholic Church demonstrates how clever it is, since it promptly introduced a "caveat" regarding all this issue: from almost the very beginning, Rome Church introduced the notion that faith dogmas are neither only nor mainly those extracted from the Holy Writes, but what Mother Ecclesia mandates both from the Books and Its tradition, which is managed by the Pope, Its head. This way, Catholicism opens the door for an "Did I say tomato? No, no, I said tomeito" strategy and so, while in the XV century it was "literallist" (yes: surely the Universe was literally made in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago) -some Christian churches never abandoned this state, in the XVII-XVIII as Science pressed it moved into the interpretativeness (quite in your very line: well it's not literal days, but some kind of "epochs", but it's factually true on a general matter), -some Christian churches n
"My original point only goes to show that there is no disjointing conflict between what is written in the Generally Accepted Canonical Scriptures That Have Been More Widely Distributed Than Any Other Book And Are The Only Set On Which Christian Theologies Are Traditionally Founded and what Science has generally discovered to be true."
Like... that somehow the Universe was created in six days, with *all* the living forms within -that dinosaurs and mammals, fishes and birds became at the same time, and then by the seventh an stasis became since God rested? Do you really think there's "no disjointing conflict" about the Earth being made first and light being later, or that there was night and day *prior* to the stars being -or the Sun and the Moon, for that matter, as the Genesis states (Gen. 2-6, 16)?
Or is it that in order for daylight to stop someone must command the Sun, not the Earth, to stop its jurney?
Is it the "no conflict" thing about the human kind becoming directly out from mud on a kind of oasis in the middle of a desert, or is it that from some time all humankind was made up just of men, since women came later?
"Or are those alternatives simply not as good as Exchange"
Or are those alternatives not so entangled to other... Microsoft products like Microsoft Office or Microsoft Active Directory? (surprise, surprise).
Microsoft was accused -and found guilty, of abusive monopolistic practices and today one of the strongest arguments to stay with Microsoft is Microsoft entanglement and lock-in (it's so curious... or is it?)
"Therefore, would it not be correct to say that, in this instance, the business stays with Microsoft because it's actually the best option for their needs?"
Certainly Microsoft is the best *percieved short term* option for their needs.
"If the film writers were able to explain every detail about how the Iron Man suit worked, it wouldn't be science fiction."
Not exactly.
You can have "science fiction", like in "2001, a Space Oddisey": you don't have the technology to build neither HAL, nor the big spaceship or the hibernation systems, but you know it could work "in principle".
Or you can have "weird science fiction", like an antimatter engine, a "quantic force shield" or even some kind of "hyperspatial, faster than light" flight, that could work by an aduced "current lack of knowledge".
And then you have "nuts science fiction" where the explained or seen parts are obviously unworkable by known applied physical principles, like sounds on spatial explosions or fighters that navigate on a vacuum as if they were on an atmosphere on Starwars or an obvious reaction jet-like engine without an expellable mass deposit, which is the case here.
"That would be a good, smug point, had I not already identified the Hebrew and Christian Greek scriptures in my reference to 'Christian Theology.'"
No, you didn't. Just look for "greek" or "hebrew" on your post: no notion of them. And that's more to my point: you are so "subsumed" by the "my book is *the* book" you are even unconciusly falling in you own trap -to ignore that there're other "books". For one, Theology is not so much about Hebrew and Christian scriptures but about analyzing "the meaning of God" which, around the Bible -whatever Bible, is mostly about Catholicism, or at least Catholic auto-attributed (since the Catholic Church in fact produced the vast majority of theologists between the fith century and the Reform and would attribute to themselves the best part of those before the V Century -Nicea's Council, for instance) so any unreferred mention about "Christian Theology" is basically about Rome and latin and not about Hebrew or Greek.
