Because, if you did, you wouldn't be blocked. You'd have a broken-out list of problems to solve, and you'd be solving them. If you're stuck on the enormity of a problem, decompose it until it's manageable. Even if you think you're hopelessly stuck, decomposing the problem into function-level bites gets your organized enough to start solving the problems.
Think about it this way: if you were taking a math test, would you really have arithmetic block, or would you attempt to solve as many as you can in the time allotted?
I see your UNIX based systems and raise you MVS on OS/390, which runs more code than all of your UNIX and Windows systems combined, and to date has never been exploited in the wild.
The Dell Axim x50v had a CF slot *and* an SD slot, not to mention Wifi and Bluetooth. If the only thing HTC did was update the Axim line to handle 802.11abg/n -- and perhaps a consequent ROM upgrade to WinMo6 -- they'd sell as many as they could make. Those were extremely capable machines. In fact, it's the primary input device for my HTPC. Why buy a wireless kbd/mouse when I can control the whole thing remotely? Hell, the fuckin' thing has an IR blaster in it! Ditch all the remotes!
All right, let me compose myself here. Yeah, so, Axims, great devices. Update the radios, I'll take it. I'll take any resistive panel over crapacitive.
I would cautiously agree with the developers being less educated on SQL than they should be. The trouble seems to be in the different mind-sets required to solve the application problems. SQL is a declarative language, and it operates on your set of data as described. The host language, for what of a better term, is C or Java or some other iterative language, and it operates on each individual member of the set, stepwise. If you primarily think "stepwise" or algorithmically, you're already framing your problems as challenges to be met with an iterative approach. Learning to recognize which parts of the application require declarative, functional, or procedural solutions is where good developers becomes great.
I disagree with any statement that pits developers against DBAs. I have found a few DBAs that have more ability than myself in SQL, but not many and not recently. I don't rely on them to work with my data, and then don't rely on me to manage four hundred schemas across two dozen machines. A good separation of duties always helps.
+1 on actually getting it. This is exactly what he was attempting to convey, the ephemeral existence we all share. I think he acknowledged that folks with the griefer-gene would recover it, but he wasn't targeting them anyway, was he?
-BA
Re:a bunch of questions
on
C# In-Depth
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Actually, COBOL is more widely used than any of those. Not sexy, but it literally pays the bills.
2. Not sure about the auto logon. New user makes sense, right? Microsoft has gone crazy with some of the password requirements-- I'm fine with complexity, but IIRC the default domain settings on 2003 are something like, "Force users to change their password every 30 days, and don't let them re-use any of their last 14 passwords." And that's stupid.
Stupid is not changing it. Pointedly stupid is *enhancing* it by required a change every 90 days (oh, two more months, so far so good), saving the last 20 passwords (ohhh.... kay) and requiring at least one number, one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, and one special character.
And you can't write them down... unenforceable, but whatever.
I know of at least one place where they mandate which special characters you can use, and where the first digit must be in the password. Talk about cutting down the permutations in your rainbow tables.
your router MAC isn't the one you need to change, it's your cable/FiOS/DSL modem's MAC. and good luck getting your ISP to validate new MACs on your say-so...
"I don't want to be a code monkey because cranking out code to do exactly what someone else's spec says is thoughtless."
Like you could actually hack it for a living anyway. Go audit a class on Theoretically Bullshit That HAs No Application to Reality, and leave the rest of us to build the damn world.
Refineries are built nearby. Oil companies collude to state that recovering the oil is very difficult, must recoup refinery construction costs, etc, and price of oil will simply remain at $100 per barrel, because the profits are just regoddamndiculous and they are already addicted to the windfalls.
Watch and see. 500 billion barrels does not equal price drop, it equals another 50 years of burning oil instead of making better plastics, investing in solar/ nuclear, shying away from massive CO2 emissions...
You're making too much of your purported achievements, and consequently, the need to repent.
It doesn't matter what you did to crack protection, ultimately, if it served you in the future to do something better. I never read any stories about the game programmers having to eat dog food as a result of some trainer splashed in front of Karateka.
But hey, if you were the dude that cracked Lode Runner, man, thank you. Also, thanks go to the guy who hacked Wizardry so we could use +25 swords.
It would have to be an inside job, but the source should be leaked onto a torrent tracker late one Friday night. By Monday AM, c|net should have plenty of news material and the genie is out of the bottle.
