The first two sentences here are one of my biggest pet peeves...if application developers don't start becoming more network-aware, and vice versa, I think you're dead meat. Hint: there are very few applications these days that aren't accessed over the network. I see so many "silos" like this when I'm consulting. The network guys and the app guys have no idea what the "other side" does. Where if they actually worked together on these type issues instead of talking past each other, something actually might get done.
So yes, developers absolutely need to worry about HA. It makes a difference whether your app is stateless or not. How the app is health-checked from the load balancer. How chatty the app is on the network. Etc, etc...
I presume from the 787 name that it will remain a similar design to existing crafts
Maybe aesthetically but that's about it. The 787 is a completely new design, using a far higher percentage of composites than ever before in a commercial aircraft.
You're pulling stuff out of your ass here...are you driving a Kia or Ford Fiesta or something? You do have to change the brake pads every now and then you know...
Current automobile brakes have far better technology than before, especially if you have a decently engineered vehicle.
So make their use auditable. Fit the devices with a recording device similar to a "black box" flight data recorder (flash memory, whatever) that cannot be tampered with by field officers. Require an explanation for each use. At least then there's some of the accountability back.
Denny
Sure, I'd volunteer to recode my webpage if it didn't display in a browser due to mediocre code. In fact I'd say my code probably is pretty sloppy, but I'm able to get away with it because the browser will still display the page. Why do I have to volunteer to do everyone else's?
You missed my point though. The OP basically said "you can't expect people to code correctly" and my response is an observation that our society in general seems to be trending to allow that mentality of pandering to the lowest common denominator. I think it is harmful to do that. If something is worth doing, it's worth doing right.
You can't just expect people to go and recode all their webpages so that they don't have invalid HTML in there. Why not? Why do we always reward mediocrity?
Denny
Yes it is worth getting worked up considering TSA has had 5 years since 9/11 to implement security checks that will actually do something, like sniffing for explosives at the checkpoint instead of looking to see if someone has Frappuccino as you put it. Last I checked Frappuccino is not explosive (I don't know, I don't actually drink it contrary to your assertion).
As one of the aviation consultants interviewed on CNN said, "We need to be looking for threats and not objects". We need to get over our aversion to profiling, because that actually works.
You must not actually fly much because you are not "practically strip searched" - I fly about 3 times a week and normally I go right through with minimal hassle. I don't have time to wait in line for 2 hours every flight because someone might have a Frappuccino. I would gladly wait in line to be checked for explosives, if the TSA was actually doing that. But they aren't. Now they're checking for any liquid or gel, which is preposterous, considering they've had plenty of time to implement effective security rather than a dog-and-pony show scam.
Study Israeli security sometime. They don't do this crap, yet they have had no incidents at their airports.
Denny
You want my thinking? There is no reason that TSA should institute the same policy in Amarillo or Fargo as they need to do for UK flights in this case. Terror does not have "free reign in the homeland", the threat was specifically from the UK. Yet they put the whole nation on "critical alert" and you are willing to roll over and take it. It is you who is in denial about the pervasive erosion of all kinds of freedom in the US since 9/11.
I don't expect the founding fathers to think for me. I expect us to uphold their principles.
What's really odd is that I've run into a few fervent MS evangelizers and they truly think that MSN Search is already better than Google. They've got these internal pep videos featuring their butterfly mascot talking up how great it is. It's a fascinating state of denial that they seem to have going there.
People, I think most of you are on the wrong track....someone posted a link to John Gilmore's site and this telling comment was posted in the mailbag:
Airlines began requiring ID when they determined that small businesses were using previously purchased tickets for individuals to send other individuals. This is a fact that can be documented. The airlines forced this issue in 1997.
As a small business manager, there were many times when I had terminated employees and needed to send the new employee on the specific trip. This really comes into play where trade shows are concerned and you need to book several months in advance. I have communications sent to top AA management in this regard but no answer.
The airlines grabbed the ID platform in order to increase revenue margin. At the same time they increased "change" charges from $35 in 1994 to $75 in 1997 to now $100.
I think some people forget that it's not usually malice and power that really motivate these type of things....it's the $$$
You would be willing to get on an aircraft that has no human backup in case of computer/mechanical failure?? You're a braver man than I. I suggest you read about United 232 or other similar occurrences and see if you think that's still a good idea.
Also I see a lot of you saying that "more people are just choosing not to fly" and I wonder where you get the data to back this up? I fly to about 3 cities a week and the planes are full more often than not, so I'm not sure where you're getting that perception from.
Finally if you are even remotely aware of the process manufacturers have to go through to get their aircraft FAA certifed you would realize that to "add another door to the aircraft" is not exactly a feasible suggestion. It's not like adding a room on to your house.