And then, comes the Bible-thing: no it's not clear from your assertion what Bible are you talking about. From my previous paragraph it's obvious that lacking more precise attribution I'd tend to think that you must be talking about S. Isidorus' and modern derivatives as blessed by the Catholic Church while your last post makes evident you must be talking about "something else" and even then, I cannot be more precise since even if you talk about "Hebrew and Greek scriptures" you say nothing about *which* "Hebrew and Greek scriptures": Canonical -as per Rome standards? St. John's Apocalipse? Maybe the Greek Rome's considered apocriphe scriptures? Death Sea rolls? Greek arrian scriptures? Copt traditions, or more probably, whatever your Church tells you to be *The Real Thing (TM)* despite the fact that you probably never read them in their original greek and hebrew forms literally transcribed (with their holes, modisms and graphisms) not to talk about facsimile nor *gasp*! the real, datable, traceable originals?
And of course, once you take that path, there's the "little problem" of how's possible for God being so hard to trace out -you know, theists disbelieve of one thousand gods while atheists disbelieve of thousand and one gods, not such a big difference (well, luckily I know the *real* answer, since I'm Catholic: it's in order to confuse impious without faith, and you, poor heretic, will burn for the whole eternity in Hell because of your disdain for *The Real Thing (TM)* which only us, Catholics, gladly embrace).
"Yup, some parts of Spain rival the Nevada desert (and that's why Italian Western flicks are filmed there). However, they also rival the Nevada desert for development levels -- in other words, not many industries around to consume electricity."
But you should consider scale too. Extremadura deserts are about 200 miles away from Madrid, Almeria's less than 300. Bardenas or Monegros, about 200 miles away from Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia or Bilbao, quite industrialized (and if it wasn't the case, they are near enough to industrialize them almost on the spot -currently there's quite an ambitious plan to create a "new Las Vegas" on Monegros, less than 30 miles away from Zaragoza, for instance).
"Hmmm... i guess we'd better let the permafrost stay frozen then:)"
Yes.
And so you go into why really is global warm so worrying. It is not the "pure" situation that average temperature grows 5 C degrees. It's not even that large amounts of people living near the seaside will need to migrate but the "collateral" effects: if permafrost "defrosts" it will reduce albedo and will rise CO2 levels by itself; if polar ices go backwards albedo reduces again and more of the Sun heat will be retained. And some global ocean fluxes will change and so will do the ability for C3 crops to grow and the cascade effect while certainly not affecting life as a whole will indeed affect human life worldwide *very* greatly.
It even doesn't really matter if it is human-caused or not but if we will be able to survive as a civilization on a climate and an atmosphere like that of the Jurassic (hint: not currently, not without paying a tremendously high price).
"Eisenstein was what happened when Heisenberg was merged with Einstein in a horrible teleporter accident. The scientists involved swore to never speak of it in public"
That's true: we all swore not to talk about it, so it's not so hard to understand why did you get your facts so wrong. It was not a teleporter but a multistate cat sandbox on the Potemkin battleship.
"So then, you see, both the Bible (which term I will use rather than Theology, since when referencing theology you must be specific as to whose theology)"
Then I beg you to tell us "whose Bible" too. It's not as if there were only one, you know.
"Science-fiction is fiction based on science. It doesn't require actual, current technology, only theoretically possible technology."
Then you please can tell us what's the theoretical possibility for some one hundred kilograms mass the form a human body to be pushed from their feet and be able to control it without any control surfaces -on the air? (do you know what happens with a back-traction car on a slipery road? Then think about the same on a 1000 times more slipery "road": the air).
No to talk about the fact of such a mass being pushed by a reactor (action and reaction Newton's law) without any source to explain where all the ejected mass comes from.
"In any case, a rocket-jet-inside-a-shoe is still at least more believable than some guy being bitten by a spider who can then hold a tramway full of people with his bare hands."
But this film wants to play somehow "science-fiction" while spiderman tries to be simply fantasy.
Slashdot Mirror
There a lot of problems where making the proper asumptions renders the solution almost authomatically.
