Search Results

Search found 2442 results on 98 pages for 'standards policies'.

Page 3/98 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Forcing IE8 Standards Mode with FEATURE_BROWSER_EMULATION

    - by earls
    I'm doing this: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2009/03/10/more-ie8-extensibility-improvements.aspx But it's not working. I have "iexplore.exe" set to 8888 (decimal mode) under MACHINE, but it's still coming up documentMode = 5. I thought 8888 was suppose to force IE8 Standards Mode whether you have a doctype or not. What is going on?

    Read the article

  • Local web apps and W3C standards.

    - by Babiker
    If am writing a local app that will only run using a specific browser, am i setting my self up by slightly ignoring W3C's standards? I ask this question because in this app i am thinking of using custom HTML tags, custom attributes, etc... Thanks in advance guys.

    Read the article

  • Internet Explorer 8 Standards Mode Results In Broken Blank Page

    - by Agent_9191
    I'm running into a weird issue that I'm struggling to figure out what's causing the page to break. I have an internal website that's still under development (thus no link to the page) that works great in Firefox and Internet Explorer 8 in IE 7 Standards mode. But when I force it to IE 8 Standards mode the page will only display the title text in the browser tab and an otherwise completely blank page. It seems so broken that the blank page doesn't even have a context menu. The page generally looks like this: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <meta content="IE=8" http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" /> <title>Page Title</title> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="/Images/favicon.ico" type="image/x-icon" /> <link href="/Style/main.less" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> </head> <body> ... </body> </html> You may notice the .less extension for the stylesheet. This is an ASP.NET MVC application and I'm making use of DotLess. I have the HttpHandler hooked up for it in the web.config. Of course there's some additional info on the page, but (in theory) it shouldn't be causing this issue. I've run the CSS and the HTML through the W3C validators and both have come back as completely valid. I'm trying the arduous task of removing/re-adding elements until it displays, but any insight into what could cause this would help. EDIT: it appears to be something related to the DotLess stylesheet. The resulting CSS is valid according to the W3C CSS validator. EDIT 2: Digging further, and making use of IE's Developer Tools to control the styles, it appears that IE is reading a single statement twice even though it only occurs once in the output. Here's the output of the Less file: a, abbr, acronym, address, applet, b, big, caption, center, cite, code, dd, dfn, div, dl, dt, em, fieldset, font, form, html, i, iframe, img, kbd, label, legend, li, object, pre, s, samp, small, span, strike, strong, sub, sup, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, var { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0; font-size: 100%; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; } blockquote, q { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0; font-size: 100%; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; quotes: none; } body { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0; font-size: 100%; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1; width: 100%; background: #efebde; min-width: 600px; } del { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0; font-size: 100%; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; text-decoration: line-through; } h1 { border: 0; outline: 0; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-size: 2em; margin: .8em 0 .2em 0; padding: 0; } h2 { border: 0; outline: 0; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-size: 1.8em; margin: .8em 0 .2em 0; padding: 0; } h3 { border: 0; outline: 0; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-size: 1.6em; margin: .8em 0 .2em 0; padding: 0; } h4 { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-size: 1.4em; } h5 { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-size: 1.2em; } h6 { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; font-size: 1em; } ins { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0; font-size: 100%; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; text-decoration: none; } ol, ul { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0; font-size: 100%; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; list-style: none; } p { border: 0; outline: 0; font-size: 100%; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; margin: .4em 0 .8em 0; padding: 0; } table { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; outline: 0; font-size: 100%; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0; } blockquote:before, blockquote:after, q:before, q:after { content: none; } :focus { outline: 0; } .bold { font-weight: bold; } .systemFont { font-family: Arial; } .labelled { font-style: italic; } .groovedBorder { border-color: #adaa9c; border-style: groove; border-width: medium; } #header, #footer { clear: both; float: left; width: 100%; } #header p, #header h1, #header h2 { padding: .4em 15px 0 15px; margin: 0; } #header ul { clear: left; float: left; width: 100%; list-style: none; margin: 10px 0 0 0; padding: 0; } #header ul li { display: inline; list-style: none; margin: 0; padding: 0; } #header ul li a { background: #eeeeee; display: block; float: left; left: 15px; line-height: 1.3em; margin: 0 0 0 1px; padding: 3px 10px; position: relative; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; } #header ul li a span { display: block; } #header ul li a:hover { background: #336699; } #header ul li a.active, #header ul li a.active:hover { background: black; font-weight: bold; } #header #logindisplay { float: right; padding-top: .5em; padding-bottom: .5em; padding-right: 1em; padding-left: 1em; } #title h1 { font-family: Arial; font-style: italic; font-size: 175%; text-align: center; margin-top: 1%; } .col1 { font-family: Arial; border-color: #adaa9c; border-style: groove; border-width: medium; min-height: 350px; float: left; overflow: hidden; position: relative; padding-top: 0; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0; padding-right: 0; } .col1 div.logo { text-align: center; } .col3 { font-family: Arial; border-color: #adaa9c; border-style: groove; border-width: medium; float: left; overflow: hidden; position: relative; } #layoutdims { clear: both; background: #eeeeee; margin: 0; padding: 6px 15px !important; text-align: right; } #company { padding-left: 10px; padding-top: 10px; margin: 0; } #company span { display: block; padding-left: 1em; } #version { padding-right: 1em; padding-top: 1em; text-align: center; } #menu li { padding: 6px; border-color: #adaa9c; border-style: groove; border-width: medium; min-width: 108px; } #menu li a.ciApp { text-decoration: none; font-size: 112.5%; font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial; color: black; } #menu li a.ciApp span { vertical-align: top; } .welcomemessage { font-size: 60.95%; } .newFeatures { overflow-y: scroll; max-height: 300px; } #newsfeed div .newsLabel { color: red; font-size: 60.95%; font-style: italic; } /************************************************************************************** This statement appears twice in Developer Tools. Disabling one disables both. Disabling it also causes the page to render. Turning it on and the page disappears again **************************************************************************************/ #newsfeed div .newFeatures { margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; font-size: 60.95%; } /************************************************************************************** **************************************************************************************/ .colmask { clear: both; float: left; position: relative; overflow: hidden; width: 100%; } .colright, .colmid, .colleft { float: left; position: relative; width: 100%; } .col2 { float: left; overflow: hidden; position: relative; padding-top: 0; padding-bottom: 1em; padding-left: 0; padding-right: 0; } .threecol .colmid { right: 33%; } .threecol .colleft { right: 34%; } .threecol .col1 { width: 33%; left: 100%; } .threecol .col2 { width: 32%; left: 34%; } .threecol .col3 { width: 32%; left: 68.5%; } Notice the #newsfeed div .newFeatures identifier near the end. I don't know what's causing that as it's only appearing once in the output stream. Here's an image of it too: EDIT 3: It appears that even though it duplicates that particular selector, if I change the font-size to a whole number like 61% instead of the current 60.95% (that specific to defaultly match the existing desktop app as closely as possible) it works fine. So something specific to IE duplicating that selector block and the font-size being a percentage specific to two decimal places appears to kill IE8 Standards mode completely.

