@henke37 said:
Someone get this guy a vb script to automatically merge the entries back again.
Now you have tw... er, fuck. I can't count that high
@henke37 said:
Someone get this guy a vb script to automatically merge the entries back again.
Now you have tw... er, fuck. I can't count that high
This is a pedantic linguistic issue... but then, of course it is. This is TDWTF.
Perl got it right at least conceptually: the state of the variable is being blessed (or not); how you bless it is up to you.
Paramaterized queries does not change the input data, it deals with it in a safe way.
I can sanitize many biological specimens with bleach (or a bullet), but dealing with them live, and protected somehow, is, depending on how you want to poke at them, a different thing.
He knows what paramaterized queries are, he (and I) just doesn't consider that to be "sanitization".
@RaceProUK said:
Subscription payments.
Yes, I know about Direct Debit. No, not everyone uses them.
Design flaw.
Vendors should be certified to do recurring or stored payments, and then on initial request, be assigned a new, unique and entirely private token for that customer. If a vendors database is ever compromised, it doesn't matter, the CC clearinghouses would simply void the tokens, which don't affect the end CC at all.
I dunno what you mean. And I'm not using "script-able" in the sense of "written in a scripting language", but "presents an API to external users to automate". Like, shudder, VBA.
Oh, maybe I do see what you mean. Infinite loop. Not the GUI toolkits problem. It is always possible to construct an infinite call loop that might be triggered. What about onChange()? Constructing an onChange() battle royal is just as easy to do.
@blakeyrat said:
Then the application's broken. Not all input devices have a concept of "focus", so if the application is doing something that relies on it, it's broken.I'm not saying it's uncommon for apps to rely on focus; I'm just saying that in that case the problem is the app, and not the scripting interface.
Can't disagree, however if it is a feature of the GUI toolkit to register events against onFocus()/onBlur(), and the GUI toolkit provides a scripting API, then you must be able to script that for it to be considered complete.
@blakeyrat said:
@Planar said:If you make it scriptable, you must make ALL OPERATIONS scriptable, otherwise your scripting API is just a piece of shit."focus" is a concept used by humans, not by computers. I don't see any purpose to making it scriptable. But in any case:
1) fair enough, my point still applies (this is a shitty way of making the computer scriptable)
2) I doubt that's why that menu exists anyway, I'm sure some Linux dinosaur put in a feature request for it and since all Linux developers have a hard-on for complexity and "choice", they put it in no questions asked
You allow focus to be scriptable because very often the application has triggers on onFocus() and onBlur() (or whatever).
@Salamander said:
Are you suggesting that a read lock shouldn't prevent another program from changing a file while it's being read?
No, I'm suggesting that something that has the very minor permission to read a file should not be allowed to lock it. Perhaps their should be an additional lock permission or something. Or if you build an OS that providing the functionality of an OS enforced lock, then also build the required related functionality of telling things that someone else really, really, wants to update the file. Or define an API and/or convention to break those locks, short of rebooting. You know, finish the job.
I think that it can, but wrapping things up, whereas the convention with UNIX is that SIGHUP means "reload datafiles", there is no such convention in Windows. Because Windows promises that files will never change after you write-lock them. I guess you could try and "restart" processes that have write-locked files, even just killing them, but again, that isn't a standard/conventional flow. I mean, how can the OS be expected to figure out the inter-relationships between a bunch of processes, together providing some functionality? You can't just start killing off processes and expect that they will gracefully restart their IPC, or are atomic, or whatever. Reboot at least is a case that all applications should handle.
Absence of write-locks it is an actual problem. UNIX just ignores it. Windows prevents it. UNIX applications (and maybe even UNIX defined convention, e.g. SIGHUP) deal with it gracefully. The Windows solutions opens up an entirely new set of problems, especially compounded by the (now largely historical) problem of just about every application installer installing files everywhere and unpredictably.
Core design flaw of Windows.
