The hardest job at MS would be their security experts. Imagine trying to do a job and having every last move you make either neutered or cancelled entirely by Marketing.
Try again... it's not marketing that neuters everything, it's the managers... or potentially the managers that think like marketing at best.
The managers insist on progress, and results, and things that will make the company money. Fixing bugs and supporting older software is a hard sell, and usually done on a very strict basis with typical corporate politics.
Worker bee: "I fixed bug #13749!" Manager: "Why did you fix that bug, when it's very low priority. We have important bugs to fix, and you're wasting time on low priority bugs?" Worker bee: "But the bug only took an hour of my time, and it was just a one line change..." Manager: "Which now needs a code-review, and thorough testing just like every other bug fix to ensure that it doesn't break anything... you're not just wasting your one hour of coding time, you're wasting everyone else's time as well! I'm not approving this bug fix to go into the program." Worker bee: "But this is outrageously retarded, why would you block any implemented bug fix from being pushed out?" Manager: "Oh... so now you're insulting me? Fine, you're fired... we'll back up your things and ship them to your house... meanwhile you're being escorted off campus." Worker bee: "WHA?!!!!"
I mean, I don't know this guy personally, so it's not an attack on him, but MS has hired various "open source" people in the past, and what do we get?
After one or two years? Ex-Microsoft F/OSS programmers... or at least that's been the going rate for how long a F/OSS programmer manages to stick around at MS.
Government employees leaking information is still a federal criminal offense. From TFS, it doesn't appear like his administration did anything outside of standard police investigation to locate a suspected leak.
This rhetoric of "will do almost anything" is entirely ridiculous... when he starts TORTURING people for information, and confessions, then you can start telling me that he will "do almost anything", until then, it looks like he's willing to use proper due process to accomplish a justifiable goal.
"But it's not the transparency he promised us! *whine whine whine*" Look, I know you're upset that he hasn't been as transparent as you would like, and I would agree in some respects. He has however been perhaps one of the most transparent administrations in modern history. If you're complaining about him not being entirely and wholly transparent, wtf? He can't do that. There is still sensitive government information that we would like to keep close to the chest... it's just the way things go.
Obama is not being some megalomaniac dictator with this action, and he's not being against transparency... he simply wants to control at least some information flow.
Not to mention, Avira is a German company, and a German product. That they provide an English localization does not make it "English Anti-Virus" software.
If an error message is printed, which is a side effect, that's happening when the exception was caught, which isn't really part of evaluating the exception throwing expression.
I think by using levels of abstractions, the idea that it's the exception handling is what has the side-effect rather than the exception thrower misses the point that the exception thrower is still proximally the cause of the side-effect.
No, because it does not mutate a value, but only changes the control flow.
I wish I had more time to explain in detail, but that isn't going to happen today, unfortunately. Side-effect in this context is a highly specific term that means, essentially, to change the value of a variable through assignment.
No, the first sentence was sufficient. I am a CS guru. Just previously vague definitions need clarification.
I see this tribalism is wrong argument popping up quite often but really what is this based on philosophically. I don't know them and they don't know me. I can only assume they are going to look out for their best interests, I therefore must do the same. This does not hold true for my friends and neighbors who I can expect to consider my interests, at least to a degree.
Welcome to the Prisoner's Dilemma... the reason why the world is going to hell in a handbasket even though if everyone were to work together, everything would work out fine.
There was a case where a father representing his adult son (who was legally incompetent and the father had full legal custody of said adult child) was investigated by the bar association of his local state after the lawyer who lost to his pro se representation of his son reported him for practicing law without a license.
"pop physicist" doesn't mean that he's unqualified. Neal deGrasse Tyson is a pop astronomer/physicist but that doesn't make what he says wrong or bad.
Some people are so adapted to the alternative and underground music scene that they fail to recognize real musical talent in the pop music market. Just because someone is a pop artist, doesn't mean that everything they churn out is shit.
No. Theory is not fact. Theory is a well tested and accurate model of the facts, but it is not the fact itself.
For example, the Theory of General Relativity does not precisely match up with reality as we see it. We're not exactly sure what's wrong with it right now, and the errors are ridiculously insignificant, but it is clear that it's not entirely fact. And despite not being fact, and despite being wrong at some ridiculously small epsilon, it is still by far the most accurate theory that we have.
And besides, if Theory were Fact, then Newton's Theory of Motion would still be true today, as it was when he formulated it, and it was widely accepted.
And of course a "theory" can be discredited, and falsified. Such as "Caloric theory".