    Read the article

  • What coding standards do you follow?

    - by Mark Szymanski
    I was just curious what coding standards people followed. I for one use the following: Brackets ALWAYS go on the next line. For instance: int main() { //Blah... } I never use code folding. (Yes my IDE's do support it (Xcode and Eclipse). Put related functions/methods single-spaced, otherwise double space. Here is an example: int foo = 0; printf("%d",foo); those are related while these are not: printf("Hello, World!"); return(0); I don't put else statements on the same line as the closing bracket for the preceding if statement. Most of the time in Java if a program needs multiple try catch statements I will just put the whole thing in one try catch.

    Read the article

  • iphone @property(retain), init(), and standards

    - by inyourcorner
    I'm new to the memory management of the iphone and had a question about standards/correctness. My header file declares: IBOutlet UITabBarController *tabBarController; @property (nonatomic, retain) UITabBarController *tabBarController; In my init() code I was doing something like the following: self.tabBarController = [[UITabBarController alloc] init]; [tabBarController release]; NSLog(@"Retain count of tbc: %d",[tabBarController retainCount]); to get the retain count back to one. Is this correct from a standardization point of view? It just looked a bit different to me, but again I'm new to this. Thanks

    Read the article

  • HTML5 : Microsoft sort deux modules Websocket et IndexedDB pour IE9 et tester ces standards "encore instables"

    HTML5 : Microsoft propose des modules pour Websocket et IndexedDB Installables sur la bêta d'Internet Explorer 9 Microsoft vient de lancer un site dédié aux standards HTML5 ouverts, une manière de permettre aux développeurs d'expérimenter des standards qui ne seront pas intégrés à Internet Explorer avant leur finalisation par le W3C. Une approche qui se veut plus prudente et pragmatique que celles de ces concurrents, qui n'hésitent pas, eux, à implémenter - au moins partiellement - des standards en gestation dans les versions grand public de leurs navigateurs. Appelé HTML5 Labs, ce nouveau site propose, pour ses débuts, deux modules. Le premier est le...

    Read the article

  • How To: Use Monitoring Rules and Policies

    - by Owen Allen
    One of Ops Center's most useful features is its asset monitoring capability. When you discover an asset - an operating system, say, or a server - a default monitoring policy is applied to it, based on the asset type. This policy contains rules that specify what properties are monitored and what thresholds are considered significant. Ops Center will send a notification if a monitored asset passes one of the specified thresholds. But sometimes you want different assets to be monitored in different ways. For example, you might have a group of mission-critical systems, for which you want to be notified immediately if their file system usage rises above a specific threshold. You can do so by creating a new monitoring policy and applying it to the group. You can also apply monitoring policies to individual assets, and edit them to meet the requirements of your environment. The Tuning Monitoring Rules and Policies How-To walks you through all of these procedures.

    Read the article

  • Oracle Coding Standards Feature Implementation

    - by Mike Hofer
    Okay, I have reached a sort of an impasse. In my open source project, a .NET-based Oracle database browser, I've implemented a bunch of refactoring tools. So far, so good. The one feature I was really hoping to implement was a big "Global Reformat" that would make the code (scripts, functions, procedures, packages, views, etc.) standards compliant. (I've always been saddened by the lack of decent SQL refactoring tools, and wanted to do something about it.) Unfortunatey, I am discovering, much to my chagrin, that there doesn't seem to be any one widely-used or even "generally accepted" standard for PL-SQL. That kind of puts a crimp on my implementation plans. My search has been fairly exhaustive. I've found lots of conflicting documents, threads and articles and the opinions are fairly diverse. (Comma placement, of all things, seems to generate quite a bit of debate.) So I'm faced with a couple of options: Add a feature that lets the user customize the standard and then reformat the code according to that standard. —OR— Add a feature that lets the user customize the standard and simply generate a violations list like StyleCop does, leaving the SQL untouched. In my mind, the first option saves the end-users a lot of work, but runs the risk of modifying SQL in potentially unwanted ways. The second option runs the risk of generating lots of warnings and doing no work whatsoever. (It'd just be generally annoying.) In either scenario, I still have no standard to go by. What I'd need to know from you guys is kind of poll-ish, but kind of not. If you were going to use a tool of this nature, what parts of your SQL code would you want it to warn you about or fix? Again, I'm just at a loss due to a lack of a cohesive standard. And given that there isn't anything out there that's officially published by Oracle, I think this is something the community could weigh in on. Also, given the way that voting works on SO, the votes would help to establish the popularity of a given "refactoring." P.S. The engine parses SQL into an expression tree so it can robustly analyze the SQL and reformat it. There should be quite a bit that we can do to correct the format of the SQL. But I am thinking that for the first release of the thing, layout is the primary concern. Though it is worth noting that the thing already has refactorings for converting keywords to upper case, and identifiers to lower case.

