>> Wasn't Amazon AWS not long ago banning Parler off their cloud when they decided they didn't like Parler's political leanings?
>Parler violated Amazon's terms of service against hateful content.
Theyâ(TM)re the same picture.
Here is the actual text of claim 1 from the US patent. The other claims are dependent (i.e., are narrower in scope). The patent examiner found that the claim here is for something novel and non-obvious, which may be true. It may also be true however, that what is claimed is not what CSP actually does, in which case CSP would not be infringing this claim.
A method of preventing unwanted code execution in a client/server computing environment executing a client-side script by an internet browser, said internet browser comprising functions, objects and properties, and their instances, wherein the client/server computing environment comprises at least one server-side resource in network communications with the internet browser, wherein the internet browser receives the script from at least one script source and executes the script, wherein the at least one script source includes any one or combination of: messages received from the at least one server-side resource in response to requests made by the internet browser; the script entered by a user of the internet browser through a debug console; the script entered by a user through the internet browser address bar; the script contained in third party browser add-ons attached to the browser; and the script retrieved from a local storage device, the method comprising:
determining safe and at risk or restricted portions of the internet browser, wherein at least one of the portions of the internet browser comprises instances of the functions, objects and properties;
determining at least one of the at least one server-side resource to be a trusted resource;
determining trusted and untrusted portions of the script wherein trusted script includes script contained in messages received from the trusted resource using the network communications, and untrusted script refers to script received from untrusted script sources;
receiving, by the internet browser, from the trusted resource at least one message using the network communications containing one or more passwords; and
in response to the receiving, preventing, by the internet browser, unwanted code execution by:
re-writing said at risk portions of the internet browser to require presentation of the one or more passwords to the internet browser in order for the internet browser or any script to execute said at risk portions, wherein re-writing is executed during runtime of the internet browser and includes altering the internet browser by a rewriter program executing in the internet browser,
wherein the trusted resource includes the one or more passwords within each messages containing trusted script sent to the internet browser using the network communications subsequent to the at least one message, in order that the trusted script contained in the each messages is permitted to execute said at risk portions of the internet browser.
For the most part, Microsoft CLR users already don't care. Have you heard of IKVM? They're already yo-ho-ho-ing code like Zookeeper libraries and other stuff at a prodigous rate. And given that the CLR has versioning that lets it update its binary engine without deprecating the entire universe that came before, they're doing it with a language with features at least 5 years ahead of what the Java working groups are even considering.
Given the open sourcing and license of the
I think most Android developers would just be happy if Android wasn't locked to JDK6. A real christmas miracle would be if they could stop using Gradle and its outrageously long build times.
There is nothing more inhetmrently wrong with "WYSIWYG" editors than there is with C++. Judicious, appropriate use is implied. I think the industry over-relies on unmanaged code, appealing to "performance" as a crutch for bad designs and algorithm selections. The results speak for themselves.
See: I'm saying that if you're splitting it, you're wrong. You did it wrong at the start and now you have no choice but to keep doing it wrong.
So I guess we agree to disagree, since you can't offer anything other than bland arguments and appeals to a largely ineffective status quo.
I have no idea what your objection or argument is. Sorry.
Who knows - GP may be in a unique and incredibly lucky situation (e.g. a smallish company still relying on something like AWS/EC2 for their heavy-lifting). I'm betting that it damned sure ain't typical no matter the case.
I'm a "Director of Software Engineering for Capital One. You might have heard of us. I was brought in awhile ago through one of the many acquisitions as the company flushes its legacy tech policy and tries to pivot to be a technology company. You have enough data to find my phone number now. Feel free to give me a call if you're interested in helping me out and can write code.
As an aside, AWS/EC2 is probably not the right choice for small companies anymore. GCE and Azure are way better for little ones because their service set and management tools are way richer. Amazon's willing to play ball with super-big companies at a scale even Microsoft isn't quite ready to embrace, as evidenced by my current workloads. And if the recruiter spams in my inbox are any indication, several other banks want to follow suit.
Claim victory however you like. I think dedicated sysadmins are not necessary for the majority of situations in the world of commercial software now. If you're maintaining your own data center, things change. Most people aren't, so they don't need them.