Is it wrong, legally? Heck yeah. Is there a higher calling here? Maybe.
I think there's a potential goldmine for Microsoft just looming off to the side.
If Microsoft made Windows 2000 Pro available for $20 per copy in 2008, then shuttered it; and Windows XP Pro/64 Pro for $40 in 2008, then 2009, then shuttered it, imagine how easy it would be for many 'cloned' copies to get right. Now imagine how easy it would be for Microsoft to compete against Linux in the low-end market. Microsoft would be able to say -- which Linux cannot -- "Our OS works with Microsoft Office natively, including Exchange". The real cash cow is untouched, i.e. Office, and Microsoft finally gets into the "sell the blades, not the razor" business once and for all.
You have a limited understanding of how wiretapping works, then.
For anything being monitored, there has to be two criteria met: one, the complete function of your monitoring device and two, real-time audit of the results.
For s/w keyloggers and the like, you have to prove that it will only dump the intercepted signals to . You'd have to demonstrate that you could not inject a fake transcript of the purported interception.
Once you've done that, you have to monitor it and sign off on its use, i.e. "I monitored this conversation starting at 0344hrs UTC and ending at 0401hrs UTC, the details of which follow..." There would be at least two individuals monitoring the transmission and being forced to sign off on it. The alternative, in court, is a weakened prosecution because you cannot prove it was properly installed, worked according to its specifications, and was properly monitored.
As illustrated by others, you need to completely mitigate the defense arguments of digital mock-ups of evidence. Having 100% proof that traffic originated at the keyboard goes a long way.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, if you did, you wouldn't be blocked. You'd have a broken-out list of problems to solve, and you'd be solving them. If you're stuck on the enormity of a problem, decompose it until it's manageable. Even if you think you're hopelessly stuck, decomposing the problem into function-level bites gets your organized enough to start solving the problems.
Think about it this way: if you were taking a math test, would you really have arithmetic block, or would you attempt to solve as many as you can in the time allotted?
--#
... or they'll be plugging holes in the FCC reps due to the 2nd amendment.
-BA
I see your UNIX based systems and raise you MVS on OS/390, which runs more code than all of your UNIX and Windows systems combined, and to date has never been exploited in the wild.
-BA
Troll.
The Dell Axim x50v had a CF slot *and* an SD slot, not to mention Wifi and Bluetooth. If the only thing HTC did was update the Axim line to handle 802.11abg/n -- and perhaps a consequent ROM upgrade to WinMo6 -- they'd sell as many as they could make. Those were extremely capable machines. In fact, it's the primary input device for my HTPC. Why buy a wireless kbd/mouse when I can control the whole thing remotely? Hell, the fuckin' thing has an IR blaster in it! Ditch all the remotes!
All right, let me compose myself here. Yeah, so, Axims, great devices. Update the radios, I'll take it. I'll take any resistive panel over crapacitive.
-BA
I would cautiously agree with the developers being less educated on SQL than they should be. The trouble seems to be in the different mind-sets required to solve the application problems. SQL is a declarative language, and it operates on your set of data as described. The host language, for what of a better term, is C or Java or some other iterative language, and it operates on each individual member of the set, stepwise. If you primarily think "stepwise" or algorithmically, you're already framing your problems as challenges to be met with an iterative approach. Learning to recognize which parts of the application require declarative, functional, or procedural solutions is where good developers becomes great.
I disagree with any statement that pits developers against DBAs. I have found a few DBAs that have more ability than myself in SQL, but not many and not recently. I don't rely on them to work with my data, and then don't rely on me to manage four hundred schemas across two dozen machines. A good separation of duties always helps.
-BA
+1 on actually getting it. This is exactly what he was attempting to convey, the ephemeral existence we all share. I think he acknowledged that folks with the griefer-gene would recover it, but he wasn't targeting them anyway, was he?
-BA
Actually, COBOL is more widely used than any of those. Not sexy, but it literally pays the bills.
-BA
To which I'd reply, on their comments page: "I live in Paterson, NJ. Come and get me, motherfucker."
--#
Can we get +11 informative for parent? Terrific exposition on the points.
Is there maybe a job for FPGAs to do this work?
--#
mod parent +1 clued-in, +1 rational
COBOL and modularity are not orthogonal, and COBOL was an exemplar of structured programming before you were born.