I'll go first for the question: How can I securely send data to someone outside the firewall? I can go through a lengthy reasonement, but I'll just say: given the fact that you need to ask for such info, don't try. Just burn it on a CD or DVD or put it on a USB stick, an external hard disk or something like this and tell the consultant come to your office and give it to her with your HR Director testifying the transaction. It'll be cost-effective and it will be the most secure way you will find: since you got off the sending phase, there's not chance to mistake it. If it's terribly valuable data, it might happen that your consultor will be suplanted, but then any problem will be for the HR Director; remember he was there.
But then, do you really think the real problem is the transit? What if somebody hacks your consultor's PC? What if she's a villaine and just sells your data to the Russian mafia? That's the real problem. And once you have spotted the real problem, the answer rises by itself: Don't give your consultant the data! It's so easy it almost hurts.
Your company doesn't need a consultor to move your data from the old app to the new. Your company needs a consultor to write a program that will automatically migrate the data. But then, how will the consultor write the program without access to the real data? It can surely be corner-cases, exceptions... You need to provide her with "shaked" data: you just need to take the real data and randomly reorder the columns, then pass it to the programmer to test his program against it.
So, if your data is:
John Doe|123456|57 Some Street
Abe Avellin|789012|42 God's answer
Bob Bukowsky|345678|101 Nowhere's Lane
Your consultor will work against:
John Doe|789012|57 Some Street
Bob Bukowsky|345678|101 Nowhere's Lane
Abe Avellin|123456|42 God's answer
Any data nuisance is guaranteed to still be there, but the consultor will never put his hands on significative data (there's no Abe Avellin living in 42 God's answer with SSN 123456). Your consultor will never be able to reconstruct the deshuffled data but even then, if you still have any scrupples, you can shuffle the data even within any single register so "John Doe" becomes "oJDnh oe", etc.
"Ok, brute for this:
DOJ DSKN
it uses a one time pad if you are interested in the encryption"
While I see your point, one time pad *is* crackeable. A message is never an island (if it is valuable, that is) and lives within a context. In this article, you already know the decyphered data will render "SSN, Name, Birth date, etc.". Not to say such a big message would be decipherable, but given the same amount of previous knowledge, yours would be trivial, provided it's a text message (a number would be undecipherable anyway, due to the lack of redundance on the message in the clear).
YOU CUTE.
"Old fart who still uses -print, even though in every modern implementation it's implied now. :P"
Yes. Firstly I wrote it without the "-print", but then, when I was previewing, I saw I said it would work on any unix-like system so I went for the safe side (I really don't know for sure if, say, HP-Ux or AIX will default to print or still do it the old way).
"Yeah, it works, but on Linux using the package manager is always much quicker"
Well, I explicitly said "find" would work surely but slowerly, so I fart a "-1 redundant" on your general direction. And then, do you really know the syntax to ask the package manager on Debian, Red Hat, Gentoo, Lunar, Arch and, oh my god, Slackware? If you don't, your answer is not a general one (and it is not anyway to find a file not under package management), and if you do, then you probably don't qualify just as "moderately competent".
"Convenience."
Using two tools when you can use just one with more or less the same level of complexity is neither convenient nor "the unix way".
"Remembering all of the steps and switches to create a certificate can be difficult for someone (like me) who doesn't do it very often. I usually have to look it up in the (very well-written) OpenSSL docs."
Me too. But then again, if you do like me and "copy/paste" the recipe from anywhere else, it's just the same copying "CA.sh something" than "openssl something" so depending on two tools (CA.sh and openssl) is still inconvenient and unnecesary.
"True management is hard- in a different way than engineering."
I'm afraid you are taking your desires for facts.
"True" is whatever the world makes true (what you think it should be it's not "true" but "ideal").
"It involves motivation, a good workplace morale."
If somehow a manager can get better profits with bad workplace morale than with good one, what do you think the manager will do? In fact, what do you think the manager *should* do? (and sorry but what you are thinking is a false asumption: there's a lot of places where good workplace morale unluckily won't make better profits neither in the short nor in the long run where management-wise is better to allow for big turnarounds and having people in a perpetual death march; being there, seen that, got the T-shirt).