Oh, and the plate steel is already there. Reinforced cockpit doors were required quickly after 9/11.
This applies to everyone, not just iPod users. I have a Neo Car Jukebox, a nifty little device that is basically a 40gb hard drive that is mounted in a bay in my car with an in-dash control to let me choose what songs to play. It plays standard MP3 files. I bought one of these Sony CD's (Foo Fighters new one) and I have no way* to get CD quality songs from this album onto my Jukebox (a perfectly legal thing to do). I wrote in demanding a refund but they said I'd have to take it back to the store. In my mind, the store shouldn't lose profit since they are not the ones choosing to put this junk on the disc in the first place.
*Well, no way until now, since I'll just do it on a Linux box
We don't even preserve correct names as it is. Munich? No, it's München. Germany? Nope, Deutschland. Sweden? No, Sverige. So the parent poster is spot on here as well. Why would we expect everyone to use the same name on Mars if we don't do it now?
Also I heard a while back one of the runways at MSY had to be closed for months after it had just been resurfaced. The resurfacing job had been done very poorly and the runway was basically coming apart. The recipient of the contract to repair the botched job was.....the original contractor who had botched the job in the first place!! Amazing..
Tell me, how often do you have to create a new tagged address, so it's such a burden to add one line to your aliases file? How often do you sign up to new e-mailing lists?
Almost never. I not only use this method for lists, but for website logins. And so far I've never had to actually create an account to disable that came from one of those. I have only done it once where a spammer used a non-existant account from my domain to send spam and I got a small spate of bounce messages. So I wouldn't have gotten the bounce messages, big deal.
And how adding a new filtering rule afterwards when you want to stop that address to deliver is less of a burden than creating a valid address? Keep in mind, your filtering rules will grow bigger and bigger, and they work on *each* e-mail you receive, causing more and more load on the CPU, too, just to process e-mails.
Again, in over a year of using the catch-all account, I have never had to actually put this into practice. I have the option of doing so, which is good enough for me. The management burden of my method is still much less than the approach you advocate, and I continue to dispute, based on my experience, that your assertion that this "happens every other day" is valid.
If you want some real protection, and you control your mailserver, then you should use blocklists, like Spamhaus ( http://www.spamhaus.org/ ), SPEWS (http://www.spews.org/ ), block entire countries that are spam cesspools
I never suggested that you couldn't also use other controls in parallel. My (hosted) mail server runs SpamAssasin, which I believe uses blocklists as well as other methods (I don't admin the whole server but I can manage my hosted account on it).
So, you would have me ignore the real-world fact that my method has worked well for over a year, just in case your hypothetical (possible, but hypothetical) scenario were to occur? That would require me to not only create the account on the email server every time I want to sign up for something, but then go to my email client and configure it to receive the account as well.
Of course you are correct that your scenario could happen. The likelihood of it happening is in my opinion slim enough that the management effort incurred by combating it is not worth my time. When you live in the real world, you have to make tradeoffs such as these.
Well thanks for the feedback, I'm glad to see at least someone will get some use out of this:-)
I don't worry too much about scoring, it seems if you don't post something within an hour or so then the lemmings move on to something else and don't bother to continue to check on a topic to mod decent responses. Oh well...
I have hit upon a decent method for not having to wade through a ton of spam in my inbox.
Tools Required:
1. A domain that you administer mail accounts for 2. The ability to define a catch-all account for mail
The method:
I have defined my "regular" email address as the catch-all. Whenever a website requests an email address, I use something unique to that site. The account does not exist, but mail from them will still get delivered to me via the catch-all account.
Example:
I sign up for email for my Hilton account with hilton@mydomain.com. The account is not defined but the catch-all will deliver the mail to me nonetheless.
The benefit:
If I start getting spam to that email address, I now have several options. First, I know who sold or gave out my address so I can hammer them if I choose. Second, I can simply begin filtering everything from that address into a "known spam folder" and never have to deal with it other than to delete the contents of that folder. Third, I can setup nasty autoresponders that mimic bounce messages or something on that account if I wish (I know, this may not be doing much good but it's fun).
By doing this I keep the spam in my inbox down to 2 or 3 messages a day.
Slashdot Mirror
The first two sentences here are one of my biggest pet peeves...if application developers don't start becoming more network-aware, and vice versa, I think you're dead meat. Hint: there are very few applications these days that aren't accessed over the network. I see so many "silos" like this when I'm consulting. The network guys and the app guys have no idea what the "other side" does. Where if they actually worked together on these type issues instead of talking past each other, something actually might get done.
