Hint: if you're targeting a specific version of a framework in your book, especially when that framework has a release cycle of less than a year, don't bother. I'm surprised the reviewer bothered wasting money on the copy.
(Though honestly, I'm surprised people buy this category of book at all anymore -- it's often fast and free to find plenty of how-tos, reference, and example material for your poison of choice online.)
In our environment we're using Wyse terminals; though the development team typically uses desktops as the VMs don't have the horsepower. In that case we'll connect to VMs for testing via MSTSC (since we're a Windows shop for our call center client software).
But you can't play in the mudpit without getting dirty, and that's one reason why no matter how they start out, by the time they have progressed far enough in party politics to be on a ballot, pretty much everyone has become either a corrupted dipshit or a disillusioned cynic.
But why is that? It's because voters are easily led sheep, who vote for shiny trinkets. It's never going to change unless people get interested in their government, instead of what they're told by Faux News &c.
Bread and circuses - some things don't change even after 2000 years. People will vote for the politicians they think will give them what *they* personally want. What's good for the town/county/state/country doesn't enter into it.
(Incidentally, one change that I've often thought about, which would serve both transparency and damping, is that any proposed law should have to sit, unchanged, for a set period of time (weeks) before being voted on. (New changes reset the clock.) This would give the public/voters/media/commentators time to examine it in detail, identify problems, and make their voices heard to their representatives. Having representatives act as a smoothing effect for the (sometimes irrational) public can be very good... but the way in which proposed laws currently mutate so rapidly and are modified at the last minute, so that the public isn't even sure what is finally put into law, is corrosive to democratic and transparent society.)
That seems to be one thing the Confederacy would have gotten right during the US Civil War. From the Confederate Constitution (S 7.20):
(20) Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
Of course, then they kind of blow it with this one...
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed
Indeed. To me, the "lame duck" administration/congress is the best kind. When you get a clear majority, you start to lose barriers to making hasty decisions and changes. Historically, this doesn't seem to provide much long-term benefit.
It's harder to see when you're not at the enterprise level. Picturing being tasked with providing 10,000 identically configured desktop PCs that are intended to run a limited subset of applications in a locked-down manner.
You have two choices. You can use actual desktop computers -- power-hungry, subject to failure at that number, and generally expensive to maintain at that scale. Or you can use VMs - a fairly small number of physical servers. Your desktop component can be a simple thin client device -- cheap, power efficient, much lower likelihood of failure, and - when they do fail - much simpler to manage as it takes a few minutes to replace the physical device. Your user never knows the difference, as he still connects to the same VM. If someone screws up a VM, you just rebuild it - an automated process that takes a few seconds. Compared to a PC which can require someone to physically be present at the machine; and at the very least will take 10-20 minutes to copy down the hard drive image over a network.
Now let's say you're expanding - another 2000 users. With desktop PCs you have to order PCs -- hopefully no major changes in hardware since you last ordered, because then your client apps need to be re-certified. Then you have physically image the hard drives to the standard image; then deploy and set up the hardware at each workstation.
On the other hand, if you were using VMs you would add 20-40 servers to the cluster and bring the VMs online. The configuration is completely automated, with a human being required only to press "go". You still have to purchase the thin client devices, but even considering the new servers you bought, the cost is *far* less than buying 2000 PCs. Too, it doesn't matter if the specs change on the thin client devices, because their sole purpose is to connect to the VM. The ongoing cost remains much lower, and setup consists of plugging it in and flashing the ROM. (Though at that size, there's a fair chance you can work out a deal with the manufacturer to do it for you.)
As far as personal/desktop use - good for testing apps on different OSs, and playing with new OSs. Also good from a security perspective (run your web browsers in a VM, and questionable software. Roll it back daily or whenever you think there's been a compromise.) Also good if you're running Linux but have a couple of needed apps that don't work on WINE.
What platform independence is all about, is that the platform is completely irrelevant. You know, like the web is supposed to be. Javascript doesn't care if it's running on an Intel chip or an ARM chip, it doesn't care if you're running it in Windows or Linux, it doesn't care which browser you are using. THAT is platform independence. Loading the approriate binary for your platform is not, especially if you can't create these binaries yourself in the case Adobe doesn't support your platform.
No language/dev tool is inherently platform independent. Though some are more widely available than others, every single one requires that a vendor (company or developer or other) must decide to provide it on a given platform. Every VM and interpreted system needs to have someone write that VM/interpreter for a platform.
Platform independence isn't about the number of supported platforms - it's about the experience of use across platforms that *are* supported. If a flash game or video runs identically on Mac, Linux, and Windows -- it's still platform independent. Even if it doesn't run on AIX and my Blackberry.
Of course, I otherwise agree - Flash is terrible for the web. Or at least my eyes. And "platform independence" is obviously not synonymous with "open standard".
This action taken by Twitter could be a hard hit for small publishers that relied on the paid tweets that will be blocked shortl
By "publisher" you mean "advertising middle-man"? Or maybe "Another business whose sole revenue relies on being the third or fourth party in an advertising imprint?" Cry me a river. Alternatively-- work on a real business plan, selling actual service of value, and see how that works instead.