    Read the article

  • Standards Corner: Preventing Pervasive Monitoring

    - by independentid
     Phil Hunt is an active member of multiple industry standards groups and committees and has spearheaded discussions, creation and ratifications of industry standards including the Kantara Identity Governance Framework, among others. Being an active voice in the industry standards development world, we have invited him to share his discussions, thoughts, news & updates, and discuss use cases, implementation success stories (and even failures) around industry standards on this monthly column. Author: Phil Hunt On Wednesday night, I watched NBC’s interview of Edward Snowden. The past year has been tumultuous one in the IT security industry. There has been some amazing revelations about the activities of governments around the world; and, we have had several instances of major security bugs in key security libraries: Apple's ‘gotofail’ bug  the OpenSSL Heartbleed bug, not to mention Java’s zero day bug, and others. Snowden’s information showed the IT industry has been underestimating the need for security, and highlighted a general trend of lax use of TLS and poorly implemented security on the Internet. This did not go unnoticed in the standards community and in particular the IETF. Last November, the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) met in Vancouver Canada, where the issue of “Internet Hardening” was discussed in a plenary session. Presentations were given by Bruce Schneier, Brian Carpenter,  and Stephen Farrell describing the problem, the work done so far, and potential IETF activities to address the problem pervasive monitoring. At the end of the presentation, the IETF called for consensus on the issue. If you know engineers, you know that it takes a while for a large group to arrive at a consensus and this group numbered approximately 3000. When asked if the IETF should respond to pervasive surveillance attacks? There was an overwhelming response for ‘Yes'. When it came to 'No', the room echoed in silence. This was just the first of several consensus questions that were each overwhelmingly in favour of response. This is the equivalent of a unanimous opinion for the IETF. Since the meeting, the IETF has followed through with the recent publication of a new “best practices” document on Pervasive Monitoring (RFC 7258). This document is extremely sensitive in its approach and separates the politics of monitoring from the technical ones. Pervasive Monitoring (PM) is widespread (and often covert) surveillance through intrusive gathering of protocol artefacts, including application content, or protocol metadata such as headers. Active or passive wiretaps and traffic analysis, (e.g., correlation, timing or measuring packet sizes), or subverting the cryptographic keys used to secure protocols can also be used as part of pervasive monitoring. PM is distinguished by being indiscriminate and very large scale, rather than by introducing new types of technical compromise. The IETF community's technical assessment is that PM is an attack on the privacy of Internet users and organisations. The IETF community has expressed strong agreement that PM is an attack that needs to be mitigated where possible, via the design of protocols that make PM significantly more expensive or infeasible. Pervasive monitoring was discussed at the technical plenary of the November 2013 IETF meeting [IETF88Plenary] and then through extensive exchanges on IETF mailing lists. This document records the IETF community's consensus and establishes the technical nature of PM. The draft goes on to further qualify what it means by “attack”, clarifying that  The term is used here to refer to behavior that subverts the intent of communicating parties without the agreement of those parties. An attack may change the content of the communication, record the content or external characteristics of the communication, or through correlation with other communication events, reveal information the parties did not intend to be revealed. It may also have other effects that similarly subvert the intent of a communicator.  The past year has shown that Internet specification authors need to put more emphasis into information security and integrity. The year also showed that specifications are not good enough. The implementations of security and protocol specifications have to be of high quality and superior testing. I’m proud to say Oracle has been a strong proponent of this, having already established its own secure coding practices. 