"I'm also hoping software developers will be replaced with uneducated under-paid employees using limited frameworks and wysiwyg editors to churn out solutions that barely work in the least amount of time possible and is outsources to a service that I directly profit from"
No. Nice try fearmongering though. I'm the antithesis of an "outsourcing" mentality for software. I'm busy "un-outsourcing" as many things as I can at my current employer because the value loss is just so extreme.
But you keep trying to pretend that C++ is somehow tied to good programming.
I'm busy replacing your infrastructure with a cloud hosted services which I profit from, but is unlikely to be able to provide all of the services you require.
Whatever we can't get, we write. Isn't that how everyone works? What we don't need are silly single-role ops people who have no say in the actual development of software but don't have the skills to participate in its creation or maintenance. That's makework.
I have a vested interest in companies that outsource your job and I need to destroy you so that I can make money.
Sorry, but I have little pity for people who lose their jobs in technology to improvements. Unlike many people, you have the resources to self-educate and keep abreast of the times and state of the art. You just elect not to.
If you want to say, "Operations people are the people who wake up at 3am to deal with a page" then that'd be me. But that's a pretty archaic and artificial boundary.
Engineers who design systems should be responsible for their continued operation. This has a lot of positive outcomes. Hence the term, "Devops." But I wouldn't hire an operations engineer who couldn't have at least in principle written the system they're managing, which means I don't hire most people who claim the title. Especially so in this day and age when containerization is effectively the annihilation of differences between local and remote operational environments.
Thanks for your grade school statistical analysis, anonymous coward. Why not just crawl back in the time machine and enjoy the 90s before you hear some Friends spoilers? You're farcical in this day and age, and I'd laugh at you were it not for the tragedy of how your how sharp and painful little words hurt some people who work harder than you've ever had to, just to stay in the US.
You mean, the kind of infrastructure that, when some moron with a backhoe slices through the fiber, renders your infrastructure unreachable.
What the hell are you even talking about? If my product is unreachable, then someone can't reach it. I can propose workarounds to this (multi-datacenter solutions with replicated databases and carefully tuned distributed consensus systems). During a true catastrophy (e.g., US-EAST going down due to flooding) the most important thing I can do is make sure that the data the system manipulates retains integrity through the event, and that the system can resume operation once connectivity can be restored.
We operate under the assumption that software and networks WILL fail, not in the fear that they MIGHT. Indeed, understanding the failure modes is the majorty of my time spent when designing distributed systems.
and everyone simultaneously calling the badly undermanned IT department,
Who said anything about not having a robust service department? Not me. I have zero interest in having your argument with you. It seems like you're quite capable of carrying on by yourself.
By the way, edit: 4 years. Sorry, simple typo I missed. Were that I were as diligent as my software.
One thing before my main rant: I disagree about C++. I'd say it's more an issue of knowing which features to use and which to avoid. For example, std::string and std::unique_ptr/std::shared_ptr, RAII good. strlen, malloc/new bad. (Unless, like you said, it really is necessary, but then I'd argue that one should be using straight-up C instead).
I disqualify languages that do this to the extent C++ does. It's like programming in a minefield. Despite the fact I love the power of C++ and the elegance of Haskell, I do not expect most software shops to actually reliably ship on them.
My biggest fear is the people will become unable to function without all these dashboards and reports and high-level process management apps that we're cooking up. What I mean is that it seems like the more advanced and abstracted these things get, the more people forget the processes and policies we've modeled and automated. I've run into this before when something just works too well. People forget what policies and rules they decided on that the system is modeling.
But it's also a testament to a good system when the abstractions become central. Engineers already function at a pretty high level of abstraction for the most part. I don't think we should be too afraid of embracing that so long as the underlying methodologies are open sourced and well-understood.
tl;dr That scene in Idiocracy after Not Sure tanks Brawndo's stock by using water on crops and Brawndo's system starts automatically firing everyone.
That's already how it is and it's not that bad. Bad things happen, and they're corrected. This is not unusual for the human condition.
Work expands to fill the time available. -- Cyril Northcote Parkinson, "The Economist", 1955