A client MUST include a Host header field in all HTTP/1.1 request messages . If the requested URI does not include an Internet host name for the service being requested, then the Host header field MUST be given with an empty value. An HTTP/1.1 proxy MUST ensure that any request message it forwards does contain an appropriate Host header field that identifies the service being requested by the proxy. All Internet-based HTTP/1.1 servers MUST respond with a 400 (Bad Request) status code to any HTTP/1.1 request message which lacks a Host header field.
If all you're doing is a redirect, it's like... why would you leave the connection open? "Dude, go here... and um... stick around for a bit, I just want to make sure you don't have anything else to ask about..."
Modern file systems such as NTFS and anything used by the *nix world use a completely different allocation system than FAT, and as a result a simple "undelete" utility would be worthless.
Care to explain why a mere week ago, we successfully used piriforms free "recuva" utility to recover around 12GB of data that was wiped out from DFS-- none of those overwritten or corrupted?
SIMPLE undelete utility. As in, "All I had to do was recover the file entry in the directory listing, and mark the starting FAT entry as used again".
This "recuva" utilitiy sounds like it's the quality tools that we do have these days, and didn't have back in the old days.
I posted further down the page that it is actually a good rule. It stops teenagers who think they are "good with computers" from pulling the drive apart in their bedrooms and destroying it while allowing people with clean rooms and the required expertise to still participate in a meaningful way.
Definitely with you on this point. The rule against disassembly except for people with clean rooms is a really good rule.
Can't run the challenge very long if your source material is destroyed.:(
I've been annoyed at the crap level of tools for XP and onward for a long time. While Fat was crap disk defragmenting tools for NTFS are still horrid and tedious.
That's because NTFS does not have the same fragmentation problems that FAT does, and in particular only has fragmentation problems in a very small set of circumstances that average users will not come across.
To say that quality tools don't matter is moronic. You as always do the nerd thing and focus on just what I said not rather what was implied in the general sense.
And you're doing the idiot thing of not actually reading what I actually wrote. I am not against quality tools, rather "undelete" was never a quality tool.
It's like you're calling for a return to sticks and rocks because you can't find a good stick and/or rock. We don't need that shit anymore.
So, again, to clarify: we never had a good undelete tool.
I am now officially setting up a background program for my two master servers to ping each other, and should the ping ever fail, they will auto shutdown...
"I laugh whenever I see comments like this. Lest we forget that nobody ever accepted The Great Zero Challenge [hostjury.com], let alone beat it."
While the statement itself is incorrect if taken as if it was accurate, traditionally when you delete a file on a partition table it does not delete the file only deletes the first bit of the filename from the file allocation table.
This is what allowed old DOS utilities like undelete or norton undelete to function. Some days I do miss the old days since it seems no one develops quality tools anymore for win XP +.
You're messing up terms. The "partition table" is in the master boot sector (and yes, there's an additional one at the start of an extended partition table, I know.) The partition table is irrelevant to the way in which files are stored.
What deleting files in DOS and on disks all the way up to FAT32 did was change the first byte of the filename to a known value, which represented a "deleted file". This filename was actually stored directly in the directory listing, not in the file allocation table. The directory listing also included an index into the file allocation table, which was the start of the file. In the file allocation table each entry pointed to the next entry in the table that contained the file.
If you tried to undelete a file of size greater than the block size of the file allocation table, you would not obtain the entire file, because the entries for the file had already been wiped from the file allocation table.
Modern file systems such as NTFS and anything used by the *nix world use a completely different allocation system than FAT, and as a result a simple "undelete" utility would be worthless.
Specifically, the directory listings contain a filename and an "inode" or inode-like pointer, which points to an inode or inode-like entry, which contains information about where the file is stored. If one has deleted all points to the inode or inode-like entry, then the entry is scrubbed, and recovering the point to this inode becomes worthless, because again, the inode entry contains nothing of the file itself.
So, to clarify why "the good old days" can't be brought back for "quality tools", is because FAT was a piece of shit, and undelete was a complete hack exploiting a design failure in the FAT method. It was by no means a "quality tool"...
Disassembly was specifically permitted to incorporated businesses, and intelligence agencies.
However, the rest of your argument is not any more weak because they suddenly started permitted disassembly. In fact, the entire point of "can't disassemble the drive" is practically moot compared to the other reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
The hardest job at MS would be their security experts. Imagine trying to do a job and having every last move you make either neutered or cancelled entirely by Marketing.
Try again... it's not marketing that neuters everything, it's the managers... or potentially the managers that think like marketing at best.
The managers insist on progress, and results, and things that will make the company money. Fixing bugs and supporting older software is a hard sell, and usually done on a very strict basis with typical corporate politics.
Worker bee: "I fixed bug #13749!"
Manager: "Why did you fix that bug, when it's very low priority. We have important bugs to fix, and you're wasting time on low priority bugs?"
Worker bee: "But the bug only took an hour of my time, and it was just a one line change..."
