I think the idea isn't packet sniffing but actual logging of the messages in the server software. Wouldn't make a difference, the content of the message is encrypted at one client, and decrypted at the other client. Anything in between the two just gets garbled junk. Same concept as a SSL tunnel, but encapsulated inside IM protocols instead of TCP.
It can't be any worse than Lotus Sametime. After having been afflicted with Sametime I tend to agree. As an aside, there's a Pidgin plugin for using Sametime protocol, so you can at least get away from that craptastic client that crashes randomly.
I usually start by installing a plugin to my IM client that creates a secure encrypted tunnel over whatever IM protocol I'm using. Doesn't matter if they log it, as much like SSH they can't reconstruct the contents of the conversation after the fact. Also handy if your boss is snooping on your IM traffic and you don't want him seeing you badmouthing him to the guy in the next cubicle over.
Sometimes I wish the reply all button had a molly-guard on it. Or at least add a dialog box on it that says something like "Using this constitutes spamming, does your message really need to be spammed to everyone in the From and CC field of this e-mail?".
I tell my boss to send me specs/todos and so on in email because that's where I keep track of them, and cross em off as they're done. Otherwise it's in one ear and out the other. Not always about CYA. Yes, some people do use e-mail to keep track of tasks, but a lot of them are just looking for CYA. As with any generalization there are exceptions. Of course this does lead to the question of if there's a better way for you to keep track of tasks. Most IT departments have some sort of ticketing system that can be used to assign tasks to work on, so maybe something like that, or perhaps a modified form of that might be a better way to manage your tasks.
I would rather have a long chain of evidence that protects me personally, so when the shit hits the fan and ligitation starts, I have something to prove that it did not happen due to my incompetence. I avoid e-mail whenever possible, so that when the shit hits the fan they can't even prove I was in the office.
My experience in the defense industry has shown me that long, full-quote e-mails are often useful for defending yourself against another's incompetence. That unfortunately is the reason most quoted for using e-mail in the first place. Most upper management (and middle management) view e-mail not as a communication tool, but as a way to CYA. The phrase "Send it to me in an e-mail." is uttered far to often not because they need reminding or somehow didn't hear you just tell them that, but because they want it in writing.
Sounds like what you really need is a company IM server. Install a Jabber server and client for the company LAN and you'll probably have a lot less 1 line e-mails as it's just easier to handle that sort of thing over e-mail. They're using e-mail as something it isn't designed for because they don't have anything better. If that doesn't fix it, I guess you could always LART a few key personnel. Maybe you could put a filter on the e-mail server that rejects any message less than 100 characters (non-quoted) and just tell everyone it's a new spam filter.
Yes, I know the difference between their, they're and there. I noticed the mistake after I posted it. It's one of the few mistakes I seem to be prone to in writing.
As for using "lines of code", I don't, they do. It seems the biggest issue they have with rewriting code (or refactoring if you prefer) has something to do with the way it's budgeted and accounted for. Apparently adding new code/features to a project comes out of a different budget, than replacing or repairing already existing code does. Don't ask me why that is, I just know whenever we've tried to push to replace some horrendous piece of code they would tell us it wasn't in the budget, and as long as the code ran we weren't allowed to change it. We had to work our way around the bean counters eventually by carefully picking features to implement that touched on code we wanted to replace, then as part of implementing the feature we would rip out and rewrite the code we wanted to.
This seems like a reasonable move. It's not like sticking with their old protocol got them anything. They get more kudos and better interoperability with other networks by switching to a open protocol.
Much as I would love to agree with you, unfortunately the world isn't always so accommodating. Sometimes you have to suck it up and stay with a job till you can find something better, and most employers won't let you toss anything out, let alone a major chunk of their code base. Doesn't matter if it's utter crap, they paid for it, and as far as their concerned turd polishing is better then starting from scratch even if starting from scratch would be a hell of a lot cheaper. Can't expect MBAs to understand the difference between good code and bad code, to them it's all just code, and as far as their concerned, the more the better. It's the old idiotic idea that more lines of code means a better product, therefor anything that reduces lines of code must be a bad thing.
You could try, but you would lose. Great thing about civil cases, anyone can bring them, even if they have no evidence at all of anything, it's just that they're doomed to lose from the start. You also couldn't sue for fraud because there was no cost to you. Now, if I asked for some money to make a call, and then spent that money on something else, you might have a chance there.
