Ping John Larkin

[snip]

We had a piece of ATE equipment with a Windows NT system for a controller. Supposedly all sealed up, cal-cert stickered, permissions locked down, etc.

At one point, am employee complained that one of the operators had installed a graphic of Pamela Anderson as the console wallpaper. The admins claimed that this was impossible, as the system configuration was supposed to be 'locked down'. They cleaned it up (several times), brought in experts from Microsoft to review security settings, but every few weeks, another graphic would appear. The final solution was to put the equipment under surveillance* and fire the person caught pasting up the naughty snapshots. The problem ceased, but I'm not sure if this particular security weakness was ever repaired and if it extended to people downloading/running 'unreleased' s/w.

*Whoever they caught was none too bright. The console on this device is rack mounted at 5 feet off the ground and can be seen for hundreds of feet across the shop floor.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Time\'s fun when you\'re having flies. -- Kermit the Frog

At the end of the day, VBA is intended for doing 'Macro' type work in Office applications.

When i was doing hardware, the engineers choice for UI stuff was usually either delphi or VB. VB is vastly different from VB.net (the latter is OO) but is much better IMHO. If you know C, as most hardware engineers do then it might be worth looking at C#

As for delphi, I dont know you history with borland Joerg but if you compare .net backward compatability with the borland object libraries (eary 90 IIRC) then .net clearly wins! It was the era that Borland lost me as a loyal supporter.

mscomm32.ocx is rubbish. BTW, it only requires a registry entry to make it work outside of the environment it was installed , even though it violates the licence! :) MS have decided to add support into .net

2.0 for serial ports after a lot of complaints from the dev community. I have never used it, but I have heard that it is pretty good.

The win32api is tricky when it comes to serial comms for the beginner, but then again so is any IO operations.

However, I've received some code examples from engineers in Europe who used it for equipment control. The functionality they squeezed out of it is amazing. It might be a simple tool but you could do a lot of factory automation with it.

I know enough C to be dangerous (which isn't a lot) but I'd prefer not to learn a new formal language. I just would not have the time. Only an easy one that yields "instant results" and where you can mostly pluck things together via click and place. Like in a CAD system.

They really blew that runtime thing back in the DOS days. The millisecond PCs exceeded a certain speed barrier the compiled program would error. But .net backward compatibility? My first encounter with .net blew into pieces over exactly that problem. It wasn't backward compatible. The software I got would not run with 2.0, it required to re-install 1.1. That ain't very compatible ;-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

The way MS implemented that one is way too cumbersome for me. Why make it simple if one can complicate it some more? But I don't want to violate any licenses. It's against my ethics. So if they put up stonewalls in their licensing rules I just won't use that product.

If I load .net 2.0 onto my lab PC the control software for the new oscilloscope would quit. Can't do that.

In Windows it's tricky, in DOS it was fairly easy. But luckily one can learn a lot from code examples.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

IMHO there is no real security in Windows, unless something has drastically changed. Once an IT guy in an important security function told me that every PC needs to be password protected. I replied that it wouldn't make much sense. Then he set one up for me and I hacked into it in under 5 minutes, after which I presented him with all kinds of personal docs I had found on there. He was visibly shocked.

The last case was a missing child and the parents begging me to break open her section of the family PC, to find clues. Since time was of the essence this break was less organized, basically the sledge hammer method. The clues we found gave me the goose bumps (luckily they found her before crossing the border). Strangely, after this incident the PC would no longer accept the setting of any password. Certain software wouldn't work anymore. Also, this scenario had opened everything on this PC, including the father's section where he had sensitive documents stored. When I told him he was very surprised that this was possible.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Oh, dear, what a giveaway. ;)

I've looked at Python very briefly, but I never quite got my mind round why I'd want to use an OO scripting language in the first place, let alone such an (apparently) ideologically driven one. (I'm probably being totally unfair--if so, please enlighten me.)

The big plus of REXX is that it does complicated string parsing in a clear and efficient way, and that the library is easy to use--for instance, all the searches go like SomeSearch(needle, haystack). It also has stem variables, which are a nice combination of normal arrays and associative arrays (like a C++ STL Map object). I never have to look anything up. It also has arbitrary-precision math, which is frequently useful in front-end programs. It also runs on all platforms since CP/M: DOS, Windows, OS/2 (*), Linux, TSO, VM/CMS, Solaris, AIX, you name it. Open Object REXX is a pretty good OO scripting language, but though I've had Object REXX for a decade, I still code in Classic REXX.

Minuses include lack of a standard math library or any native functions to create directories or delete files (most platforms have extensions for this, but they're not really standard across all implementations). This is on account of the mainframe origin of REXX-- not every platform has the same filesystem semantics. These things are easy to code, but you do have to code them.

Anybody else have a favourite scripting language?

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

[snip]

Doesn't pay to be klutzy.

I had some good fun teasing Honeywell Aerospace that they had a BIG security hole.

When I finally pointed out the mail box inside the barb-wired fence, they almost went ballistic, but it was moved the next day.

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
             
         America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

Even since NT Windows has had the *capability* to be reasonably secure. However, most people (and many companies) don't *make* their machines secure because, to some extent, it does make it a little more cumbersome to use. If anything, Microsoft has gone a little overboard in Vista with their "User Account Controls" "feature" that pops up so many "Is this OK?" dialogs that a lot of people get really turned off. (Mac's OS X seems to have done somewhat better in this regard... but of course Macs aren't nearly as heavily "targeted" to be hacked in this first place.)

If you have *physical access* to a machine, the only security that really counts is having an encrypted hard drive (or files), since otherwise you can of course just take the hard drive out and stick it in another PC. "Password" security unless it's accompanied by encryption is pretty much worthless...

