|
I did not think that would last long... well done.
|
|
|
|
|
I initially thought you'd miscounted and it was 11, not 13! 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
After 20 years I'm finally catching up with the Sopranos. I usually manage to follow the plot but there's one thing that's got me stumped and I know that someone here will know the answer. 
In S4 E2, Christopher Moltisanti has been appointed as acting captain of Paulie Gualtieri's crew (while Paulie is away) and Silvio Dante disapproves of this appointment. The crew have no-show/no-work jobs on a major building site. Tony has ordered that thefts from the building site must NOT occur as the project is of great value to the family (and to the family's reputation with one of the New York families with whom it is a joint project).
However, Silvio authorises one of the Gualtieri crew, Patsy Parisi, who feels passed over for command, to steal some valuable floor tiles from the site. Silvio does this despite knowing that it will anger Tony. Afterwards, Silvio goes to Tony and claims that it was a misunderstanding and agrees to pay back the value of the tiles, $30K.
So why did Silvio do this? He knew it would anger Tony. He chose to repay their value rather than order Patsy to return them. I presume that he did it to undermine Christopher in the eyes of Paulie's crew but it seems a rather feeble way to do it. It couldn't have been to undermine Christopher in the eyes of Tony since Tony knew it was Silvio who disobeyed his orders. Silvio is normally very loyal to Tony so was Silvio trying to make a (vague) point to Tony?
Were the writers having a poor week or have I missed a subtlety here?
Go on, impress me with your Sopranos knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
markrlondon wrote: impress me with your Sopranos knowledge.
Maria Callas's voice was sublime. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, she got her voice surprisingly low in order to play Tony Soprano!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: ... through a dormant software called TeamViewer. The software hadn't been used in about six months but was still on the system.
Er ... TeamViewer needs to be first started on the host.
Then it generates a random number session id that needs to be communicated to the person that wants remote access.
That person then starts their own session using the given id.
Quote: ... praised the operator who spotted the attack on Friday and said current and former employees have been interviewed after early consideration of an insider threat. There are currently no suspicions or indications that's the case, he said.
I smell a rat.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: Er ... TeamViewer needs to be first started on the host.
Often set to launch with Windows.
Gerry Schmitz wrote: Then it generates a random number session id that needs to be communicated to the person that wants remote access.
Or you setup a password.
Gerry Schmitz wrote: I smell a rat.
It's setup like that non my parents laptop, would be hard to explain them to copy over the generated Id. They're not a water-treatment facility though
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Well having worked on systems akin to that one in the Water Industry questions were asked by several of us as to why the machines are connected to the internet and not on a seperate Lan. I think this was part of the 'Everything online' craze of the late 90's ealry 00's (that felt weird to type), think about it why does the Sodium Hydroxide level of the drinking water need to be altered & why remotley I accept that way of doing remotely is needed but let that be a modem on the machine which you have to connect to directly rather than being 'online'. A case of Done because you Can, rather than Done because you Need.
|
|
|
|
|
I just got done walking a client back from the edge of a cliff. They were thinking of hoarding the medical data the device I'm building collects and sending it over the Internet.
I just told him it would be too expensive because I designed all the connectivity explicitly so it couldn't route and therefore couldn't wind up online. I'd have to rewrite it all, which is true. But that's not the reason I won't do it. I refuse to be part of an operation that will compromise so many people.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
When I open up TeamViewer there are two options under "Unattended access" in plain sight.
One is "Start TeamViewer with Windows" and the other is "Grant easy access".
I have both unchecked and I'm not sure what the second does, but I have no doubt that a water treatment plant in Florida can tell me
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: I smell a rat.
Rats do love sewers, and I would assume, water treatment plants.
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: I smell a rat.
A "rat" rat, or an actual Remote Access Trojan? 
If you want it described accurately, don't get your software security news from the mainstream media; they're always going to get it wrong. This week's episode of the Security Now podcast (#805) covers that story, and (DISCLAIMER) while I haven't yet listened to it, Steve Gibson tends to get closer to a story's actual sources, and usually does a very good job explaining how things have unfolded in reality. The guy still makes a living writing in assembler, so he's not afraid to getting into technical details when it suits the story.
|
|
|
|
|
I've never been a TeamViewer "host"; always the fixer.
