ktosiek

If you have multiple related projects that you release together, you might be interested in Google's repo[1]. That's the tool used in Android (where each app and piece of framework has it's own git repository).

[1] https://code.google.com/p/git-repo/

Looks like the prices in FAQ and Pricing don't match

It's not even accurate - Pringles is not owned by P&G anymore

There's a continuation to GTA04 in the works: http://neo900.org/

So, why exactly do I want my body to care about DNA of something I'm eating? It's not like I'm expecting a symbiont, I just want it broken to very small pieces for further processing.

Sounds like it doesn't only let you try again, it actually only checks if last [password length] numbers match the password (that's why he can compress it into one long number)

The tools he writes about make writing code easier, but don't help with reading it - they just generate the boilerplate. It's a bit like checking in code after macro expansion - if the programmer didn't want to write all this stuff, why force others to read it?

But I don't think it means we should write more by hand - I would rather write in a concise language that requires knowledge of few less common abstractions, than in something so verbose I keep mixing generated and hand-written code together! As the article says, this mix often obfuscates intended meaning, as it's sometimes hard to tell boilerplate from necessary logic.

Not with something high-profile like banks - they should be having their security check all the time, why should someone pentest them for free?

And if clients don't know how secure their bank is, they don't really have a choice other than guessing.

I don't think so - putting "WITH FIREWALL" and "SHIELDS YOU FROM EVIL" will cost manufacturers maybe a few cents and is almost guaranteed to boost sales.

And for services running behind that router there'll probably be some kind of PNP port opening (so there can be "PLAY WITH FRIENDS EASILY" next to those other stickers)

The more UI elements and DB integration you have the more you concentrate on business logic, yes. Of course, nothing is as reusable and generic as we would like but still having a good framework (that you can side-step if needed) helps a lot.

It concerns computers with Secure Boot - technology that checks if bootloader that you are loading is signed (which is supposed to mean it's safe). It will be needed for Windows 8 certification as optional on x86 and impossible to turn off on ARM - and those things aren't easy to hack around.

Of course, the problem is whose keys will be in the trusted set in your BIOS? The ones from Microsoft for sure (and they will happily sign anything they are asked to by US intelligence), and probably something from main board vendor. And here is where the fun starts: you wont be able to boot final version of Windows 8 without Secure Boot, but Secure Boot won't load GRUB. So you need a trip to BIOS configuration (IF your vendor was kind enough, which may be obvious now but may not be so in a few years) on every OS switch.

Basically he went from "I don't know how to build Eclipse plugins" to "they are too hard to build". I don't know how hard they are to build, but it seems there are some steps missing.

And most FOSS uses Autotools these days, so installation is just ./configure && make && sudo make install

The history for every change in existing branches is recorded - if you remove a branch you either want to discard whatever changes where there or you merged it into another one and don't need it tagged as separate branch.

Commits in git are reference counted - the ones that have no references to them are removed, (and having a branch or other commit pointing to yours both count as references) and the ones that can be reached from tops of branches or tags are kept.

You are talking about AGPL here - this is the only GPL version that makes you open almost everything that handled whatever AGPL program produced. I know of one project with that license, and it stopped me from using it (I couldn't relicense the application it would be used for, and personally I see it as a step too far... I think it should have some restrictions as to what it affects, so i would have to open my changes to the AGPLd part but not much more)

LGPL doesn't allow use in closed source projects, it allows use with them. So you can use LGPL dynamically linked library with a closed program (that's what LGPL was made for), but you can't just embed LGPL library with no source and way to replace it like you can with more permissive licenses.

Well, here the compiler won't help you with bounded access - you can easily read array[42], and it would compile (and maybe even work... but just a little bit funny ;-)).

With dependent types function to get element from array may have type (this is pseudocode): get (array : T[n], index : m) : T {n : nat, m : nat, m < n} which would mean "function get, which takes: n long array of elements of type T, index of type m, where m is smaller than n, and returns T". Type-level naturals and bounded array access are the basic examples of dependent typing, more interesting ones may be red-black trees with guarantees about their shape put in the type or some magic for creating DSLs.

You can use a language with dependent types (types depending on values, so you can have arrays of type "array of 10 ints" etc.) - it adds some type-level work, but makes a lot of mistakes not even compile.

But complicated type systems are, unfortunately, rarely used in languages suitable for system programming. I only know about ATS in this group actually :-)

Moore's Law was about the amount of transistors you can put in a chip cheaply, so it may be coming to an end. But I don't think it will stop machines from getting faster - we are seeing lots of progress in multi-core usage even on desktop and in mobile computing (multicore smartphones), and using dedicated hardware outside the CPU socket/package (GPGPU) is getting normal too - those look like new ways of making faster personal machines.

I hope reasoning with terrorists attacking research plants will give some results, but I'm afraid it still wont stop them - they are the same kind of people who blow up infidels or try to get rid of "lesser race". Still, it's a peaceful step and may reduce the amount of such attacks.

What I think is needed here is to actually make security tighter - but it's a dance between putting lots of money into security or losing some experiments. Unfortunately both are what those guerrillas want.

No panic - it's still not something you would miss indoor. On the other hand I wonder how useful would something like that be for monitoring big events (or just keeping an eye on police by some more paranoid civilians) - is there any information on how long can those work?

Looks nice for testing something, but I see no information about support (especially notifications about security patches).

EDIT: looking at their scripts, it's using a client written in Ruby with its own Ruby installation. Things are installed in {/usr/local/,/var/*/}rayburst.

Slightly off-topic, but this led me to discover whois spam:

(please don't go there and feed the spammers, thank you :-))

  $ whois facebook.com
  FACEBOOK.COM.ZZZZZ.GET.LAID.AT.WWW.SWINGINGCOMMUNITY.COM from whois Server: whois.tucows.com
  FACEBOOK.COM.MORE.INFO.AT.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM from whois Server: whois.instra.net
  FACEBOOK.COM.LOVED.BY.WWW.SHQIPHOST.COM from Whois Server: whois.onlinenic.com
  FACEBOOK.COM.KNOWS.THAT.THE.BEST.WEB.HOSTING.IS.NASHHOST.NET from Whois Server: whois.your-server.de
  FACEBOOK.COM.GET.ONE.MILLION.DOLLARS.AT.WWW.UNIMUNDI.COM from Whois Server: whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com