    Read the article

  • Standards Corner: OAuth WG Client Registration Problem

    - by Tanu Sood
    Phil Hunt is an active member of multiple industry standards groups and committees (see brief bio at the end of the post) and has spearheaded discussions, creation and ratifications of  Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii- mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi- mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} industry standards including the Kantara Identity Governance Framework, among others. Being an active voice in the industry standards development world, we have invited him to share his discussions, thoughts, news & updates, and discuss use cases, implementation success stories (and even failures) around industry standards on this monthly column. Author: Phil Hunt This afternoon, the OAuth Working Group will meet at IETF88 in Vancouver to discuss some important topics important to the maturation of OAuth. One of them is the OAuth client registration problem.OAuth (RFC6749) was initially developed with a simple deployment model where there is only monopoly or singleton cloud instance of a web API (e.g. there is one Facebook, one Google, on LinkedIn, and so on). When the API publisher and API deployer are the same monolithic entity, it easy for developers to contact the provider and register their app to obtain a client_id and credential.But what happens when the API is for an open source project where there may be 1000s of deployed copies of the API (e.g. such as wordpress). In these cases, the authors of the API are not the people running the API. In these scenarios, how does the developer obtain a client_id? An example of an "open deployed" API is OpenID Connect. Connect defines an OAuth protected resource API that can provide personal information about an authenticated user -- in effect creating a potentially common API for potential identity providers like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Salesforce, or Oracle. In Oracle's case, Fusion applications will soon have RESTful APIs that are deployed in many different ways in many different environments. How will developers write apps that can work against an openly deployed API with whom the developer can have no prior relationship?At present, the OAuth Working Group has two proposals two consider: Dynamic RegistrationDynamic Registration was originally developed for OpenID Connect and UMA. It defines a RESTful API in which a prospective client application with no client_id creates a new client registration record with a service provider and is issued a client_id and credential along with a registration token that can be used to update registration over time.As proof of success, the OIDC community has done substantial implementation of this spec and feels committed to its use. Why not approve?Well, the answer is that some of us had some concerns, namely: Recognizing instances of software - dynamic registration treats all clients as unique. It has no defined way to recognize that multiple copies of the same client are being registered other then assuming if the registration parameters are similar it might be the same client. Versioning and Policy Approval of open APIs and clients - many service providers have to worry about change management. They expect to have approval cycles that approve versions of server and client software for use in their environment. In some cases approval might be wide open, but in many cases, approval might be down to the specific class of software and version. Registration updates - when does a client actually need to update its registration? Shouldn't it be never? Is there some characteristic of deployed code that would cause it to change? Options lead to complexity - because each client is treated as unique, it becomes unclear how the clients and servers will agree on what credentials forms are acceptable and what OAuth features are allowed and disallowed. Yet the reality is, developers will write their application to work in a limited number of ways. They can't implement all the permutations and combinations that potential service providers might choose. Stateful registration - if the primary motivation for registration is to obtain a client_id and credential, why can't this be done in a stateless fashion using assertions? Denial of service - With so much stateful registration and the need for multiple tokens to be issued, will this not lead to a denial of service attack / risk of resource depletion? At the very least, because of the information gathered, it would difficult for service providers to clean up "failed" registrations and determine active from inactive or false clients. There has yet to be much wide-scale "production" use of dynamic registration other than in small closed communities. Client Association A second proposal, Client Association, has been put forward by Tony Nadalin of Microsoft and myself. We took at look at existing use patterns to come up with a new proposal. At the Berlin meeting, we considered how WS-STS systems work. More recently, I took a review of how mobile messaging clients work. I looked at how Apple, Google, and Microsoft each handle registration with APNS, GCM, and WNS, and a similar pattern emerges. This pattern is to use an existing credential (mutual TLS auth), or client bearer assertion and swap for a device specific bearer assertion.In the client association proposal, the developer's registration with the API publisher is handled by having the developer register with an API publisher (as opposed to the party deploying the API) and obtaining a software "statement". Or, if there is no "publisher" that can sign a statement, the developer may include their own self-asserted software statement.A software statement is a special type of assertion that serves to lock application registration profile information in a signed assertion. The statement is included with the client application and can then be used by the client to swap for an instance specific client assertion as defined by section 4.2 of the OAuth Assertion draft and profiled in the Client Association draft. The software statement provides a way for service provider to recognize and configure policy to approve classes of software clients, and simplifies the actual registration to a simple assertion swap. Because the registration is an assertion swap, registration is no longer "stateful" - meaning the service provider does not need to store any information to support the client (unless it wants to). Has this been implemented yet? Not directly. We've only delivered draft 00 as an alternate way of solving the problem using well-known patterns whose security characteristics and scale characteristics are well understood. Dynamic Take II At roughly the same time that Client Association and Software Statement were published, the authors of Dynamic Registration published a "split" version of the Dynamic Registration (draft-richer-oauth-dyn-reg-core and draft-richer-oauth-dyn-reg-management). While some of the concerns above are addressed, some differences remain. Registration is now a simple POST request. However it defines a new method for issuing client tokens where as Client Association uses RFC6749's existing extension point. The concern here is whether future client access token formats would be addressed properly. Finally, Dyn-reg-core does not yet support software statements. Conclusion The WG has some interesting discussion to bring this back to a single set of specifications. Dynamic Registration has significant implementation, but Client Association could be a much improved way to simplify implementation of the overall OpenID Connect specification and improve adoption. In fairness, the existing editors have already come a long way. Yet there are those with significant investment in the current draft. There are many that have expressed they don't care. They just want a standard. There is lots of pressure on the working group to reach consensus quickly.And that folks is how the sausage is made.Note: John Bradley and Justin Richer recently published draft-bradley-stateless-oauth-client-00 which on first look are getting closer. Some of the details seem less well defined, but the same could be said of client-assoc and software-statement. I hope we can merge these specs this week. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii- mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi- mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} About the Writer: Phil Hunt joined Oracle as part of the November 2005 acquisition of OctetString Inc. where he headed software development for what is now Oracle Virtual Directory. Since joining Oracle, Phil works as CMTS in the Identity Standards group at Oracle where he developed the Kantara Identity Governance Framework and provided significant input to JSR 351. Phil participates in several standards development organizations such as IETF and OASIS working on federation, authorization (OAuth), and provisioning (SCIM) standards.  Phil blogs at www.independentid.com and a Twitter handle of @independentid.