There's actually a good deal of information in there if you read between the lines a little. What I gathered from it and one of the sites linked by it, is that this guy is well known in the anti-spammer circles as a spam investigator that can compile loads of detailed info on spammers. Apparently Sierra (the plaintiff) is notorious for spam and also for suing anti-spam activists. During the course of compiling evidence against Sierra, this guy performed a DNS Zone transfer (most likely to prove that the source of some spam was actually a server hosted by Sierra). Sierra then sued him claiming the zone transfer wasn't authorized by them, and therefore it was illegal (not going to argue if that's logical or not, just summarizing here). Up to this point any technically minded person would probably think the plaintiff was on pretty shaky ground. However, the defendant screwed himself over it seems by annoying the judge various ways. According to the findings, the defendant gave false testimony on several occasions. It may or may not have been false testimony, it's sometimes hard to say when lawyers get involved, but the judge perceived it as such and that's what counts. Much worse it seems, is that the judge ordered the defendant not to perform certain scans of Sierras network, but he then proceeded to ignore those orders. This action seems to be the one that really blew the case for him, as it's apparent the judge was really not happy with him for that one.
In this case, the geek in question performed the DNS queries as part of an ongoing investigation into the spam activities of the ISP in question. This was not a case of someone with malicious intent, or even someone exploring for the sake of exploring, this was a computer professional attempting to track the source of some spam and to compile evidence against the spammer. In this regard he was acting more as a PI (I realize a PI is usually licensed by the state, but it's still close enough) in attempting to investigate something that if not directly a crime, is at least questionable.
If I was investigating you, and I came and knocked on your door saying "My car broke down, can I use your phone to call a tow truck?" and while inside your house used a hidden camera to take pictures, this would also be "not authorized", but in most states it's still perfectly legal, and you couldn't then turn around and try to sue me for trespassing.
The reason the judge ruled against the defendant in this case seems to have had a lot less to do with the merit of the case then it did several instances of the defendant giving false testimony, and in at least one case directly violating an order of the court. Essentially the judge was ticked at the guy, and that biased the case against him.
It's more that organisms tend to have mechanisms to repair damaged DNA. Whereas computers have no ability to repair (or even identify) damaged code.
It's more to do with the fact that damaged DNA is not often fatal. DNA is "damaged" all the time, but depending on where and what gets damaged can have a rather massive impact on what happens. If the damage occurs at the time of inception, it will be permanent for the individual being conceived, and assuming it's not so sever as to prevent development to term the individual will simply be born with some sort of defect, possibly obvious but not necessarily. If the damage occurs later in life, it might trigger an immune response in which case the damaged cell will be destroyed. If it doesn't trigger an immune response, the cell may not function properly, but most likely will die off before too long and have no lasting impact on the individual. It's the cases where the cell is providing some critical function, or in which the cells replication functions are damaged that the real problems exist (cancers and auto-immune disorders mostly). The important thing to remember about DNA in advanced organisms is that it's not just 1 program, it's billions of more or less identical programs. Even if one gets damaged, it probably won't matter much.
In the case of GMO, there's a lot of potential, but also a rather large learning curve. Right now, we're using sort of crib notes. It's a bit like copying a piece of one program into another. In both cases you know what the two programs do (more or less), and you're trying to modify the behavior of the first one but using a function from the second one. The most potential of GMO, but also the most dangerous aspect, is creating entirely new proteins using custom genetic sequences (which the Folding@Home project is bringing closer to reality). That sort of technology will allow us to custom craft organisms to fit particular needs, but also makes us more responsible for the outcome because we need to have a thorough understanding of how the various proteins interact. Unlike in our current situation we won't know for sure how the new sequences will interact unless we have a strong system for modeling such things.
If you're not betting real money then you lose a lot of the motivation to be completely honest about the odds. It's only fake money until the Chinese start farming it.
Ok, lets just make them all happy and say all of the above played a part. Giant meteor hits the Earth, causes dust to obscure the sun and weakens or kills a bunch of plant life. Meanwhile that same impact touches off a bunch of giant lava flows. Finally the dinosaurs already weakened by lack of food are subject to malaria and cough to death on dust clouds. There, all major doom scenarios all rolled into one. Please note, I'm not really serious with this... or am I?