"It involves deciding which of three employees will have to work a holiday in a way that people respect even if they are unhappy with the fact that decision has to be made"
Or it just involves telling one "you: you will work tomorrow, the heck with respect". When there's no difference to the manager bonus one way or the other, that's what you get (and it's easier for the manager as long as he has the guts).
"It involves listening to all the projects being pitched and correctly picking the two that will result in the best success vs. the resources used"
Or it involves just randomly taking two (after all nobody will never know what the profit *would* have been for the others, since they ended up in the trash can: as long as your results are more or less on line with those of your colleagues, you ass is covered -even more than being too good: you will have a hard day if you make jaleous and angry a dozen perverse people -I told you they make people work on holidays just because that makes them feel powerul, did I? with good soft interpersonal abilities, easy access to the big bosses and too much free time). Or, if the manager has some cell brains, taking the two which will return the best short time profits, even if that means the company will be broken in five years (after all he already collected his bonus and is working on a different company with a higher salary due to his documented profit achievements).
"It involves correctly scheduling work so your engineers are not allowed to work themselves to death."
Or, more reallistically, it involves correctly scheduling work so his engineers are so overburdened they have no time even to search for a different job on the web.
"And it involves getting the paperwork out of the worker's way."
Mwahahahahahaha! Or it involves collect enough paper to cover his own ass with it.
" If you use OpenSuSE (or any other RPM-based distro) and are moderately competent, then you should know how to query the RPM database to get such information. If you didn't, you don't qualify as 'moderately competent'"
If you are moderately competent, and much more on the lines of the book itself (since it seems it tries to be distribution-agnostic) you wouldn't query the RPM database when `find / -type f -name CA.sh -print`, while certainly slowerly, will find the file 100 times out of 100, no matter what the distribution is (it won't even need to be Linux, any unix-like will fit).
On the other hand, I don't see why the heck using the CA.sh script, specially if you are going to use openssl directly for everything else. Being so, why just don't use openssl for everything and avoid the CA.sh script dependency?
"That's what I dislike about the FOSS attitude."
There's a kind of people that are always upset because the world in not the way they'd like instead of trying to understand it. Just a fact of life.
"If we had one hundred developers working on one project rather than one hundred projects by one developer each, then we'd see much better quality software."
The point is not that if we had one hundred developers... The point is that *You* Don't Have One Hundred Developers. If you want to have one hundred developers, you'd better pay them, and then they'll move at your command.
Meanwhile, the expectable output of one hundred people (not "developers" but just plain people of any kind) moving by they own interests (not yours) is that they'll wander wherever they like to, probably one hundred different paths.
"From what I recall it was more general than that."
Yes, of course. But we were talking about chapter 2 (which is the one called "the mythical man month" itself, by the way).
"Software projects require a great deal of intercommunication, so scaling them is hard."
While this is the "first read" from MMM, there's a slight point to be noted. It is not software projects that require a great deal of intercommunication, but that *when* a great deal of intercommunication is needed, there's a curve with a point beyond that adding more "horsepower" won't lead to an earlier finish (and probably it will make it later). The point is needed, because as long as there are "communication islands" the problem won't appear. And, as the author states himself in its 20-year revision, there can be practices (like OO programming) that can heavily reduce communication needs thus making room for more people.
"The MMM further postulates that there is a point at which the disadvantages of communicating with a large team outweighs the advantages of having more people. So a team of 20 might be able to outperform a team of 60."
That's true, once you add the "*if* some constraints appear (like heavy intercommunication dependance) there will be a point that...". Not to say that *all* inter-communication channels can be closed (or even that it's benefitial trying to close them), but they can be diminished, and by doing so, you are certainly killing (to a point) the mythical man-month.
"There is much evidence that collaboration does not improve developer productivity."
Surely it doesn't, so what? How cares about developer productivity, except for the developer himself? Everybody else is interested about *project* productivity. What is the interest of a "full productivity" environment (i.e.: a single guru, jack-of-all-trades that warranties the lowest man-hour count for a project) if the target date is missed by three years? I very much will use a five-people team with an overall productivity of only 80% giving me a time-to market of one year than a single-developer show that will retain the product four years. In fact, the very interesting point is being able to find on a repeteable manner the "sweet spot" where you can optimize, at the same time, man hours (money) and time-to-market.
