The subtext of your argument seems to be that implementation is the proper business of people without intellectual curiosity. I can't agree. The software world needs practitioners with groundings in theory, and always will.
It wasn't until I read your post that I realized that D.C. and Geneva are identical in every respect except for their gun laws. Thanks for opening my eyes!
This is the fallacy of the excluded middle. It's like saying, "if computer security worked, we would have no security breaches." Computer security does work, it prevents some security breaches; gun control does work, it prevents some gun crimes.
Criminals do not always have guns. Criminals frequently pretend to have guns when they don't, because it achieves much the same effect, with much less risk on the downside.
Re NeXTs -- I can't agree. I have a 33 MHz 68040- based NeXTstation (the slab, not the cube) which worked well for me for a while for web browsing and ssh.
The web browser was quite good for its day, but eventually became obsolete as standards moved on. It's still maintained, but only in its Mac OS X version.
So I disagree on two counts: the NeXT *was* useful, but it is now obsolete.
BTW, they're called "unix domain sockets", or, more politically-correctly, "local domain sockets". As opposed to "inet domain sockets", though nobody ever says that.
The subject at issue is not a security hole. The patches allow -- wowee -- an administrator to configure BIND in such a way that some TLDs cease to function.
That's really funny. Do you know how many patents there are? Do you expect Microsoft to have its lawyers go through all of them every time MS makes a substantive change to its software?
I run email for a site, let's call it example.com. A couple of our users report spam to SpamCop. example.com's IP address appears in the headers of the spam, because it was received there. SpamCop therefore listed us! They are either crazy or stupid. Please do not use their DNSBL for blocking.
Slashdot Mirror
The way you maintain a car has changed too, for that matter.
I submitted a Provisional Patent Application on this idea
a couple of weeks ago.
I guess I can stop spending money on this now.
Wouldn't that sort of quote be considered "fair use"
anyway?
I might as well bring up Iran/Contra.
Genuine treason makes all of this pale in
comparison. And the perpetrators are still
in power.
What about the iPaq issue?
Does Apple have patents on Fairplay (note: not
Freeplay)? I thought they were just producing
HP-branded iPods for HP, not licensing anything
at all.
Or will it be Ogg, which is a standard *and*
is free of I.P. encumbrances?
Am I the only one reminded a bit of Bayesian
spam filtering?
"post hoc ergo propter hoc"
Working with a specific system lets you see how
real-world implementors traded off between
different desirable goals.
When theory meets reality, both of them change.
IIRC, John Lions wrote a little about this in the
intro to his _Commentary On Sixth Edition UNIX_.
The subtext of your argument seems to be that
implementation is the proper business of people
without intellectual curiosity. I can't agree.
The software world needs practitioners with
groundings in theory, and always will.
I'm all for sending Bush back to the moon. Where do I sign?
It wasn't until I read your post that I realized
that D.C. and Geneva are identical in every respect
except for their gun laws. Thanks for opening my
eyes!
This is the fallacy of the excluded middle.
It's like saying, "if computer security worked,
we would have no security breaches." Computer
security does work, it prevents some security
breaches; gun control does work, it prevents some
gun crimes.
Criminals do not always have guns. Criminals
frequently pretend to have guns when they don't,
because it achieves much the same effect, with
much less risk on the downside.
If you're a unixy kind of person, it's a no-brainer,
unless you put a premium on open-source purity.
I don't know how to use the iMac as a standalone
display. I guess I'd better quit my job.
So how do you use an iMac as a standalone display,
smart guy?
Re NeXTs -- I can't agree. I have a 33 MHz 68040-
based NeXTstation (the slab, not the cube) which
worked well for me for a while for web browsing and
ssh.
The web browser was quite good for its day, but
eventually became obsolete as standards moved on.
It's still maintained, but only in its Mac OS X
version.
So I disagree on two counts: the NeXT *was* useful,
but it is now obsolete.
If it's common practice to raise the price of the
middle of the line in order to make the top and
bottom look more attractive,
how come Apple mid-line products always end up
looking better than the top and bottom models?
Lawyers are pretty good about using language ...
precisely
of course, if they're baiting him, that means
they'll be extra good at it.
BTW, they're called "unix domain sockets", or, more
politically-correctly, "local domain sockets". As opposed
to "inet domain sockets", though nobody ever says that.
The subject at issue is not a security hole.
The patches allow -- wowee -- an administrator
to configure BIND in such a way that some TLDs
cease to function.
*plonk*
That's really funny. Do you know how many
patents there are? Do you expect Microsoft to
have its lawyers go through all of them every time
MS makes a substantive change to its software?
bl.spamcop.net blocks legit mail all the time.
I run email for a site, let's call it example.com. A couple
of our users report spam to SpamCop. example.com's IP
address appears in the headers of the spam, because it
was received there. SpamCop therefore listed us! They
are either crazy or stupid. Please do not use their DNSBL
for blocking.
The Better Business Bureau has no enforcement
powers. The worst they can do is not bestow
their seal of approval. BFD.