Except you've totally missed the point. Why bother with e-Ink in a fixed location like a server room? If you have access to a computer you don't need an e-ink display, and even more so if you have a regular power supply nearby. The beauty of e-Ink is that it's incredibly low power, high contrast, and portable. The drawback is that it's got a really slow refresh rate, so it's poor for interactive or animated content. None of that fits well with a smart phone or computer (well, maybe for reading e-mail on the smart phone, but who wants to carry a smart phone which is already chunky enough in addition to an e-Ink panel). The reason eReaders are useful is because they're more portable (relative to data density) than a normal book, have search capability (or at least they should by now), and don't require any of the bulk or infrastructure more traditional devices require.
Now, I'll agree a simple ePaper display would be cool, but ultimately it would only be useful after others built devices around it, which coincidentally happens to be exactly what's happening now. I mean, you can go and order eInk displays from OEMs if you know who to talk to, but they're really aren't particularly useful without some sort of data bus to back them. Know what happens when you make a bluetooth display without any other functionality? You end up with the palm folio. See what happened to that.
I think the important thing is that the kindle tracking is a pull, not push system. That is, the kindle unit can triangulate itself, and the firmware has a hidden routine for doing that and then pulling up your location on google maps, but it's not like it's an active tracking signal that anyone can lock onto. For this thing to be used to track someone without their knowledge extra software would have to be installed that constantly relayed to an outside source with the kindles own triangulated position. As a bonus this would likely do bad things to the kindles battery life, so just keep an eye out for sudden drops in battery life following any updates.
eInk displays can't have images burnt in (short of physical trauma to the screen), and they only use power when the image changes. So using a screensaver would merely eat up all of your battery life, and not really protect the screen at all. Dag nabit, I want my green lightning.
I've seen something similar happen with me and my fiancee. She needed a laptop for college and got a MacBook and absolutely loves it. Her technical background is rather limited her being mostly from a Literature/Drama background (she wants to teach Drama for a living). I on the other hand am a programmer, but due to also being fond of the latest games I tend to end up shackled to Windows. Still, I was able to score a small victory by replacing the default shell with Blackbox for Windows (this is on our common home system). Initially she was a little confused by the new interface, but adapted to it rather quickly (less than a week). I recently had to re-install Windows after a bad driver upgrade seriously b0rked the system and in the process I haven't gotten around to re-installing Blackbox. What surprised me about the whole thing was while I was sitting there working on the computer the other day she pipes up with "When are you going to install that other interface, I liked that one more." which really surprised me. Here I was thinking no one but a hardcore geek would appreciate Blackbox, and my mostly tech illiterate fiancee is telling me that she likes it better than the default Windows interface. Makes me think that maybe there's still hope for the public at large.
That's interesting but doesn't actually address my question which was about the method by which a vaccine (immunity technically) wears off. Both those are also diseases, which as I stated in my original comment can partially be accounted for by mutation of the virus or bacteria (whichever the case may be). However, there are examples of non-living (living in the broadest sense of the term here) things that cause immune reactions (allergic reactions) in early child-hood that fail to cause immune reactions in those same adults. How is it, that you can have antibodies (or whatever the correct term is) at one point in your life, and then later no longer have them. Is there a shelf life on antibodies? Do you need to be exposed to something periodically in order to retain immunity to it (sort of a touch command for antibodies)?
You can argue about parents vaccinating their kids, but it's not clear that the vaccine would last long enough nor be priced right for it to be a routine part of kid therapy. Ok, I have heard that you can "grow out of" allergies, but that seems counter-intuitive to me. Can someone who's actually an MD comment on the method by which an immunity can "wear off"? I know for actual viruses immunities can become ineffective due to mutations of the virus itself, but how does a immunity for something that's (more or less) constant, like certain chemicals become ineffective?
Slashdot Mirror
I usually start by installing a plugin to my IM client that creates a secure encrypted tunnel over whatever IM protocol I'm using. Doesn't matter if they log it, as much like SSH they can't reconstruct the contents of the conversation after the fact. Also handy if your boss is snooping on your IM traffic and you don't want him seeing you badmouthing him to the guy in the next cubicle over.
Sometimes I wish the reply all button had a molly-guard on it. Or at least add a dialog box on it that says something like "Using this constitutes spamming, does your message really need to be spammed to everyone in the From and CC field of this e-mail?".
Sounds like what you really need is a company IM server. Install a Jabber server and client for the company LAN and you'll probably have a lot less 1 line e-mails as it's just easier to handle that sort of thing over e-mail. They're using e-mail as something it isn't designed for because they don't have anything better. If that doesn't fix it, I guess you could always LART a few key personnel. Maybe you could put a filter on the e-mail server that rejects any message less than 100 characters (non-quoted) and just tell everyone it's a new spam filter.