"It isn't that bringing newcomers up to speed delays progress.
Yes it is.
"The newcomers bog things down no matter how fast they come up to speed."
Bullshit. Just add in proper time ie. a database expert to a team that has noone for a three-tier project and you will see how things do *not* bog down.
"If you have read the book, read it again."
I read it, thanks, and I'm quite aware about what the differences are between partionable and non-partitionable tasks (the bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned) as I'm about how communication complexities can grow exponentially.
Still, it doesn't mean that bringing more heads to a project will delay it. It means that trying to partition what's unpartitionable (or, in other words, trying to parallelize what is serial in nature) won't give you earlier results, and it means that bringing new heads to an already delayed project will add a further delay that it is function of the bringing to speed effort (both technically-wise and due to integration on the team) and it means that adding one man-month more to the project won't allow for the project to be finished one month earlier, NOT that it won't be finished earlier.
Maybe you should re-read the book too, trying this time to *understand* the overall concepts, not only the sentences.
""The Mythical Man Month" points out that adding people to a project often/usually slows it down."
Does "stupidly stupid" exists? I'd say that's what you earned with such a claim.
As a previous answer to you post already stated, that would mean that the fastest project would be that with *no* resources at all asigned.
What the Mythical Man Month points out is that adding people to *an already delayed project* will usually delay it even more (due to the need to bring to speed the new resource). Quite a different thing.
"You imply people should accept using buggy software."
I didn't read that way. I'd say he implies that people should accept beta software is buggy and that using beta software and filling bugs against it it's the best way for such a software to become as buggy-free as possible when launched as stable.
"Why should I use something that causes aggravation with the most simple task? I think it's ridiculous that canonical should have used such a cheesy piece of crap for a browser in the first place"
That's quite a different assumption from the grandparent's poster and I have to say I do agree with both of them: specially when talking about open source software, betatesting and filling bugs is the best way to improve software quality for a non-developer but it's ridiculous and misleading shipping a quoted-to-be stable and "production-ready" OS release full of beta-quality software. Still, too many Linux distributions follow the featuritis trend instead of following strong engineering advices. Just as an example, I feel OK for Fedora to be released with beta-quality software (Fedora is aimed to be a "technology-preview" and enthusiast testing field) while I don't feel the same to be OK for Ubuntu which is told to be a production-ready, non-technical user-friendly one.
But then, I think Linux distributions not to be so different to any other "market" products: it is the consumer responsibility (within legal requirements) to practice their own "due-diligence" and see how good the *product*, not the marketroid speech, stands against their requirements.
"Your scenario is a paranoid fantasy."
Of course. It is not as if there were somebody interested in that little "net neutrality" niusance.
"Sometime traffic shaping can be a good thing. For example, on a VOIP call you really do want to give priority to the packets associated with the call"
Yes. And it's a good thing for your ISP to know you are, for example, on VoIP to really *slowdown* the packets associated with the call so they can push through your throat their "premium service for VoIP" which is just de-capping again your VoIP calls.
Oh! and *they* -not you, are the owners of the device so, what of those two "good things" do you thing you will see on a very near future?
"The description in Genesis of God bringing forth Day and Night on the earth can be understood in..."
In quite a lot different ways, and that's part of the point too. Is not compatible with Science to made up an explanation "backwards" just trying to find a way that can make what you read in the Bible to fit with whatever happens to say Science. Nor it's compatible with Science to take apart from its context some element from an argument to see if you can make up a counterargument, changing elements when challenged to see if you can pass away that way (you went into your idea about what meant God by day and night but you "forgot" for instance about the little fact that Science doesn't support humankind coming to be directly out of basic elements, be it mud or whatever, and without evolution).