    Read the article

  • Oracle collaborates with leading IT vendors on Cloud Management Standards

    - by Anand Akela
    During the last couple of days, two key specifications for cloud management standards have been announced. Oracle collaborated with leading technology vendors from the IT industry on both of these cloud management specifications. One of the specifications focuses "Infrastructure as a Service" ( IaaS )  cloud service model , while the other specification announced today focuses on "Platform as a Service" ( PaaS ) cloud service model. Please see The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing to learn more about IaaS and PaaS . Earlier today Oracle , CloudBees, Cloudsoft, Huawei, Rackspace, Red Hat, and Software AG   announced the Cloud Application Management for Platforms (CAMP) specification that will be submitted to Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) for development of an industry standard, in an effort to help ensure interoperability for deploying and managing applications across cloud environments.  Typical PaaS architecture - Source : CAMP specification The CAMP specification defines the artifacts and APIs that need to be offered by a PaaS cloud to manage the building, running, administration, monitoring and patching of applications in the cloud. Its purpose is to enable interoperability among self-service interfaces to PaaS clouds by defining artifacts and formats that can be used with any conforming cloud and enable independent vendors to create tools and services that interact with any conforming cloud using the defined interfaces. Cloud vendors can use these interfaces to develop new PaaS offerings that will interact with independently developed tools and components. In a separate cloud standards announcement yesterday, the Distributed Management Task Force ( DMTF ), the organization bringing the IT industry together to collaborate on systems management standards development, validation, promotion and adoption, released the new Cloud Infrastructure Management Interface (CIMI) specification. Oracle collaborated with various technology vendors and industry organizations on this specification. CIMI standardizes interactions between cloud environments to achieve interoperable cloud infrastructure management between service providers and their consumers and developers, enabling users to manage their cloud infrastructure use easily and without complexity. DMTF developed CIMI as a self-service interface for infrastructure clouds ( IaaS focus ) , allowing users to dynamically provision, configure and administer their cloud usage with a high-level interface that greatly simplifies cloud systems management. Mark Carlson, Principal Cloud Strategist at Oracle provides more details about CAMP  and CIMI his blog . Stay Connected: Twitter |  Face book |  You Tube |  Linked in |  Newsletter

    Read the article

  • Data Security Through Structure, Procedures, Policies, and Governance

    Security Structure and Procedures One of the easiest ways to implement security is through the use of structure, in particular the structure in which data is stored. The preferred method for this through the use of User Roles, these Roles allow for specific access to be granted based on what role a user plays in relation to the data that they are manipulating. Typical data access actions are defined by the CRUD Principle. CRUD Principle: Create New Data Read Existing Data Update Existing Data Delete Existing Data Based on the actions assigned to a role assigned, User can manipulate data as they need to preform daily business operations.  An example of this can be seen in a hospital where doctors have been assigned Create, Read, Update, and Delete access to their patient’s prescriptions so that a doctor can prescribe and adjust any existing prescriptions as necessary. However, a nurse will only have Read access on the patient’s prescriptions so that they will know what medicines to give to the patients. If you notice, they do not have access to prescribe new prescriptions, update or delete existing prescriptions because only the patient’s doctor has access to preform those actions. With User Roles comes responsibility, companies need to constantly monitor data access to ensure that the proper roles have the most appropriate access levels to ensure users are not exposed to inappropriate data.  In addition this also protects rouge employees from gaining access to critical business information that could be destroyed, altered or stolen. It is important that all data access is monitored because of this threat. Security Governance Current Data Governance laws regarding security Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Sarbanes-Oxley Act Database Breach Notification Act The US Department of Health and Human Services defines HIIPAA as a Privacy Rule. This legislation protects the privacy of individually identifiable health information. Currently, HIPAA   sets the national standards for securing electronically protected health records. Additionally, its confidentiality provisions protect identifiable information being used to analyze patient safety events and improve patient safety. In 2002 after the wake of the Enron and World Com Financial scandals Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael Oxley lead the creation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. This act administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) dramatically altered corporate financial practices and data governance. In addition, it also set specific deadlines for compliance. The Sarbanes-Oxley is not a set of standard business rules and does not specify how a company should retain its records; In fact, this act outlines which pieces of data are to be stored as well as the storage duration. The Database Breach Notification Act requires companies, in the event of a data breach containing personally identifiable information, to notify all California residents whose information was stored on the compromised system at the time of the event, according to Gregory Manter. He further explains that this act is only California legislation. However, it does affect “any person or business that conducts business in California, and that owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information,” regardless of where the compromised data is located.  This will force any business that maintains at least limited interactions with California residents will find themselves subject to the Act’s provisions. Security Policies All companies must work in accordance with the appropriate city, county, state, and federal laws. One way to ensure that a company is legally compliant is to enforce security policies that adhere to the appropriate legislation in their area or areas that they service. These types of polices need to be mandated by a company’s Security Officer. For smaller companies, these policies need to come from executives, Directors, and Owners.

    Read the article

  • Seeking References To MSVC 9.0's C++ Standards Compliance

    - by John Dibling
    I "know" (hopefully) that MSVC 9.0 Implements C++ 2003 (ISO/IEC 14882:2003). I am looking for a reference to this fact, and I am also looking for any research that has been done in to how compliant MSVC 9.0 is with that version of the Standard. I have searched for and not been able to find a specific reference from MicroSoft that actually says something to the effect that MSVC implements C++ 2003. Some of the out-of-date documentation says things like "this release achieves roughly 98% compliance" (when referring to MSVC .NET 2003's conformance to C++ 1997). But I want a link to a document from MS that says "MSVC 9.0 implements blah," and another link to an independent group that has tested the conformance of MSVC 9.0. Do you know of any such links?

    Read the article

  • Good Haskell coding standards

    - by Alexey Romanov
    Could someone provide a link to a good coding standard for Haskell? I've found this and this, but they are far from comprehensive. Not to mention that the HaskellWiki one includes such "gems" as "use classes with care" and "defining symbolic infix identifiers should be left to library writers only."