Yes, I know the difference between their, they're and there. I noticed the mistake after I posted it. It's one of the few mistakes I seem to be prone to in writing.
As for using "lines of code", I don't, they do. It seems the biggest issue they have with rewriting code (or refactoring if you prefer) has something to do with the way it's budgeted and accounted for. Apparently adding new code/features to a project comes out of a different budget, than replacing or repairing already existing code does. Don't ask me why that is, I just know whenever we've tried to push to replace some horrendous piece of code they would tell us it wasn't in the budget, and as long as the code ran we weren't allowed to change it. We had to work our way around the bean counters eventually by carefully picking features to implement that touched on code we wanted to replace, then as part of implementing the feature we would rip out and rewrite the code we wanted to.
This seems like a reasonable move. It's not like sticking with their old protocol got them anything. They get more kudos and better interoperability with other networks by switching to a open protocol.
Much as I would love to agree with you, unfortunately the world isn't always so accommodating. Sometimes you have to suck it up and stay with a job till you can find something better, and most employers won't let you toss anything out, let alone a major chunk of their code base. Doesn't matter if it's utter crap, they paid for it, and as far as their concerned turd polishing is better then starting from scratch even if starting from scratch would be a hell of a lot cheaper. Can't expect MBAs to understand the difference between good code and bad code, to them it's all just code, and as far as their concerned, the more the better. It's the old idiotic idea that more lines of code means a better product, therefor anything that reduces lines of code must be a bad thing.
You could try, but you would lose. Great thing about civil cases, anyone can bring them, even if they have no evidence at all of anything, it's just that they're doomed to lose from the start. You also couldn't sue for fraud because there was no cost to you. Now, if I asked for some money to make a call, and then spent that money on something else, you might have a chance there.
There's actually a good deal of information in there if you read between the lines a little. What I gathered from it and one of the sites linked by it, is that this guy is well known in the anti-spammer circles as a spam investigator that can compile loads of detailed info on spammers. Apparently Sierra (the plaintiff) is notorious for spam and also for suing anti-spam activists. During the course of compiling evidence against Sierra, this guy performed a DNS Zone transfer (most likely to prove that the source of some spam was actually a server hosted by Sierra). Sierra then sued him claiming the zone transfer wasn't authorized by them, and therefore it was illegal (not going to argue if that's logical or not, just summarizing here). Up to this point any technically minded person would probably think the plaintiff was on pretty shaky ground. However, the defendant screwed himself over it seems by annoying the judge various ways. According to the findings, the defendant gave false testimony on several occasions. It may or may not have been false testimony, it's sometimes hard to say when lawyers get involved, but the judge perceived it as such and that's what counts. Much worse it seems, is that the judge ordered the defendant not to perform certain scans of Sierras network, but he then proceeded to ignore those orders. This action seems to be the one that really blew the case for him, as it's apparent the judge was really not happy with him for that one.
In this case, the geek in question performed the DNS queries as part of an ongoing investigation into the spam activities of the ISP in question. This was not a case of someone with malicious intent, or even someone exploring for the sake of exploring, this was a computer professional attempting to track the source of some spam and to compile evidence against the spammer. In this regard he was acting more as a PI (I realize a PI is usually licensed by the state, but it's still close enough) in attempting to investigate something that if not directly a crime, is at least questionable.
If I was investigating you, and I came and knocked on your door saying "My car broke down, can I use your phone to call a tow truck?" and while inside your house used a hidden camera to take pictures, this would also be "not authorized", but in most states it's still perfectly legal, and you couldn't then turn around and try to sue me for trespassing.
The reason the judge ruled against the defendant in this case seems to have had a lot less to do with the merit of the case then it did several instances of the defendant giving false testimony, and in at least one case directly violating an order of the court. Essentially the judge was ticked at the guy, and that biased the case against him.
It's more to do with the fact that damaged DNA is not often fatal. DNA is "damaged" all the time, but depending on where and what gets damaged can have a rather massive impact on what happens. If the damage occurs at the time of inception, it will be permanent for the individual being conceived, and assuming it's not so sever as to prevent development to term the individual will simply be born with some sort of defect, possibly obvious but not necessarily. If the damage occurs later in life, it might trigger an immune response in which case the damaged cell will be destroyed. If it doesn't trigger an immune response, the cell may not function properly, but most likely will die off before too long and have no lasting impact on the individual. It's the cases where the cell is providing some critical function, or in which the cells replication functions are damaged that the real problems exist (cancers and auto-immune disorders mostly). The important thing to remember about DNA in advanced organisms is that it's not just 1 program, it's billions of more or less identical programs. Even if one gets damaged, it probably won't matter much.