Faced with the problem of multiple processes being able to access a file at the same time (as happens in multi-process-able operating systems) there arises the potential problem of those different processes getting confused when the file changes. Some operating systems wash their hands of the issue (or, maybe to be fair in a historical context, ignore it) and just make it the applications problem. e.g. "If you open a file for reading, be prepared to handle that the file might change under you."
Windows took a different approach (arguably, one with 20-25 years of real world evidence suggesting that the OS "solve" this "problem") by making it possible that any process that has access to read a file has implicit access to write lock it. e.g. application no longer need to deal with files being changed on them, because if they can read the file, they can enforce that the file never changes. (even if they can't write to the file).
Problem solved.
Oh, except that their is no (easy?) way to know which processes have that write-lock in place, and/or no easy way to get those processes to release the lock. Thus, this problem. Windows has some extra complicated "schedule this file to change later" process, used (especially) for installs/upgrades, with processes actually being scheduled at reboot.
I wonder what VMS did?
@joe.edwards said:
@dhromed said:Can God create a stone so heavy even He can't lift it?@DrPepper said:
so that it is readable by rootCan a file be given permissions so that even root can't read it?
If your god is running on a universe protected by NSA donated security systems, yes, quite possibly.
@mott555 said:
@anonymous235 said:
That site spends 10 seconds loading, then shows a 30 second ad, then 10 seconds loading again, and then you get rickrolled. 1/10 on the rickroll quality index, and I'm being generous.It loaded and played instantly for me. But I have AdBlock installed. I suppose you could use meatspin instead.
I'm assuming it is some kind of meta-rickroll parody site; a klein flask of rickrolling, if you will. The joke is on the person sending the link, hoping to get punched in the face, but they would only ever get a "yeah, WTF? after 25 seconds I closed the tab, thanks for wasting my time"
@mott555 said:
@anonymous235 said:
That site spends 10 seconds loading, then shows a 30 second ad, then 10 seconds loading again, and then you get rickrolled. 1/10 on the rickroll quality index, and I'm being generous.It loaded and played instantly for me. But I have AdBlock installed. I suppose you could use meatspin instead.
I'm assuming it is some kind of meta-rickroll parody site; a klein flask of rickrolling, if you will. The joke is on the person sending the link, hoping to get punched in the face, but they would only ever get a "yeah, WTF? after 25 seconds I closed the tab, thanks for wasting my time"
What if, you know, the replacement parts actually cost money? And installing them actually takes time of people who get paid?
A asks B to do something, B does it. A realizes they are morons, and asks B to fix. B does so. The overloads have to play real money somewhere, somehow, but why should B suck up that mistake, and look bad to the overloads when it was A at fault?
Yeah, true, dat. Its the WTF here, more so then their being a stupid tool. The chat server reps, and their supervisors, had access to a tool that gave the same options. Clearly there are other options. That cost more. That would indicate higher profit. That are what I want.
The HP tool, or at least the HP QuickSpec page lists off an absolutely absurd number of options.... "Do you want a rack with that?".... I accept I live in a world of industry standards where I will get exactly 0 support for items working together, yet not purchased on the exactly same PO. Meh. Given the default is no; I'd rather the tool that allows the big PO.