Re:Ganging up on the Sun
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
No, that's after the exclusive mini-series event, "ALONE" and the two-hour television premier of "SCARED". Brought to you with limited commercial interruption by Kia.
Re:Why is this on /. at all? Taco a fan then?
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
and forgotten.
Damn, you gave it away. FORGOTTEN is to the spin-off...
Accidents are rarely accidents, someone f-----d up.
Yes, this is always true. Which doesn't mean they did it on purpose- - hence, it's still generally considered an accident.
-snip-That is all we ask here, they fix their mess. If that means they go out of business collecting every last drop of that oil, too fucking bad for them.
That's great in theory. But what do you tell the 80k+ BP employees whose livelihoods disappear because BP can't pay without end, without making cuts elsewhere -- or without folding entirely. You can be pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of those employees had nothing to do with this screwup.
The answer is seldom as cut-and-dry as we'd like it to be; or as emotions dictate it somehow must be. I don't pretend to have it, but I'm pretty sure that it's *not* "bleed BP to death"
Anyway, you can still see the difference when you simply visit the page, as others have pointed out.
True, though less useful if you've infiltrated or seized a hard drive and are trying to find history through read-only operations. Also not useful if someone has only visited a site but not customized it -- assuming it still gets an entry then.
That does not help against brute force attacks that just calculate the hashes, it only helps against attacks that use rainbow tables. The salt must be available, so you can still calculate the hash result.
I suppose the determined hacker could extract the salt from the chrome executable; which would allow brute force as an option. However, it would at least foil the casual family snoop - I suppose that's misleading, as you would think that "incognito mode" is 100% incognito.
Not only that, but just because it remembers settings does not prove it remembers the actual domain name. (sha1 of URL name would take care of that...)
'course, it *could* be storing a hash (salted or not) of the domain name and not the domain name itself. The test suggested in TFA is pretty poor, and doesn't prove anything about whether the actual domain name is kept.
Google is addicted to your information, and will do whatever they can to get more.
They cannot help themselves.
Resist.
Don't ever kid yourself that you are Google's customer . You are the audience who consumes a subset of their products, but the *customer* is always the advertiser. What they sell is whatever information they can gather about you -- not directly (I hope), but indirectly in terms of advertising. That's the price you agree to when using their products -- including the ones you're using without being aware of it (as you are also consuming web sites that use adwords, analytics, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
(Though honestly, I'm surprised people buy this category of book at all anymore -- it's often fast and free to find plenty of how-tos, reference, and example material for your poison of choice online.)
Virtualization is ESX server.
But you can't play in the mudpit without getting dirty, and that's one reason why no matter how they start out, by the time they have progressed far enough in party politics to be on a ballot, pretty much everyone has become either a corrupted dipshit or a disillusioned cynic.
But why is that? It's because voters are easily led sheep, who vote for shiny trinkets. It's never going to change unless people get interested in their government, instead of what they're told by Faux News &c.
Bread and circuses - some things don't change even after 2000 years. People will vote for the politicians they think will give them what *they* personally want. What's good for the town/county/state/country doesn't enter into it.
(Incidentally, one change that I've often thought about, which would serve both transparency and damping, is that any proposed law should have to sit, unchanged, for a set period of time (weeks) before being voted on. (New changes reset the clock.) This would give the public/voters/media/commentators time to examine it in detail, identify problems, and make their voices heard to their representatives. Having representatives act as a smoothing effect for the (sometimes irrational) public can be very good... but the way in which proposed laws currently mutate so rapidly and are modified at the last minute, so that the public isn't even sure what is finally put into law, is corrosive to democratic and transparent society.)
That seems to be one thing the Confederacy would have gotten right during the US Civil War. From the Confederate Constitution (S 7.20):
(20) Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
Of course, then they kind of blow it with this one...
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed
Still... talk about babies and bathwater ;)
Indeed. To me, the "lame duck" administration/congress is the best kind. When you get a clear majority, you start to lose barriers to making hasty decisions and changes. Historically, this doesn't seem to provide much long-term benefit.
"Scientist" is retard. Loosing his funding would be the best thing that could happen to him.
One would think if his funding were loosed, he'd be quite happy.
You have two choices. You can use actual desktop computers -- power-hungry, subject to failure at that number, and generally expensive to maintain at that scale. Or you can use VMs - a fairly small number of physical servers. Your desktop component can be a simple thin client device -- cheap, power efficient, much lower likelihood of failure, and - when they do fail - much simpler to manage as it takes a few minutes to replace the physical device. Your user never knows the difference, as he still connects to the same VM. If someone screws up a VM, you just rebuild it - an automated process that takes a few seconds. Compared to a PC which can require someone to physically be present at the machine; and at the very least will take 10-20 minutes to copy down the hard drive image over a network.
Now let's say you're expanding - another 2000 users. With desktop PCs you have to order PCs -- hopefully no major changes in hardware since you last ordered, because then your client apps need to be re-certified. Then you have physically image the hard drives to the standard image; then deploy and set up the hardware at each workstation.