So yes, developers absolutely need to worry about HA. It makes a difference whether your app is stateless or not. How the app is health-checked from the load balancer. How chatty the app is on the network. Etc, etc...
Denny
Maybe aesthetically but that's about it. The 787 is a completely new design, using a far higher percentage of composites than ever before in a commercial aircraft.
Denny
Ooooh, I think you're in danger of losing your Slashdot credentials over that one...
Denny
I wouldn't ask God either, he doesn't have a great track record on this stuff...
Denny
You're pulling stuff out of your ass here...are you driving a Kia or Ford Fiesta or something? You do have to change the brake pads every now and then you know...
Current automobile brakes have far better technology than before, especially if you have a decently engineered vehicle.
Denny
You probably shouldn't call his mother a jackass. :-P
Denny
So make their use auditable. Fit the devices with a recording device similar to a "black box" flight data recorder (flash memory, whatever) that cannot be tampered with by field officers. Require an explanation for each use. At least then there's some of the accountability back. Denny
Sure, I'd volunteer to recode my webpage if it didn't display in a browser due to mediocre code. In fact I'd say my code probably is pretty sloppy, but I'm able to get away with it because the browser will still display the page. Why do I have to volunteer to do everyone else's?
You missed my point though. The OP basically said "you can't expect people to code correctly" and my response is an observation that our society in general seems to be trending to allow that mentality of pandering to the lowest common denominator. I think it is harmful to do that. If something is worth doing, it's worth doing right.
Denny
Isn't it illegal to charge someone's credit card before you ship the product they are purchasing from you? Or am I invoking an "old wives' tale" here?
Yes it is worth getting worked up considering TSA has had 5 years since 9/11 to implement security checks that will actually do something, like sniffing for explosives at the checkpoint instead of looking to see if someone has Frappuccino as you put it. Last I checked Frappuccino is not explosive (I don't know, I don't actually drink it contrary to your assertion). As one of the aviation consultants interviewed on CNN said, "We need to be looking for threats and not objects". We need to get over our aversion to profiling, because that actually works. You must not actually fly much because you are not "practically strip searched" - I fly about 3 times a week and normally I go right through with minimal hassle. I don't have time to wait in line for 2 hours every flight because someone might have a Frappuccino. I would gladly wait in line to be checked for explosives, if the TSA was actually doing that. But they aren't. Now they're checking for any liquid or gel, which is preposterous, considering they've had plenty of time to implement effective security rather than a dog-and-pony show scam. Study Israeli security sometime. They don't do this crap, yet they have had no incidents at their airports. Denny
You want my thinking? There is no reason that TSA should institute the same policy in Amarillo or Fargo as they need to do for UK flights in this case. Terror does not have "free reign in the homeland", the threat was specifically from the UK. Yet they put the whole nation on "critical alert" and you are willing to roll over and take it. It is you who is in denial about the pervasive erosion of all kinds of freedom in the US since 9/11.
I don't expect the founding fathers to think for me. I expect us to uphold their principles.
Denny
Cue the Ben Franklin quote please.... (you don't deserve security or freedom)
What's really odd is that I've run into a few fervent MS evangelizers and they truly think that MSN Search is already better than Google. They've got these internal pep videos featuring their butterfly mascot talking up how great it is. It's a fascinating state of denial that they seem to have going there.
And the reason that the original poster gave:
is the reason that I agree with typical that it's horseshit.Denny
People, I think most of you are on the wrong track....someone posted a link to John Gilmore's site and this telling comment was posted in the mailbag:
Airlines began requiring ID when they determined that small businesses were using previously purchased tickets for individuals to send other individuals. This is a fact that can be documented. The airlines forced this issue in 1997.
As a small business manager, there were many times when I had terminated employees and needed to send the new employee on the specific trip. This really comes into play where trade shows are concerned and you need to book several months in advance. I have communications sent to top AA management in this regard but no answer.
The airlines grabbed the ID platform in order to increase revenue margin. At the same time they increased "change" charges from $35 in 1994 to $75 in 1997 to now $100.
I think some people forget that it's not usually malice and power that really motivate these type of things....it's the $$$
DennyYou would be willing to get on an aircraft that has no human backup in case of computer/mechanical failure?? You're a braver man than I. I suggest you read about United 232 or other similar occurrences and see if you think that's still a good idea.
Also I see a lot of you saying that "more people are just choosing not to fly" and I wonder where you get the data to back this up? I fly to about 3 cities a week and the planes are full more often than not, so I'm not sure where you're getting that perception from.