Personally, my immediate past gig I worked for the local HP (and others) regional reseller. I was doing admin stuff for internal and obscure SaaS stuff for the IT sales division (for an otherwise not-IT sales enterprise). The div was 90% HW sales, the single largest HW vendor being HP. So personally, I have some familiarity (if not affinity) with HP servers. Not that it matters. But I know HP servers have on-the-mobo at no extra cost, SDHC slots. Again, maybe familiarity over actual ease-of-use, but I can lay my hands on an HP QuickSpec far easier than anything from Dell. (and the HP QuickSpecs provide a bazillion possibly related options, including things not at all related to servers like switches and racks, which Dell keeps secret)
$CURRENT_GIG_BIG_BOSS basically would require Dell servers - pre-existing relationship, pre-approved lease - but the SAN was wide open. For reasons I'm not sure I understand, I emailed my requirements to $PAST_GIG as well as $COMPETITOR_OF_PAST_GIG_WITH_HOT_REP (because I'm fair). And by "requirements" I mean "give me a price on a this exact SKU, or the price of the SKU you will bait-n-switch on me, which I'm OK with, 'cause I know how you fuckers work". $COMPETITOR replied within 6 hours, and $PAST_GIG I managed to get exactly the same inside sales rep as I dealt with as an employee, which I think was a sick joke all around. When I could pretend that ISR was being as smart as an olive when I worked their I managed to sleep at night recognizing that my business meant no profit and no bonus for her. And now, seeing how she treats actual customers, well, I'm making olive analogies because I'm drinking an 8oz martini on a Tuesday night just thinking about her.
Anyway, having experience working within 25ft of ISRs whose job it is to make my life easier, yet managed to add no value to information they provided, often incorrectly, 72 hours later (at a minimum), I was looking forward to a simple tool which just gave me a fucking answer.
I guess, to Dell's credit, their information was at least internally consistent to Dell, and returned within minutes.
Actually, I lied. Or Dells marketing and online catalog departments intentionally left things out.
The SD card that plugs into the iDRAC card is for... something else... and there is an additional and unadvertised option for a special 2-port SD card holder, that fits inside onto the mobo, and doesn't need Extra Super Delux version of iDRAC; iDRAC takes 8 or 16 GB cards, the special holder 1 or 2 GB cards (and is two ports 'cause it can be mirrored).
The iDRAC option (and Dell branded SD cards for iDRAC) are only available at dell.ca if you are logged in. The SD card holder thingy requires talking to a person, and... I guess... admitting... to them that the intended use for the server is as a VM host. Only then will Dell let you know about that option.
Concerning RAID, and the better conversation this thread has turned into... Does it matter ("as much") when the RAID device is some crazy high end storage system. I guess, benchmark. With the SAN appliance in question fully populated at 120 disk, problems... 8 GB cache; writes will be committed when they hit memory, not disk.
Benchmark, I guess.
It happens that Dell hardware (at least, this model) has allowances for SD storage locally. This requires the highest level of out-of-band management option, iDRAC enterprise. The build I wasn't able to put in the shopping cart _did_ have the iDRAC Enterprise option, with one of their Dell branded SDHC cards. (not that the rep exerted any effort to indicate that they knew what I was trying to build; I'm confident that they have no access to the design I was building with their tool). "I don't think that that is a good idea" is a reasonable, if absurd, response. "our stupid tool doesn't allow this entirely reasonable option" is the WTF?.
Except for infrequent configuration changes, and maybe logging, I can't see the VM host itself being responsible for any serious disk IO. I'd be entirely willing to accept some of the "compute host" memory to cache such that it never hits disk, e.g. the hardware has 64GB of memory, yet a 4 GB OS root, and 0 swappyness. The OS never has to hit "disk" (for some very expansive definition of "disk") past boot up.
Yeah, HP has allowed SCHD cards for at least 1 "generation" more worth of servers (or, at least, in-the-case, can't be knocked out, USB ports on the MOBO). If I thought I had a 0.0001% chance of purchasing non-Dell servers, I'd just go ahead and point dell.ca to 127.0.0.1. But, well, mumble*golf*financing*relationships*
So, am specing out some new hardware for the office here, it being 2013 and all, this means something suitable for a VM platform. Which means shared storage. (for the record, a EMC VNXe 3150; for not significantly more cost than a server with that many drive slots, you get the general awesomeness of a tuned appliance.). Which means diskless servers.
But not from Dell.