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Standards Support, Protocol, Data Portability – 3 Important SQL Server Documentations for Downloads

    - by pinaldave
    I have been working with SQL Server for more than 8 years now continuously and I like to read a lot. Some time I read easy things and sometime I read stuff which are not so easy.  Here are few recently released article which I referred and read. They are not easy read but indeed very important read if you are the one who like to read things which are more advanced. SQL Server Standards Support Documentation The SQL Server standards support documentation provides detailed support information for certain standards that are implemented in Microsoft SQL Server. Microsoft SQL Server Protocol Documentation The Microsoft SQL Server protocol documentation provides technical specifications for Microsoft proprietary protocols that are implemented and used in Microsoft SQL Server 2008. Microsoft SQL Server Data Portability Documentation The SQL Server data portability documentation explains various mechanisms by which user-created data in SQL Server can be extracted for use in other software products. These mechanisms include import/export functionality, documented APIs, industry standard formats, or documented data structures/file formats. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Documentation, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • We have our standards, and we need them

    - by Tony Davis
    The presenter suddenly broke off. He was midway through his section on how to apply to the relational database the Continuous Delivery techniques that allowed for rapid-fire rounds of development and refactoring, while always retaining a “production-ready” state. He sighed deeply and then launched into an astonishing diatribe against Database Administrators, much of his frustration directed toward Oracle DBAs, in particular. In broad strokes, he painted the picture of a brave new deployment philosophy being frustratingly shackled by the relational database, and by especially by the attitudes of the guardians of these databases. DBAs, he said, shunned change and “still favored tools I’d have been embarrassed to use in the ’80′s“. DBAs, Oracle DBAs especially, were more attached to their vendor than to their employer, since the former was the primary source of their career longevity and spectacular remuneration. He contended that someone could produce the best IDE or tool in the world for Oracle DBAs and yet none of them would give a stuff, unless it happened to come from the “mother ship”. I sat blinking in astonishment at the speaker’s vehemence, and glanced around nervously. Nobody in the audience disagreed, and a few nodded in assent. Although the primary target of the outburst was the Oracle DBA, it made me wonder. Are we who work with SQL Server, database professionals or merely SQL Server fanbois? Do DBAs, in general, have an image problem? Is it a good career-move to be seen to be holding onto a particular product by the whites of our knuckles, to the exclusion of all else? If we seek a broad, open-minded, knowledge of our chosen technology, the database, and are blessed with merely mortal powers of learning, then we like standards. Vendors of RDBMSs generally don’t conform to standards by instinct, but by customer demand. Microsoft has made great strides to adopt the international SQL Standards, where possible, thanks to considerable lobbying by the community. The implementation of Window functions is a great example. There is still work to do, though. SQL Server, for example, has an unusable version of the Information Schema. One cast-iron rule of any RDBMS is that we must be able to query the metadata using the same language that we use to query the data, i.e. SQL, and we do this by running queries against the INFORMATION_SCHEMA views. Developers who’ve attempted to apply a standard query that works on MySQL, or some other database, but doesn’t produce the expected results on SQL Server are advised to shun the Standards-based approach in favor of the vendor-specific one, using the catalog views. The argument behind this is sound and well-documented, and of course we all use those catalog views, out of necessity. And yet, as database professionals, committed to supporting the best databases for the business, whatever they are now and in the future, surely our heart should sink somewhat when we advocate a vendor specific approach, to a developer struggling with something as simple as writing a guard clause. And when we read messages on the Microsoft documentation informing us that we shouldn’t rely on INFORMATION_SCHEMA to identify reliably the schema of an object, in SQL Server!