--#
2. Not sure about the auto logon. New user makes sense, right? Microsoft has gone crazy with some of the password requirements-- I'm fine with complexity, but IIRC the default domain settings on 2003 are something like, "Force users to change their password every 30 days, and don't let them re-use any of their last 14 passwords." And that's stupid.
Stupid is not changing it. Pointedly stupid is *enhancing* it by required a change every 90 days (oh, two more months, so far so good), saving the last 20 passwords (ohhh.... kay) and requiring at least one number, one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, and one special character.
And you can't write them down... unenforceable, but whatever.
I know of at least one place where they mandate which special characters you can use, and where the first digit must be in the password. Talk about cutting down the permutations in your rainbow tables.
-BA
"Day of Defeat: Source" is being bundled with "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers" in time for the Memorial Day weekend shopping season.
-BA
your router MAC isn't the one you need to change, it's your cable/FiOS/DSL modem's MAC. and good luck getting your ISP to validate new MACs on your say-so...
oops.
"I don't want to be a code monkey because cranking out code to do exactly what someone else's spec says is thoughtless."
Like you could actually hack it for a living anyway. Go audit a class on Theoretically Bullshit That HAs No Application to Reality, and leave the rest of us to build the damn world.
Refineries are built nearby. Oil companies collude to state that recovering the oil is very difficult, must recoup refinery construction costs, etc, and price of oil will simply remain at $100 per barrel, because the profits are just regoddamndiculous and they are already addicted to the windfalls.
Watch and see. 500 billion barrels does not equal price drop, it equals another 50 years of burning oil instead of making better plastics, investing in solar/ nuclear, shying away from massive CO2 emissions...
Don't you mean *uphill*?
You're making too much of your purported achievements, and consequently, the need to repent.
It doesn't matter what you did to crack protection, ultimately, if it served you in the future to do something better. I never read any stories about the game programmers having to eat dog food as a result of some trainer splashed in front of Karateka.
But hey, if you were the dude that cracked Lode Runner, man, thank you. Also, thanks go to the guy who hacked Wizardry so we could use +25 swords.
-BA
MSFT is up on news that profits rose 79%, Motley Fool has an article arguing that MSFT is peaked.
You can make money shorting their stock, so I'd be curious to see how many of you with money in play would go this route.
-BA
It would have to be an inside job, but the source should be leaked onto a torrent tracker late one Friday night. By Monday AM, c|net should have plenty of news material and the genie is out of the bottle.
Is it wrong, legally? Heck yeah. Is there a higher calling here? Maybe.
-BA
The most anticipated IPO of 2008 becomes a non-issue.
So... do we buy Sun stock now? Do we wait until Sun screws it up, then spins it off for the IPO?
It's like calling off the election this year. Well, not really...
-BA
I feel the germ of my idea had merit, even if Win2k was a poor example. At least I didn't offer WinME as a possibility.
-BA
I think there's a potential goldmine for Microsoft just looming off to the side.
If Microsoft made Windows 2000 Pro available for $20 per copy in 2008, then shuttered it; and Windows XP Pro/64 Pro for $40 in 2008, then 2009, then shuttered it, imagine how easy it would be for many 'cloned' copies to get right. Now imagine how easy it would be for Microsoft to compete against Linux in the low-end market. Microsoft would be able to say -- which Linux cannot -- "Our OS works with Microsoft Office natively, including Exchange". The real cash cow is untouched, i.e. Office, and Microsoft finally gets into the "sell the blades, not the razor" business once and for all.
-BA
You have a limited understanding of how wiretapping works, then.
For anything being monitored, there has to be two criteria met: one, the complete function of your monitoring device and two, real-time audit of the results.
For s/w keyloggers and the like, you have to prove that it will only dump the intercepted signals to . You'd have to demonstrate that you could not inject a fake transcript of the purported interception.
Once you've done that, you have to monitor it and sign off on its use, i.e. "I monitored this conversation starting at 0344hrs UTC and ending at 0401hrs UTC, the details of which follow..." There would be at least two individuals monitoring the transmission and being forced to sign off on it. The alternative, in court, is a weakened prosecution because you cannot prove it was properly installed, worked according to its specifications, and was properly monitored.
As illustrated by others, you need to completely mitigate the defense arguments of digital mock-ups of evidence. Having 100% proof that traffic originated at the keyboard goes a long way.
-BA
Many variations of the theme, but someone shoulda wrote this first:
"Of course a German cracked it first; he asked his grandfather for a copy of the plaintext"
-BA