Manager: "Which now needs a code-review, and thorough testing just like every other bug fix to ensure that it doesn't break anything... you're not just wasting your one hour of coding time, you're wasting everyone else's time as well! I'm not approving this bug fix to go into the program."
Worker bee: "But this is outrageously retarded, why would you block any implemented bug fix from being pushed out?"
Manager: "Oh... so now you're insulting me? Fine, you're fired... we'll back up your things and ship them to your house... meanwhile you're being escorted off campus."
Worker bee: "WHA?!!!!"
I mean, I don't know this guy personally, so it's not an attack on him, but MS has hired various "open source" people in the past, and what do we get?
After one or two years? Ex-Microsoft F/OSS programmers... or at least that's been the going rate for how long a F/OSS programmer manages to stick around at MS.
Government employees leaking information is still a federal criminal offense. From TFS, it doesn't appear like his administration did anything outside of standard police investigation to locate a suspected leak.
This rhetoric of "will do almost anything" is entirely ridiculous... when he starts TORTURING people for information, and confessions, then you can start telling me that he will "do almost anything", until then, it looks like he's willing to use proper due process to accomplish a justifiable goal.
"But it's not the transparency he promised us! *whine whine whine*" Look, I know you're upset that he hasn't been as transparent as you would like, and I would agree in some respects. He has however been perhaps one of the most transparent administrations in modern history. If you're complaining about him not being entirely and wholly transparent, wtf? He can't do that. There is still sensitive government information that we would like to keep close to the chest... it's just the way things go.
Obama is not being some megalomaniac dictator with this action, and he's not being against transparency... he simply wants to control at least some information flow.
Not to mention, Avira is a German company, and a German product. That they provide an English localization does not make it "English Anti-Virus" software.
If an error message is printed, which is a side effect, that's happening when the exception was caught, which isn't really part of evaluating the exception throwing expression.
I think by using levels of abstractions, the idea that it's the exception handling is what has the side-effect rather than the exception thrower misses the point that the exception thrower is still proximally the cause of the side-effect.
Isn't throwing an error a side-effect?
No, because it does not mutate a value, but only changes the control flow.
I wish I had more time to explain in detail, but that isn't going to happen today, unfortunately. Side-effect in this context is a highly specific term that means, essentially, to change the value of a variable through assignment.
No, the first sentence was sufficient. I am a CS guru. Just previously vague definitions need clarification.
Isn't throwing an error a side-effect?
They're pink and invisible. I tire of the lies.
May her blessed hooves be upon you!
I don't see the connection. Every gang bang I've been involved in has been 100% consensual.
Of course, this statement is vacuously true, right? Like how all unicorns are red?
Kardashians don't come in gaggles, they come in gargles.
I see this tribalism is wrong argument popping up quite often but really what is this based on philosophically. I don't know them and they don't know me. I can only assume they are going to look out for their best interests, I therefore must do the same. This does not hold true for my friends and neighbors who I can expect to consider my interests, at least to a degree.
Welcome to the Prisoner's Dilemma... the reason why the world is going to hell in a handbasket even though if everyone were to work together, everything would work out fine.
There was a case where a father representing his adult son (who was legally incompetent and the father had full legal custody of said adult child) was investigated by the bar association of his local state after the lawyer who lost to his pro se representation of his son reported him for practicing law without a license.
Some people are sore losers.
because that's where people imagine lays the answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything.
Grammar Nazi alert: It's where the answer LIES. "To lay" is the act of putting something somewhere where it will then "lie".
"pop physicist" doesn't mean that he's unqualified. Neal deGrasse Tyson is a pop astronomer/physicist but that doesn't make what he says wrong or bad.
Some people are so adapted to the alternative and underground music scene that they fail to recognize real musical talent in the pop music market. Just because someone is a pop artist, doesn't mean that everything they churn out is shit.
No. Theory is not fact. Theory is a well tested and accurate model of the facts, but it is not the fact itself.
For example, the Theory of General Relativity does not precisely match up with reality as we see it. We're not exactly sure what's wrong with it right now, and the errors are ridiculously insignificant, but it is clear that it's not entirely fact. And despite not being fact, and despite being wrong at some ridiculously small epsilon, it is still by far the most accurate theory that we have.
And besides, if Theory were Fact, then Newton's Theory of Motion would still be true today, as it was when he formulated it, and it was widely accepted.
And of course a "theory" can be discredited, and falsified. Such as "Caloric theory".
You mean a "Host:" header right? I believe that's actually optional too.