    Read the article

  • Oracle Tutor: Top 10 to Implement Sustainable Policies and Procedures

    - by emily.chorba(at)oracle.com
    Overview Your organization (executives, managers, and employees) understands the value of having written business process documents (process maps, procedures, instructions, reference documents, and form abstracts). Policies and procedures should be documented because they help to reduce the range of individual decisions and encourage management by exception: the manager only needs to give special attention to unusual problems, not covered by a specific policy or procedure. As more and more procedures are written to cover recurring situations, managers will begin to make decisions which will be consistent from one functional area to the next.Companies should take a project management approach when implementing an environment for a sustainable documentation program and do the following:1. Identify an Executive Champion2. Put together a winning team3. Assign ownership4. Centralize publishing5. Establish the Document Maintenance Process Up Front6. Document critical activities only7. Document actual practice8. Minimize documentation9. Support continuous improvement10. Keep it simple 1. Identify an Executive ChampionAppoint a top down driver. Select one key individual to be a mentor for the procedure planning team. The individual should be a senior manager, such as your company president, CIO, CFO, the vice-president of quality, manufacturing, or engineering. Written policies and procedures can be important supportive aids when known to express the thinking for the chief executive officer and / or the president and to have his or her full support. 2. Put Together a Winning TeamChoose a strong Project Management Leader and staff the procedure planning team with management members from cross functional groups. Make sure team members have the responsibility - and the authority - to make things happen.The winning team should consist of the Documentation Project Manager, Document Owners (one for each functional area), a Document Controller, and Document Specialists (as needed). The Tutor Implementation Guide has complete job descriptions for these roles. 3. Assign Ownership It is virtually impossible to keep process documentation simple and meaningful if employees who are far removed from the activity itself create it. It is impossible to keep documentation up-to-date when responsibility for the document is not clearly understood.Key to the Tutor methodology, therefore, is the concept of ownership. Each document has a single owner, who is responsible for ensuring that the document is necessary and that it reflects actual practice. The owner must be a person who is knowledgeable about the activity and who has the authority to build consensus among the persons who participate in the activity as well as the authority to define or change the way an activity is performed. The owner must be an advocate of the performers and negotiate, not dictate practices.In the Tutor environment, a document's owner is the only person with the authority to approve an update to that document. 4. Centralize Publishing Although it is tempting (especially in a networked environment and with document management software solutions) to decentralize the control of all documents -- with each owner updating and distributing his own -- Tutor promotes centralized publishing by assigning the Document Administrator (gate keeper) to manage the updates and distribution of the procedures library. 5. Establish a Document Maintenance Process Up Front (and stick to it) Everyone in your organization should know they are invited to suggest changes to procedures and should understand exactly what steps to take to do so. Tutor provides a set of procedures to help your company set up a healthy document control system. There are many document management products available to automate some of the document change and maintenance steps. Depending on the size of your organization, a simple document management system can reduce the effort it takes to track and distribute document changes and updates. Whether your company decides to store the written policies and procedures on a file server or in a database, the essential tasks for maintaining documents are the same, though some tasks are automated. 6. Document Critical Activities Only The best way to keep your documentation simple is to reduce the number of process documents to a bare minimum and to include in those documents only as much detail as is absolutely necessary. The first step to reducing process documentation is to document only those activities that are deemed critical. Not all activities require documentation. In fact, some critical activities cannot and should not be standardized. Others may be sufficiently documented with an instruction or a checklist and may not require a procedure. A document should only be created when it enhances the performance of the employee performing the activity. If it does not help the employee, then there is no reason to maintain the document. Activities that represent little risk (such as project status), activities that cannot be defined in terms of specific tasks (such as product research), and activities that can be performed in a variety of ways (such as advertising) often do not require documentation. Sometimes, an activity will evolve to the point where documentation is necessary. For example, an activity performed by single employee may be straightforward and uncomplicated -- that is, until the activity is performed by multiple employees. Sometimes, it is the interaction between co-workers that necessitates documentation; sometimes, it is the complexity or the diversity of the activity.7. Document Actual Practices The only reason to maintain process documentation is to enhance the performance of the employee performing the activity. And documentation can only enhance performance if it reflects reality -- that is, current best practice. Documentation that reflects an unattainable ideal or outdated practices will end up on the shelf, unused and forgotten.Documenting actual practice means (1) auditing the activity to understand how the work is really performed, (2) identifying best practices with employees who are involved in the activity, (3) building consensus so that everyone agrees on a common method, and (4) recording that consensus.8. Minimize Documentation One way to keep it simple is to document at the highest level possible. That is, include in your documents only as much detail as is absolutely necessary.When writing a document, you should ask yourself, What is the purpose of this document? That is, what problem will it solve?By focusing on this question, you can target the critical information.• What questions are the end users likely to have?• What level of detail is required?• Is any of this information extraneous to the document's purpose? Short, concise documents are user friendly and they are easier to keep up to date. 9. Support Continuous Improvement Employees who perform an activity are often in the best position to identify improvements to the process. In other words, continuous improvement is a natural byproduct of the work itself -- but only if the improvements are communicated to all employees who are involved in the process, and only if there is consensus among those employees.Traditionally, process documentation has been used to dictate performance, to limit employees' actions. In the Tutor environment, process documents are used to communicate improvements identified by employees. How does this work? The Tutor methodology requires a process document to reflect actual practice, so the owner of a document must routinely audit its content -- does the document match what the employees are doing? If it doesn't, the owner has the responsibility to evaluate the process, to build consensus among the employees, to identify "best practices," and to communicate these improvements via a document update. Continuous improvement can also be an outgrowth of corrective action -- but only if the solutions to problems are communicated effectively. The goal should be to solve a problem once and only once, which means not only identifying the solution, but ensuring that the solution becomes part of the process. The Tutor system provides the method through which improvements and solutions are documented and communicated to all affected employees in a cost-effective, timely manner; it ensures that improvements are not lost or confined to a single employee. 10. Keep it Simple Process documents don't have to be complex and unfriendly. In fact, the simpler the format and organization, the more likely the documents will be used. And the simpler the method of maintenance, the more likely the documents will be kept up-to-date. Keep it simply by:• Minimizing skills and training required• Following the established Tutor document format and layout• Avoiding technology just for technology's sake No other rule has as major an impact on the success of your internal documentation as -- keep it simple. Learn More For more information about Tutor, visit Oracle.Com or the Tutor Blog. Post your questions at the Tutor Forum.   Emily Chorba Principle Product Manager Oracle Tutor & BPM 