Oh, and by the way, you can say that God bringing day and night can be understood as an allegory about the atmosphere cleaning so Sun, Moon and the stars finally were seen from the Earth, but the fact is that Genesis 16 explicitly says "And God MADE the two great lights" (emphasis mine). Why it says MADE when, in fact, they were made much earlier? Why it doesn't say, for instance, "and then the Sun, and the Moon, and the stars were seen from land so seasons and days and years could be measured". Or is it that the Hebrew word for "make" can be translated as "see" too?
But let's take your argument that, in fact, "God's division of Day and Night was accomplished by parting that cloud barrier gradually, thereby allowing light from the Sun to shine in." That was forth day, remember? But then, what happened on third day, whatever "day" means? "God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth."". So are you really saying that there were "trees bearing fruit" prior for the Sun being visible from the Earth? And do you think that's in accordance with Science saying? And then, remember that all kind of land creatures were made up by fith day. So do you really think that there can be "trees bearing fruit" in a world without insects which only came to life two "days" later?
And, please have a look at Genesis 2.5 and following. Do you remeber why the Sun was not visible from the Earth by your own account? It was because of the thick clouds, wasn't it? But then, by that time "the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth". There was no rain but, still, there were thick clouds. There was no rain but still there were waters under the Heaven (on Earth), so deep indeed that there was no land surfacing. And still you sustain that there's some kind of general agreement between Science and the Bible.
"Given your extremely argumentative nature and your resort to reviling, it's quite evident you're not really open to reason."
Rejecting nonsenses vocally is not being closed to reason. But still, I sustained argument against your reasonements quite lengthy and quite deeply, and I do here again.
""Six days" is not prescribed as a literal figure in the Bible. The word in Hebrew that was here rendered "day" actually referred to an indeterminate time period"
Yeah, of course... The word in Hebrew (yôm) actually *can* refer to an indeterminate time period... ON SOME CIRCUMNSTANCES! In fact, "day" is an indeterminated time span in English and other modern languages too -in some circumnstances. You can say for instance, "in Caesar's day, Rome ruled the world".
But in Genesis, yôm referes to an "indeterminate time period" that happens to actually be divided in evenings and mornings and it is modified by numbers, like "in the fifth day" or "in the seventh day" or, as it reads on Gen. 14, "And there was evening and there was morning, a third day." An "indeterminate time period"? My ass.
" and seeing how the Bible shows that these things all happened within their own, separate periods, what we're left seeing is the general progression of events. Science agrees with that basic progression."
Yeah, that there is a basic, general progression in were the Earth is older than Sun and Moon, and all living creatures became to life in the same "generic time period", that dinosaurs, and fishes, and birds became more or less at the same time and in an independent form is what basically Science agrees with. Yeah, sure. My ass.
"The Bible also does not credit the mud with man's formation. It was God utilizing those basic elements and then infusing his power"
Yeah, that humankind became directly from basic elements into which God infused Its Almighty power not from a very long and complex chain of evolutionary development of previous life forms is what Science basically agrees with. Yeah, sure. My ass.
I beg you, please, to recheck this whole thread. You are completly right in that Christian Theology and Science indeed overlap. As you clearly state, it's untrue that Christian Theology and Science can somehow coexist since they both are about different things, the true being that Christian Theology is a superset of Science: it is about *how* things became to be (and that's what Science is about too) and then more: *why* things became that way.
On the other hand, you are lamely wrong about Christian Theology and Science being compatible, even in general terms. Not only the very facts show clearly this (the Genesis is utterly wrong about how things happened, not only literally but conceptually too, no matter how vagely you try to interpret it) but as a general concept it is terribly dobious too (why the heck should be God to be so imprecise? Heck, God is almighty and omniscient; how is it that He didn't find a brilliant way to tell us, all of us, those living in a desert six thousand years ago and those that saw the man walking over the Moon at the same time that "verily, verily I say that the electron mass is truly 9.10938188 × 10^-31 kilograms" and He had to restort to a very doubtful traslation of yôm to spread His Message? That's expectable from a snake oil seller, not Almighty God).