This was someone with MS training, certs, the whole nine yards. I could not believe how much they "believed" in all those "this is now very well protected" promises. All it took was to boot without NT, then use a NTFS converter, and it was all there.

Yep. The sad thing is that such false sense of "security through technology" also grasps other markets. Example: Hikers return to trailhead. Where's the car key? I know I had it when we started. Oh, we'll use yours for now and then look for the other one. Uhm, it's in the large backpack and that's on the rear seat ...

A brief crawl under the back of the car, locate bowden wire, tug a bit, boink, trunk swings open, jaws drop.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Nice. Are trunk release lines still routed in such accessible (external to the car's frame) areas? I'll have to check mine...

When I was a kid we were on a cross-country (Wisconsin to Florida) trip, stopped at a gas station, and my brother inadvertently shut all the (locked!) car doors... even though my stepfather had left the keys in the ignition. Oops! Happily, the trunk was still open and one of the mechanics at the station was able to remove the back seat (the nuts were all in the trunk) and crawl through to get to the keys. As a kid, I was pretty impressed.

From what you say, he might have been able to pull it off even if the trunk were already shut.

All much better than having to break a window...

---Joel

No idea. I believe some mfgs have wisened up. I don't know what took them so long.

Nowadays you can often reach through and pop the back rest of the rear bench. No tools requires, other than maybe a coat hanger.

Yeah. It was a nearly new car and they did not want to damage it. Then they stood in awe because it took just minutes. Same for the IT guy. All he could say, after swallowing hard, was "Wow, I've got to tell my boss".

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

I guess you will rail against the idea of confusing scripting with macroing, but we're off topic anyway.

Dragon NaturallySpeaking Professional allows voice activated user scripting. If you are a systemwide macroing/scripting enthusiast in Windows, voice activation is a whole new and magnificent world. The very limited vocabulary for activating scripts by voice is a lot easier than using the program for general dictation. At the same time, voice activation provides a huge expanse of activators compared to using relatively very limited and difficult to remember keyboard combination activators. It could be a lot better, but even as is it's amazing.

"Arrest piston!"

"Ok, ex-ten-ding pis-ton now"

"Noooo....!"

KACRUNCH ...

--
SCNR, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Okay, I guess you're railing against speech-recognition. I understand. It's like the devil until you get the hang of it.

I practiced conditioning my voice for about two years using a digital voice recorder, recording and playing back my notes. In the process, I realized how useful the new digital recorders or are, and now they are cheap and very functional.

I think it just depends on how much you value the idea of using speech recognition. Some people probably underestimate its usefulness and aren't willing to go to the trouble of training their voice (it ain't easy).

Yes, it's a stupid computer, the process is very difficult even for a techie. But in fact, as I said, activating scripts as a whole lot easier than dictation. I use speech recognition for dozens of systemwide macros that are always active while using this personal computer. If your voice versus the stupid computer isn't a good enough mix to do dictation, the error rate would be higher and maybe using it to fire macros would be too risky.

But I don't want to condition my voice so that some machine understands it. I'd like to leave it as it is.

Conditioning it for other benefits such as singing or better presentations is another matter and yes, digital recorders can be very useful for that.

IMHO voice recognition, at least as practiced in some automated phone systems, is the pits. "So-rry, I did not un-der-stand what you were sa-y-ing". I then usually hit zero a bazillion times until an operator comes on line. If the system hangs up on that I do likewise and take my business to another company, usually never to return.

Also, people with thick accents are totally shut out of such "access" systems. It plain doesn't work.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

I couldn't care less whether a machine understands what I say, and that's not the goal. Maybe that just seems like the goal.

Everyone has their own personal prerogatives. Someone who wants to become a writer or/and computer operator and enjoy all of the benefits efficient communication through a stupid computer provides, (like a would-be typist) is willing to work for it.

Are you a singer? I would think that a singer has very good control of his voice.

You don't understand, appreciate, or just don't care for the benefits of being able to efficiently communicate through a computer.

It's a newish technology and some implementations suck, but others work pretty well. Systems that don't use speech recognition also have a lot to be desired.

Do they care?

Thick fingers might mean typing doesn't work. There's no difference really, except in the potential much greater power of speech-recognition. Which brings us back to what you were replying to. Obviously you're not familiar with systemwide macroing in Windows. But if you were, and you were trying to manage dozens of scripts, you would just love voice activation compared to the daunting task of using keystroke combinations. Speech recognition sets you free. And then there's dictation. If you can do dictation, speech recognition practically eliminates your typing chores.

Are you looking for encouragement?

Then how would a machine that didn't understand your command execute the macro that you wanted?

I can't carry a tune in a bucket ;-)

I do efficiently communicate through it. Emails, schematics, Gerber network access, etc. But I use other means where they are simply more efficient. For example the telephone ;-)

Well, I wish they would implement them after they have been perfected, not before. Yes, some are good, like the one American Airlines uses. The one at my bank isn't, so I always dial the customer rep. I tend to jot down the magic trail of numbers that leads to those people.

You bet. That is evidenced when their customer retention guys call and try to lure you back with ever so sweet deals.

I can do dictation but it would be a major annoyance to others if I began talking to my PC.

No, just for the magic bullet that makes me a VBA expert :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

The distinction should be made because "recognition" is far from "understanding". It does the recognition thing and then matches that with the most likely possibility from a list of words in its vocabulary. Word popularity is a heavy factor.

Whatever you call it, the objective is not to get a machine to understand what you say. A singer conditions his voice with the goal of wooing an audience, not to make the sound waves move through the air in a particular way.