The sequence was that the client would start a session on their end, communicate the session id (via phone), I would start my session using the given id, etc.
Letting this stuff "boot up at Windows startup" and "publicizing" that fact so that anybody can get access (as some claim) is news to me ... and sounds really dumb.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: and sounds really dumb.
Consider the people typically in charge. System security is in a sad state.
|
|
|
|
|
I recently posted in the W&W section about a bug report I submitted that was declared "not a bug" and I would like your opinions on the matter. The issue is I have a Visual Studio solution that contains three projects. One is an application and the other two are libraries that the app links with depending on the build option I select. Both libraries share the same code but one builds it using CUDA to run on the GPU and the other builds it to run on the CPU. Each has a debug and release option as does the app so there are four build mode options and the app is set to depend on the libraries.
The problem is when I open the Batch Build dialog and select only the four application options to be cleaned it cleans them all. I can select the four library options and only they are cleaned. This means it is cleaning the libraries because they are dependencies of the app even when I did not select them to be cleaned.
Does this seem correct to you? I think it is most definitely NOT correct. In my opinion, dependencies should have no bearing what so ever on whether something is cleaned or not. Dependencies are for building, not cleaning.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
I can see both points of view. You want to clean your application projects while leaving the libraries intact. That does not seem unreasonable, after all only you know exactly what you want to do.
The guys who designed the build rules think that whatever you are doing they must take account of any dependencies. And they do not see why that should be different for Clean and Build.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: The guys who designed the build rules think that whatever you are doing they must take account of any dependencies.
And that's IMO the point, if other things are selectable, why can't this be it too?
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Rick York wrote: Does this seem correct to you?
No, not at all
Rick York wrote: I think it is most definitely NOT correct.
So do I
I suppose that "bug reporting" has been given to external companies as many IT-Hotlines from other OEMs (not necessarily offshore) and the people that has to do the first selection are just a bit illiterated (being nice, because I don't blame them for that) so if something is difficult for them to follow or to simulate / repeat or can't be found in a kind of "possible things" table... then it gets directly "ignored" as not a bug.
I had a problem at work. I had to call the support 5 times to get it forwarded to level 2 for the first time, then speak to 3 different people in level 2 support to find out that they don't understand the issue, got a level 3 ticket, the level 3 at least understood what my problem was and forwarded it to the level 4 (the supposedly hardware guru) he didn't constent to speak with me and wrote me directly an email being a bit arrogant and answering totally bullshit... where I, my colleague and our "key-user" just looked at each other and started to hit the table with the head...
I at the end had to "hack" (nothing illegal just bending the rules a little bit) my own solution to get it solved.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
My work-around is a hack too. I write a windoze version of an old unix command called "eo" as in execute on. Then I write a batch file to list all rebuildable files in VS which writes them to a file and then it calls eo to delete all files in the list. What I have to do is open a command prompt and execute this batch file to make it happen as it should.
EO is a very powerful command. There is a related command called "WS" as in walk structure that does essentially the same thing but it walks a directory path. I don't use it as much because the filtering rules are a little tougher to deal with. What I need to do now is make a hybrid that takes its filter rules from a text file and then it would be much easier. I started serious programming on the QNX operating system and it had a whole bunch of the old unix commands available. I really liked them and made my own windows versions of several of them. The internet was barely usable at the time - Alta Vista was my main search engine - so I did a lot of my own things back then.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Cool... never heard of it before. Thanks for the lesson.
Rick York wrote: Alta Vista was my main search engine - so I did a lot of my own things back then.
Not my first one, but back then my most used one
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that's correct. To clean each component you have to right-click and select Clean through the context menu that should appear. I say "should" because I don't know if there's any such concept as "context" and mouse clicks right or left ... for, alas, I build/compile usg VS2010.
As I said to no one back in the day "I shall do no upgrades before their time".
|
|
|
|
|
I only use S-Ar-Ca-Sm periodically!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but have you been playing around with NaOH lately? 
|
|
|
|
|
Oh? I thought those are the most important elements of your personality.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