On the other hand, if you were using VMs you would add 20-40 servers to the cluster and bring the VMs online. The configuration is completely automated, with a human being required only to press "go". You still have to purchase the thin client devices, but even considering the new servers you bought, the cost is *far* less than buying 2000 PCs. Too, it doesn't matter if the specs change on the thin client devices, because their sole purpose is to connect to the VM. The ongoing cost remains much lower, and setup consists of plugging it in and flashing the ROM. (Though at that size, there's a fair chance you can work out a deal with the manufacturer to do it for you.)
As far as personal/desktop use - good for testing apps on different OSs, and playing with new OSs. Also good from a security perspective (run your web browsers in a VM, and questionable software. Roll it back daily or whenever you think there's been a compromise.) Also good if you're running Linux but have a couple of needed apps that don't work on WINE.
What platform independence is all about, is that the platform is completely irrelevant. You know, like the web is supposed to be. Javascript doesn't care if it's running on an Intel chip or an ARM chip, it doesn't care if you're running it in Windows or Linux, it doesn't care which browser you are using. THAT is platform independence. Loading the approriate binary for your platform is not, especially if you can't create these binaries yourself in the case Adobe doesn't support your platform.
No language/dev tool is inherently platform independent. Though some are more widely available than others, every single one requires that a vendor (company or developer or other) must decide to provide it on a given platform. Every VM and interpreted system needs to have someone write that VM/interpreter for a platform.
Platform independence isn't about the number of supported platforms - it's about the experience of use across platforms that *are* supported. If a flash game or video runs identically on Mac, Linux, and Windows -- it's still platform independent. Even if it doesn't run on AIX and my Blackberry.
Of course, I otherwise agree - Flash is terrible for the web. Or at least my eyes. And "platform independence" is obviously not synonymous with "open standard".
Adobe Founders On Flash and Internet Standards
While it may not have been intentional, this is a great title. True for all common definitions of "founder":
If you'd used a laser printer, your comment would have printed much faster and you assuredly would have attained that pinnacle of AC achievement.
See, there you go, ruining a perfectly good rant.
This action taken by Twitter could be a hard hit for small publishers that relied on the paid tweets that will be blocked shortl
By "publisher" you mean "advertising middle-man"? Or maybe "Another business whose sole revenue relies on being the third or fourth party in an advertising imprint?" Cry me a river. Alternatively-- work on a real business plan, selling actual service of value, and see how that works instead.
No, that's after the exclusive mini-series event, "ALONE" and the two-hour television premier of "SCARED". Brought to you with limited commercial interruption by Kia.
and forgotten.
Damn, you gave it away. FORGOTTEN is to the spin-off...
Carnivale was pretty kick-ass too. I'm still bitter about that one being canceled. (okay, okay... mildly peeved...)
As a malware defense professional..
Man, that's got to make you feel as good as working for a large bank makes me feel ;)
Where's that "-1 Whaah" rating when you need it...
Accidents are rarely accidents, someone f-----d up.
Yes, this is always true. Which doesn't mean they did it on purpose- - hence, it's still generally considered an accident.
-snip-That is all we ask here, they fix their mess. If that means they go out of business collecting every last drop of that oil, too fucking bad for them.
That's great in theory. But what do you tell the 80k+ BP employees whose livelihoods disappear because BP can't pay without end, without making cuts elsewhere -- or without folding entirely. You can be pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of those employees had nothing to do with this screwup.
The answer is seldom as cut-and-dry as we'd like it to be; or as emotions dictate it somehow must be. I don't pretend to have it, but I'm pretty sure that it's *not* "bleed BP to death"
If you noticed in my OP, I said almost :-) It's a great update to XP, and a sizable improvement over Vista.
Alternatively, it's just sizeable over XP. Very, very sizeable.
Anyway, you can still see the difference when you simply visit the page, as others have pointed out.
True, though less useful if you've infiltrated or seized a hard drive and are trying to find history through read-only operations. Also not useful if someone has only visited a site but not customized it -- assuming it still gets an entry then.
That does not help against brute force attacks that just calculate the hashes, it only helps against attacks that use rainbow tables. The salt must be available, so you can still calculate the hash result.
I suppose the determined hacker could extract the salt from the chrome executable; which would allow brute force as an option. However, it would at least foil the casual family snoop - I suppose that's misleading, as you would think that "incognito mode" is 100% incognito.
Let's credit them with salting the URL...
Not only that, but just because it remembers settings does not prove it remembers the actual domain name. (sha1 of URL name would take care of that...)
'course, it *could* be storing a hash (salted or not) of the domain name and not the domain name itself. The test suggested in TFA is pretty poor, and doesn't prove anything about whether the actual domain name is kept.
Google is addicted to your information, and will do whatever they can to get more.
They cannot help themselves.
Resist.
Don't ever kid yourself that you are Google's customer . You are the audience who consumes a subset of their products, but the *customer* is always the advertiser. What they sell is whatever information they can gather about you -- not directly (I hope), but indirectly in terms of advertising. That's the price you agree to when using their products -- including the ones you're using without being aware of it (as you are also consuming web sites that use adwords, analytics, etc).
This unsolicited pedantry were brought to you by Muphry.