Time Details 08/09/2013 02:06:26PM Session Started with Agent (Marie T) 08/09/2013 02:06:26PM Jeff Warnica: "." 08/09/2013 02:06:33PM Agent (Marie T): "Welcome to Dell US Small Office Chat. My name is Marie and I will be your Dell.com Sales Chat Expert." 08/09/2013 02:06:33PM Agent (Marie T): "I can be reached at talkingkeyboard17@dell.com. You can now chat with us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week! :)" 08/09/2013 02:06:35PM Agent (Marie T): "Hi Jeff" 08/09/2013 02:06:37PM Agent (Marie T): "How can I help you today?" 08/09/2013 02:06:41PM Jeff Warnica: "Hello." 08/09/2013 02:07:10PM Jeff Warnica: "I'm trying to spec out an R420, and the configuration tool is rejecting my requirement of not having any drives." 08/09/2013 02:07:37PM Agent (Marie T): "Thank you for chatting with us, Sorry about that, let me see what I can do to help" 08/09/2013 02:07:51PM Agent (Marie T): "so you would like to get a server with no hard drive right?" 08/09/2013 02:08:06PM Jeff Warnica: "Correct." 08/09/2013 02:08:25PM Agent (Marie T): "Please give me 2 to 3 minutes to check on that for you" 08/09/2013 02:09:12PM Jeff Warnica: "Sure." 08/09/2013 02:09:53PM Agent (Marie T): "Thank you for patiently waiting" 08/09/2013 02:10:57PM Agent (Marie T): "checked on the server options here and I sorry to say but we cannot ship out a system with no hard drive, this is why you keep getting an error. the minimum required is at least 1 drive no raid. That is the least drive option we can get" 08/09/2013 02:11:10PM Agent (Marie T): "*I am" 08/09/2013 02:11:46PM Jeff Warnica: "Who can affect an override on that configuration?" 08/09/2013 02:12:22PM Agent (Marie T): "I actually checked that with our enterprise specialist however this is not an option even using their configuration tool" 08/09/2013 02:13:36PM Jeff Warnica: "So, despite also selling SAN systems - a major reason to run such products is to have diskless servers - you are unable to sell servers which don't come without disks?" 08/09/2013 02:15:31PM Agent (Marie T): "if you need a SAN solution, we have specialist that can discuss that option for you and the best systems for that, however to answer your question on regular rack servers it is not an option" 08/09/2013 02:16:47PM Jeff Warnica: "I'm not asking to configure a SAN, I'm asking to configure a rack server which will happen to be used where the is a SAN, e.g. a diskless server." 08/09/2013 02:17:30PM Agent (Marie T): "no problem, checking if we have another option here" 08/09/2013 02:17:38PM Agent (Marie T): "just a moment" 08/09/2013 02:20:00PM Agent (Marie T): "I'm sorry for the wait. I am still working on it" 08/09/2013 02:20:26PM Jeff Warnica: "By all means." 08/09/2013 02:21:46PM Agent (Marie T): "Thanks Jeff" 08/09/2013 02:24:31PM Agent (Marie T): "Thank you for patiently waiting" 08/09/2013 02:26:01PM Jeff Warnica: "no problem" 08/09/2013 02:26:33PM Agent (Marie T): "had our account manager try to quote the server using her own configurator and it really requires at least 1 drive as well" 08/09/2013 02:28:26PM Jeff Warnica: "Ok. I'm about to head home for the day. If I talk to an account rep on Monday, do they have access to different tools?" 08/09/2013 02:29:34PM Agent (Marie T): "enterprise specialist like our account managers have the same access/tools so just to set your expectations they would probably give the same info but it's always okay to try" 08/09/2013 02:30:08PM Jeff Warnica: "OK." 08/09/2013 02:31:04PM Agent (Marie T): "thanks Jeff, can I help you with anything else though?"
Well, there are bars in the antarctic. Kinda. They occasionally have sangria, even.
[url]http://www.funraniumlabs.com/2012/03/an-antarctic-recipe-enhanced-sangria[/url]