In the case of GMO, there's a lot of potential, but also a rather large learning curve. Right now, we're using sort of crib notes. It's a bit like copying a piece of one program into another. In both cases you know what the two programs do (more or less), and you're trying to modify the behavior of the first one but using a function from the second one. The most potential of GMO, but also the most dangerous aspect, is creating entirely new proteins using custom genetic sequences (which the Folding@Home project is bringing closer to reality). That sort of technology will allow us to custom craft organisms to fit particular needs, but also makes us more responsible for the outcome because we need to have a thorough understanding of how the various proteins interact. Unlike in our current situation we won't know for sure how the new sequences will interact unless we have a strong system for modeling such things.
Ok, lets just make them all happy and say all of the above played a part. Giant meteor hits the Earth, causes dust to obscure the sun and weakens or kills a bunch of plant life. Meanwhile that same impact touches off a bunch of giant lava flows. Finally the dinosaurs already weakened by lack of food are subject to malaria and cough to death on dust clouds. There, all major doom scenarios all rolled into one. Please note, I'm not really serious with this... or am I?
Except you've totally missed the point. Why bother with e-Ink in a fixed location like a server room? If you have access to a computer you don't need an e-ink display, and even more so if you have a regular power supply nearby. The beauty of e-Ink is that it's incredibly low power, high contrast, and portable. The drawback is that it's got a really slow refresh rate, so it's poor for interactive or animated content. None of that fits well with a smart phone or computer (well, maybe for reading e-mail on the smart phone, but who wants to carry a smart phone which is already chunky enough in addition to an e-Ink panel). The reason eReaders are useful is because they're more portable (relative to data density) than a normal book, have search capability (or at least they should by now), and don't require any of the bulk or infrastructure more traditional devices require.
Now, I'll agree a simple ePaper display would be cool, but ultimately it would only be useful after others built devices around it, which coincidentally happens to be exactly what's happening now. I mean, you can go and order eInk displays from OEMs if you know who to talk to, but they're really aren't particularly useful without some sort of data bus to back them. Know what happens when you make a bluetooth display without any other functionality? You end up with the palm folio. See what happened to that.
I think the important thing is that the kindle tracking is a pull, not push system. That is, the kindle unit can triangulate itself, and the firmware has a hidden routine for doing that and then pulling up your location on google maps, but it's not like it's an active tracking signal that anyone can lock onto. For this thing to be used to track someone without their knowledge extra software would have to be installed that constantly relayed to an outside source with the kindles own triangulated position. As a bonus this would likely do bad things to the kindles battery life, so just keep an eye out for sudden drops in battery life following any updates.
I've seen something similar happen with me and my fiancee. She needed a laptop for college and got a MacBook and absolutely loves it. Her technical background is rather limited her being mostly from a Literature/Drama background (she wants to teach Drama for a living). I on the other hand am a programmer, but due to also being fond of the latest games I tend to end up shackled to Windows. Still, I was able to score a small victory by replacing the default shell with Blackbox for Windows (this is on our common home system). Initially she was a little confused by the new interface, but adapted to it rather quickly (less than a week). I recently had to re-install Windows after a bad driver upgrade seriously b0rked the system and in the process I haven't gotten around to re-installing Blackbox. What surprised me about the whole thing was while I was sitting there working on the computer the other day she pipes up with "When are you going to install that other interface, I liked that one more." which really surprised me. Here I was thinking no one but a hardcore geek would appreciate Blackbox, and my mostly tech illiterate fiancee is telling me that she likes it better than the default Windows interface. Makes me think that maybe there's still hope for the public at large.
That's interesting but doesn't actually address my question which was about the method by which a vaccine (immunity technically) wears off. Both those are also diseases, which as I stated in my original comment can partially be accounted for by mutation of the virus or bacteria (whichever the case may be). However, there are examples of non-living (living in the broadest sense of the term here) things that cause immune reactions (allergic reactions) in early child-hood that fail to cause immune reactions in those same adults. How is it, that you can have antibodies (or whatever the correct term is) at one point in your life, and then later no longer have them. Is there a shelf life on antibodies? Do you need to be exposed to something periodically in order to retain immunity to it (sort of a touch command for antibodies)?