Finally if you are even remotely aware of the process manufacturers have to go through to get their aircraft FAA certifed you would realize that to "add another door to the aircraft" is not exactly a feasible suggestion. It's not like adding a room on to your house.
Oh, and the plate steel is already there. Reinforced cockpit doors were required quickly after 9/11.
Denny
While on the whole I agree with your sentiments, your statement below is incorrect:
* Mandatory fingerprints for all US citizens entering or leaving the country
Fingerprinting is only required of non-citizens entering the country under the US-VISIT program. I'm not even sure all countries have to do this.
Denny
This applies to everyone, not just iPod users. I have a Neo Car Jukebox, a nifty little device that is basically a 40gb hard drive that is mounted in a bay in my car with an in-dash control to let me choose what songs to play. It plays standard MP3 files. I bought one of these Sony CD's (Foo Fighters new one) and I have no way* to get CD quality songs from this album onto my Jukebox (a perfectly legal thing to do). I wrote in demanding a refund but they said I'd have to take it back to the store. In my mind, the store shouldn't lose profit since they are not the ones choosing to put this junk on the disc in the first place.
*Well, no way until now, since I'll just do it on a Linux box
Denny
We don't even preserve correct names as it is. Munich? No, it's München. Germany? Nope, Deutschland. Sweden? No, Sverige. So the parent poster is spot on here as well. Why would we expect everyone to use the same name on Mars if we don't do it now?
Denny
Also I heard a while back one of the runways at MSY had to be closed for months after it had just been resurfaced. The resurfacing job had been done very poorly and the runway was basically coming apart. The recipient of the contract to repair the botched job was.....the original contractor who had botched the job in the first place!! Amazing..
Denny
Tell me, how often do you have to create a new tagged address, so it's such a burden to add one line to your aliases file? How often do you sign up to new e-mailing lists?
Almost never. I not only use this method for lists, but for website logins. And so far I've never had to actually create an account to disable that came from one of those. I have only done it once where a spammer used a non-existant account from my domain to send spam and I got a small spate of bounce messages. So I wouldn't have gotten the bounce messages, big deal.
And how adding a new filtering rule afterwards when you want to stop that address to deliver is less of a burden than creating a valid address? Keep in mind, your filtering rules will grow bigger and bigger, and they work on *each* e-mail you receive, causing more and more load on the CPU, too, just to process e-mails.
Again, in over a year of using the catch-all account, I have never had to actually put this into practice. I have the option of doing so, which is good enough for me. The management burden of my method is still much less than the approach you advocate, and I continue to dispute, based on my experience, that your assertion that this "happens every other day" is valid.
If you want some real protection, and you control your mailserver, then you should use blocklists, like Spamhaus ( http://www.spamhaus.org/ ), SPEWS (http://www.spews.org/ ), block entire countries that are spam cesspools
I never suggested that you couldn't also use other controls in parallel. My (hosted) mail server runs SpamAssasin, which I believe uses blocklists as well as other methods (I don't admin the whole server but I can manage my hosted account on it).
DennySo, you would have me ignore the real-world fact that my method has worked well for over a year, just in case your hypothetical (possible, but hypothetical) scenario were to occur? That would require me to not only create the account on the email server every time I want to sign up for something, but then go to my email client and configure it to receive the account as well.
Of course you are correct that your scenario could happen. The likelihood of it happening is in my opinion slim enough that the management effort incurred by combating it is not worth my time. When you live in the real world, you have to make tradeoffs such as these.
Denny
Well thanks for the feedback, I'm glad to see at least someone will get some use out of this :-)
I don't worry too much about scoring, it seems if you don't post something within an hour or so then the lemmings move on to something else and don't bother to continue to check on a topic to mod decent responses. Oh well...
Denny
I have hit upon a decent method for not having to wade through a ton of spam in my inbox.
Tools Required:
1. A domain that you administer mail accounts for
2. The ability to define a catch-all account for mail
The method:
I have defined my "regular" email address as the catch-all. Whenever a website requests an email address, I use something unique to that site. The account does not exist, but mail from them will still get delivered to me via the catch-all account.
Example:
I sign up for email for my Hilton account with hilton@mydomain.com. The account is not defined but the catch-all will deliver the mail to me nonetheless.
The benefit:
If I start getting spam to that email address, I now have several options. First, I know who sold or gave out my address so I can hammer them if I choose. Second, I can simply begin filtering everything from that address into a "known spam folder" and never have to deal with it other than to delete the contents of that folder. Third, I can setup nasty autoresponders that mimic bounce messages or something on that account if I wish (I know, this may not be doing much good but it's fun).
By doing this I keep the spam in my inbox down to 2 or 3 messages a day.
Denny