Forgot your password?

Comment: The tools ARE there (Score 1) 608

Microsoft Lightswitch is a great example of just such a tool. Visual Basic is still around, and the Express versions available for free today are better than Visual Basic 1-6 ever were. Mac has been stuck with Objective-C for years, but it looks like Apple is finally addressing that.

Web Programming? Yes, its the spawn of Satan. But if you want to point the blame for that look to Brendan Eich for the monstrosity that is JavaScript, and the idiots that decided that CSS needed to be so alien and broken compared to HTML.

Comment: Re:There is no such thing as "maths" (Score 1) 688

by The Other White Meat (#47066721) Attached to: Professors: US "In Denial" Over Poor Maths Standards

If you did your research, you would know that "maths" is a very recent invention in Great Britain. It only started in the 1970's, and didn't become common until the 1990's. That doesn't change the facts of what I stated, which is that mathematics is not a plural word, and the abbreviation, according to the rules of English as the British themselves define them, is math. This isn't an American vs. British issue, this is about a misunderstanding of the language. Just because it has taken foothold in Britain and some of its former colonies doesn't make it correct.

Comment: There is no such thing as "maths" (Score -1, Troll) 688

by The Other White Meat (#47063129) Attached to: Professors: US "In Denial" Over Poor Maths Standards

The abbreviation of the word mathematics is not "maths". Mathematics is not a plural word, rather, it is plurale tantum, which is Latin for in plural form only. The reason for this is that the root word mathematic is not a singular noun, but an adjective. To create the noun, an "s" is added, resulting in the noun mathematics. However, when a word which is plural tantum is abbreviated, the "s" does not come along for the ride.

In short "maths" is the British equivalent of "nucular" and should be avoided by anyone who knows better.

Comment: Now you know the real reason why the U.S. hates HU (Score 1) 347

All those protests about HUAWEI - the real reason we scared everyone about them is for precisely the opposite reason than was claimed. HUAWEI is not in the pocket of the NSA, which makes them useless from an espionage standpoint. The problem isn't that their equipment has spyware, it's that it doesn't (as far as the NSA is concerned.)

Comment: Re:Micromanagement (Score 1) 130

Yes, and since Active Directory is largely based on Kerberos and LDAP, we must assume that MIT and everyone involved in LDAP/X.500 have no idea what is going on either. Because some anonymous asshat said so. Please share your text file based solution to managing 100K users and all of their associated equipment, we'll wait.

Comment: PLENTY of options (Score 1) 478

by The Other White Meat (#46280751) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Anti-Camera Device For Use In a Small Bus?

1. Fog Machines. You'll need to generate enough fog to completely eliminate visibility. Run the fog juice through the muffler, then route the exhaust into the passenger cabin, and you are good to go.

2. Anesthetics. Pump some "anesthizine gas" into the cabin, and knock everyone out. See Star Trek: TNG for the specifics.

3. Blinding Lights. Deploy lights so bright that the burn out any camera sensors and/or retinas. Optionally, provide shielding visors. See Star Trek: TOS "Operation: Annihilate!" for the specifics.

Comment: Re:SSNs? (Score 1) 236

by The Other White Meat (#46255387) Attached to: Target's Internal Security Team Warned Management

There was a specific policy, covering all departments, that information like that was not to be transmitted in the clear, and even when transmitted encrypted, the applications were to be registered with the security department. Those applications would be subject to increased scrutiny, particular for extrusions and data leakage.

As the device could only catch unencrypted transmissions, those were all, by definition, in violation of policy.

Comment: You'd Be Amazed (Score 5, Interesting) 236

by The Other White Meat (#46250545) Attached to: Target's Internal Security Team Warned Management

Years ago I worked for a government IT department. A vendor wanted us to try out a product. The device plugs directly into the Internet connection, and monitors every packet, in real time, looking for strings matching an array of string that you provide. We ran queries against our internal databases, and compiled a list of SSNs and CCNs. The vendor programmed that data into their device, which from what I can tell used an FPGA to perform deep packet inspections.

We expected that we might see maybe an email every week or two where someone accidentally sent that kind of information.

First hit occurred 12 seconds after turning the device on.

Second occurred .47 seconds later.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Within an hour, we had overrun the quota on the network directory where we were logging this data.

We found hundreds of separate systems that were transmitting this kind of data without authorization. We were planning a massive internal sweep to find and fix them all, when the following came down from management:

Shut it down. Remove the device. Destroy all logs, emails, EVERYTHING. Offer the vendor a payment in return for signing an NDA. All employees required to sign secrecy docs (unenforceable at that level of govt, but still.)

I believe this is how the acronym SNAFU came into existence.

There can be no twisted thought without a twisted molecule. -- R. W. Gerard