Ah yes, you're right, it is the Host field, although it is not optional, it is mandatory (from http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html Section 14.23)
A client MUST include a Host header field in all HTTP/1.1 request messages . If the requested URI does not include an Internet host name for the service being requested, then the Host header field MUST be given with an empty value. An HTTP/1.1 proxy MUST ensure that any request message it forwards does contain an appropriate Host header field that identifies the service being requested by the proxy. All Internet-based HTTP/1.1 servers MUST respond with a 400 (Bad Request) status code to any HTTP/1.1 request message which lacks a Host header field.
Maybe the client was requesting a keep-alive, as all modern browsers expect to do? Or maybe it's an HTTP/1.0 vs. /1.1 difference.
Yes, HTTP/1.1 automatically assumes keep-alive is desired, while HTTP/1.0 makes the opposite assumption.
Of course, HTTP/1.1 also requires a Server: entry for all requests as well...
I was a little peeved by the Keep-Alive: yes
If all you're doing is a redirect, it's like... why would you leave the connection open? "Dude, go here... and um... stick around for a bit, I just want to make sure you don't have anything else to ask about..."
Modern file systems such as NTFS and anything used by the *nix world use a completely different allocation system than FAT, and as a result a simple "undelete" utility would be worthless.
Care to explain why a mere week ago, we successfully used piriforms free "recuva" utility to recover around 12GB of data that was wiped out from DFS-- none of those overwritten or corrupted?
SIMPLE undelete utility. As in, "All I had to do was recover the file entry in the directory listing, and mark the starting FAT entry as used again".
This "recuva" utilitiy sounds like it's the quality tools that we do have these days, and didn't have back in the old days.
I posted further down the page that it is actually a good rule. It stops teenagers who think they are "good with computers" from pulling the drive apart in their bedrooms and destroying it while allowing people with clean rooms and the required expertise to still participate in a meaningful way.
Definitely with you on this point. The rule against disassembly except for people with clean rooms is a really good rule.
Can't run the challenge very long if your source material is destroyed. :(
I've been annoyed at the crap level of tools for XP and onward for a long time. While Fat was crap disk defragmenting tools for NTFS are still horrid and tedious.
That's because NTFS does not have the same fragmentation problems that FAT does, and in particular only has fragmentation problems in a very small set of circumstances that average users will not come across.
To say that quality tools don't matter is moronic. You as always do the nerd thing and focus on just what I said not rather what was implied in the general sense.
And you're doing the idiot thing of not actually reading what I actually wrote. I am not against quality tools, rather "undelete" was never a quality tool.
It's like you're calling for a return to sticks and rocks because you can't find a good stick and/or rock. We don't need that shit anymore.
So, again, to clarify: we never had a good undelete tool.
I am now officially setting up a background program for my two master servers to ping each other, and should the ping ever fail, they will auto shutdown...
$paranoia++
So #2 becomes the most obvious culprit.
Fallacy of the false dichotomy. There are more than just two possibilities here.
"I laugh whenever I see comments like this. Lest we forget that nobody ever accepted The Great Zero Challenge [hostjury.com], let alone beat it."
While the statement itself is incorrect if taken as if it was accurate, traditionally when you delete a file on a partition table it does not delete the file only deletes the first bit of the filename from the file allocation table.
This is what allowed old DOS utilities like undelete or norton undelete to function. Some days I do miss the old days since it seems no one develops quality tools anymore for win XP +.
You're messing up terms. The "partition table" is in the master boot sector (and yes, there's an additional one at the start of an extended partition table, I know.) The partition table is irrelevant to the way in which files are stored.
What deleting files in DOS and on disks all the way up to FAT32 did was change the first byte of the filename to a known value, which represented a "deleted file". This filename was actually stored directly in the directory listing, not in the file allocation table. The directory listing also included an index into the file allocation table, which was the start of the file. In the file allocation table each entry pointed to the next entry in the table that contained the file.
If you tried to undelete a file of size greater than the block size of the file allocation table, you would not obtain the entire file, because the entries for the file had already been wiped from the file allocation table.
Modern file systems such as NTFS and anything used by the *nix world use a completely different allocation system than FAT, and as a result a simple "undelete" utility would be worthless.
Specifically, the directory listings contain a filename and an "inode" or inode-like pointer, which points to an inode or inode-like entry, which contains information about where the file is stored. If one has deleted all points to the inode or inode-like entry, then the entry is scrubbed, and recovering the point to this inode becomes worthless, because again, the inode entry contains nothing of the file itself.
So, to clarify why "the good old days" can't be brought back for "quality tools", is because FAT was a piece of shit, and undelete was a complete hack exploiting a design failure in the FAT method. It was by no means a "quality tool"...
Disassembly was specifically permitted to incorporated businesses, and intelligence agencies.
However, the rest of your argument is not any more weak because they suddenly started permitted disassembly. In fact, the entire point of "can't disassemble the drive" is practically moot compared to the other reasons.