Just as a side note I'd say that even the previous paragraphs being basically true, Catholic Church demonstrates how clever it is, since it promptly introduced a "caveat" regarding all this issue: from almost the very beginning, Rome Church introduced the notion that faith dogmas are neither only nor mainly those extracted from the Holy Writes, but what Mother Ecclesia mandates both from the Books and Its tradition, which is managed by the Pope, Its head. This way, Catholicism opens the door for an "Did I say tomato? No, no, I said tomeito" strategy and so, while in the XV century it was "literallist" (yes: surely the Universe was literally made in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago) -some Christian churches never abandoned this state, in the XVII-XVIII as Science pressed it moved into the interpretativeness (quite in your very line: well it's not literal days, but some kind of "epochs", but it's factually true on a general matter), -some Christian churches n
"My original point only goes to show that there is no disjointing conflict between what is written in the Generally Accepted Canonical Scriptures That Have Been More Widely Distributed Than Any Other Book And Are The Only Set On Which Christian Theologies Are Traditionally Founded and what Science has generally discovered to be true."
Like... that somehow the Universe was created in six days, with *all* the living forms within -that dinosaurs and mammals, fishes and birds became at the same time, and then by the seventh an stasis became since God rested? Do you really think there's "no disjointing conflict" about the Earth being made first and light being later, or that there was night and day *prior* to the stars being -or the Sun and the Moon, for that matter, as the Genesis states (Gen. 2-6, 16)?
Or is it that in order for daylight to stop someone must command the Sun, not the Earth, to stop its jurney?
Is it the "no conflict" thing about the human kind becoming directly out from mud on a kind of oasis in the middle of a desert, or is it that from some time all humankind was made up just of men, since women came later?
I this really your "original point"?
"Or are those alternatives simply not as good as Exchange"
Or are those alternatives not so entangled to other... Microsoft products like Microsoft Office or Microsoft Active Directory? (surprise, surprise).
Microsoft was accused -and found guilty, of abusive monopolistic practices and today one of the strongest arguments to stay with Microsoft is Microsoft entanglement and lock-in (it's so curious... or is it?)
"Therefore, would it not be correct to say that, in this instance, the business stays with Microsoft because it's actually the best option for their needs?"
Certainly Microsoft is the best *percieved short term* option for their needs.
"If the film writers were able to explain every detail about how the Iron Man suit worked, it wouldn't be science fiction."
Not exactly.
You can have "science fiction", like in "2001, a Space Oddisey": you don't have the technology to build neither HAL, nor the big spaceship or the hibernation systems, but you know it could work "in principle".
Or you can have "weird science fiction", like an antimatter engine, a "quantic force shield" or even some kind of "hyperspatial, faster than light" flight, that could work by an aduced "current lack of knowledge".
And then you have "nuts science fiction" where the explained or seen parts are obviously unworkable by known applied physical principles, like sounds on spatial explosions or fighters that navigate on a vacuum as if they were on an atmosphere on Starwars or an obvious reaction jet-like engine without an expellable mass deposit, which is the case here.
"Hell, The Rocketeer did it, so why can't Stark?"
Because The Rocketeer was pushed near his gravity center, not his feet.
"As for control surfaces... Ask a skydiver what he's doing while he's falling."
Because he is pulled (by gravity) from exactly his gravity center, not his feet.
"That would be a good, smug point, had I not already identified the Hebrew and Christian Greek scriptures in my reference to 'Christian Theology.'"
No, you didn't. Just look for "greek" or "hebrew" on your post: no notion of them. And that's more to my point: you are so "subsumed" by the "my book is *the* book" you are even unconciusly falling in you own trap -to ignore that there're other "books". For one, Theology is not so much about Hebrew and Christian scriptures but about analyzing "the meaning of God" which, around the Bible -whatever Bible, is mostly about Catholicism, or at least Catholic auto-attributed (since the Catholic Church in fact produced the vast majority of theologists between the fith century and the Reform and would attribute to themselves the best part of those before the V Century -Nicea's Council, for instance) so any unreferred mention about "Christian Theology" is basically about Rome and latin and not about Hebrew or Greek.
And then, comes the Bible-thing: no it's not clear from your assertion what Bible are you talking about. From my previous paragraph it's obvious that lacking more precise attribution I'd tend to think that you must be talking about S. Isidorus' and modern derivatives as blessed by the Catholic Church while your last post makes evident you must be talking about "something else" and even then, I cannot be more precise since even if you talk about "Hebrew and Greek scriptures" you say nothing about *which* "Hebrew and Greek scriptures": Canonical -as per Rome standards? St. John's Apocalipse? Maybe the Greek Rome's considered apocriphe scriptures? Death Sea rolls? Greek arrian scriptures? Copt traditions, or more probably, whatever your Church tells you to be *The Real Thing (TM)* despite the fact that you probably never read them in their original greek and hebrew forms literally transcribed (with their holes, modisms and graphisms) not to talk about facsimile nor *gasp*! the real, datable, traceable originals?
And of course, once you take that path, there's the "little problem" of how's possible for God being so hard to trace out -you know, theists disbelieve of one thousand gods while atheists disbelieve of thousand and one gods, not such a big difference (well, luckily I know the *real* answer, since I'm Catholic: it's in order to confuse impious without faith, and you, poor heretic, will burn for the whole eternity in Hell because of your disdain for *The Real Thing (TM)* which only us, Catholics, gladly embrace).
"Yup, some parts of Spain rival the Nevada desert (and that's why Italian Western flicks are filmed there). However, they also rival the Nevada desert for development levels -- in other words, not many industries around to consume electricity."
But you should consider scale too. Extremadura deserts are about 200 miles away from Madrid, Almeria's less than 300. Bardenas or Monegros, about 200 miles away from Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia or Bilbao, quite industrialized (and if it wasn't the case, they are near enough to industrialize them almost on the spot -currently there's quite an ambitious plan to create a "new Las Vegas" on Monegros, less than 30 miles away from Zaragoza, for instance).
"Hmmm... i guess we'd better let the permafrost stay frozen then :)"
Yes.
And so you go into why really is global warm so worrying. It is not the "pure" situation that average temperature grows 5 C degrees. It's not even that large amounts of people living near the seaside will need to migrate but the "collateral" effects: if permafrost "defrosts" it will reduce albedo and will rise CO2 levels by itself; if polar ices go backwards albedo reduces again and more of the Sun heat will be retained. And some global ocean fluxes will change and so will do the ability for C3 crops to grow and the cascade effect while certainly not affecting life as a whole will indeed affect human life worldwide *very* greatly.
It even doesn't really matter if it is human-caused or not but if we will be able to survive as a civilization on a climate and an atmosphere like that of the Jurassic (hint: not currently, not without paying a tremendously high price).
"Eisenstein was what happened when Heisenberg was merged with Einstein in a horrible teleporter accident. The scientists involved swore to never speak of it in public"
That's true: we all swore not to talk about it, so it's not so hard to understand why did you get your facts so wrong. It was not a teleporter but a multistate cat sandbox on the Potemkin battleship.
"So then, you see, both the Bible (which term I will use rather than Theology, since when referencing theology you must be specific as to whose theology)"
Then I beg you to tell us "whose Bible" too. It's not as if there were only one, you know.
"Science-fiction is fiction based on science. It doesn't require actual, current technology, only theoretically possible technology."
Then you please can tell us what's the theoretical possibility for some one hundred kilograms mass the form a human body to be pushed from their feet and be able to control it without any control surfaces -on the air? (do you know what happens with a back-traction car on a slipery road? Then think about the same on a 1000 times more slipery "road": the air).
No to talk about the fact of such a mass being pushed by a reactor (action and reaction Newton's law) without any source to explain where all the ejected mass comes from.
"In any case, a rocket-jet-inside-a-shoe is still at least more believable than some guy being bitten by a spider who can then hold a tramway full of people with his bare hands."
But this film wants to play somehow "science-fiction" while spiderman tries to be simply fantasy.
"when I see someone defend Exchange by saying users don't really need a mere few gigs of email, I doubt it."
Hey! 640K must be enough for anyone, mustn't it?