    Read the article

  • Thread placement policies on NUMA systems - update

    - by Dave
    In a prior blog entry I noted that Solaris used a "maximum dispersal" placement policy to assign nascent threads to their initial processors. The general idea is that threads should be placed as far away from each other as possible in the resource topology in order to reduce resource contention between concurrently running threads. This policy assumes that resource contention -- pipelines, memory channel contention, destructive interference in the shared caches, etc -- will likely outweigh (a) any potential communication benefits we might achieve by packing our threads more densely onto a subset of the NUMA nodes, and (b) benefits of NUMA affinity between memory allocated by one thread and accessed by other threads. We want our threads spread widely over the system and not packed together. Conceptually, when placing a new thread, the kernel picks the least loaded node NUMA node (the node with lowest aggregate load average), and then the least loaded core on that node, etc. Furthermore, the kernel places threads onto resources -- sockets, cores, pipelines, etc -- without regard to the thread's process membership. That is, initial placement is process-agnostic. Keep reading, though. This description is incorrect. On Solaris 10 on a SPARC T5440 with 4 x T2+ NUMA nodes, if the system is otherwise unloaded and we launch a process that creates 20 compute-bound concurrent threads, then typically we'll see a perfect balance with 5 threads on each node. We see similar behavior on an 8-node x86 x4800 system, where each node has 8 cores and each core is 2-way hyperthreaded. So far so good; this behavior seems in agreement with the policy I described in the 1st paragraph. I recently tried the same experiment on a 4-node T4-4 running Solaris 11. Both the T5440 and T4-4 are 4-node systems that expose 256 logical thread contexts. To my surprise, all 20 threads were placed onto just one NUMA node while the other 3 nodes remained completely idle. I checked the usual suspects such as processor sets inadvertently left around by colleagues, processors left offline, and power management policies, but the system was configured normally. I then launched multiple concurrent instances of the process, and, interestingly, all the threads from the 1st process landed on one node, all the threads from the 2nd process landed on another node, and so on. This happened even if I interleaved thread creating between the processes, so I was relatively sure the effect didn't related to thread creation time, but rather that placement was a function of process membership. I this point I consulted the Solaris sources and talked with folks in the Solaris group. The new Solaris 11 behavior is intentional. The kernel is no longer using a simple maximum dispersal policy, and thread placement is process membership-aware. Now, even if other nodes are completely unloaded, the kernel will still try to pack new threads onto the home lgroup (socket) of the primordial thread until the load average of that node reaches 50%, after which it will pick the next least loaded node as the process's new favorite node for placement. On the T4-4 we have 64 logical thread contexts (strands) per socket (lgroup), so if we launch 48 concurrent threads we will find 32 placed on one node and 16 on some other node. If we launch 64 threads we'll find 32 and 32. That means we can end up with our threads clustered on a small subset of the nodes in a way that's quite different that what we've seen on Solaris 10. So we have a policy that allows process-aware packing but reverts to spreading threads onto other nodes if a node becomes too saturated. It turns out this policy was enabled in Solaris 10, but certain bugs suppressed the mixed packing/spreading behavior. There are configuration variables in /etc/system that allow us to dial the affinity between nascent threads and their primordial thread up and down: see lgrp_expand_proc_thresh, specifically. In the OpenSolaris source code the key routine is mpo_update_tunables(). This method reads the /etc/system variables and sets up some global variables that will subsequently be used by the dispatcher, which calls lgrp_choose() in lgrp.c to place nascent threads. Lgrp_expand_proc_thresh controls how loaded an lgroup must be before we'll consider homing a process's threads to another lgroup. Tune this value lower to have it spread your process's threads out more. To recap, the 'new' policy is as follows. Threads from the same process are packed onto a subset of the strands of a socket (50% for T-series). Once that socket reaches the 50% threshold the kernel then picks another preferred socket for that process. Threads from unrelated processes are spread across sockets. More precisely, different processes may have different preferred sockets (lgroups). Beware that I've simplified and elided details for the purposes of explication. The truth is in the code. Remarks: It's worth noting that initial thread placement is just that. If there's a gross imbalance between the load on different nodes then the kernel will migrate threads to achieve a better and more even distribution over the set of available nodes. Once a thread runs and gains some affinity for a node, however, it becomes "stickier" under the assumption that the thread has residual cache residency on that node, and that memory allocated by that thread resides on that node given the default "first-touch" page-level NUMA allocation policy. Exactly how the various policies interact and which have precedence under what circumstances could the topic of a future blog entry. The scheduler is work-conserving. The x4800 mentioned above is an interesting system. Each of the 8 sockets houses an Intel 7500-series processor. Each processor has 3 coherent QPI links and the system is arranged as a glueless 8-socket twisted ladder "mobius" topology. Nodes are either 1 or 2 hops distant over the QPI links. As an aside the mapping of logical CPUIDs to physical resources is rather interesting on Solaris/x4800. On SPARC/Solaris the CPUID layout is strictly geographic, with the highest order bits identifying the socket, the next lower bits identifying the core within that socket, following by the pipeline (if present) and finally the logical thread context ("strand") on the core. But on Solaris on the x4800 the CPUID layout is as follows. [6:6] identifies the hyperthread on a core; bits [5:3] identify the socket, or package in Intel terminology; bits [2:0] identify the core within a socket. Such low-level details should be of interest only if you're binding threads -- a bad idea, the kernel typically handles placement best -- or if you're writing NUMA-aware code that's aware of the ambient placement and makes decisions accordingly. Solaris introduced the so-called critical-threads mechanism, which is expressed by putting a thread into the FX scheduling class at priority 60. The critical-threads mechanism applies to placement on cores, not on sockets, however. That is, it's an intra-socket policy, not an inter-socket policy. Solaris 11 introduces the Power Aware Dispatcher (PAD) which packs threads instead of spreading them out in an attempt to be able to keep sockets or cores at lower power levels. Maximum dispersal may be good for performance but is anathema to power management. PAD is off by default, but power management polices constitute yet another confounding factor with respect to scheduling and dispatching. If your threads communicate heavily -- one thread reads cache lines last written by some other thread -- then the new dense packing policy may improve performance by reducing traffic on the coherent interconnect. On the other hand if your threads in your process communicate rarely, then it's possible the new packing policy might result on contention on shared computing resources. Unfortunately there's no simple litmus test that says whether packing or spreading is optimal in a given situation. The answer varies by system load, application, number of threads, and platform hardware characteristics. Currently we don't have the necessary tools and sensoria to decide at runtime, so we're reduced to an empirical approach where we run trials and try to decide on a placement policy. The situation is quite frustrating. Relatedly, it's often hard to determine just the right level of concurrency to optimize throughput. (Understanding constructive vs destructive interference in the shared caches would be a good start. We could augment the lines with a small tag field indicating which strand last installed or accessed a line. Given that, we could augment the CPU with performance counters for misses where a thread evicts a line it installed vs misses where a thread displaces a line installed by some other thread.)

    Read the article

  • A few things I learned regarding Azure billing policies

    - by Vincent Grondin
    An hour of small computing time: 0,12$ per hour A Gig of storage in the cloud: 0,15$ per hour 1 Gig of relational database using Azure SQL: 9,99$  per month A Visual Studio Professional with MSDN Premium account: 2500$ per year Winning an MSDN Professional account that comes preloaded with 750 free hours of Azure per month:  PRICELESS !!!      But was it really free???? Hmmm… Let’s see.....   Here's a few things I learned regarding Azure billing policies when I attended a promotional training at Microsoft last week...   1)  An instance deployed in the cloud really means whatever you upload in there... it doesn't matter if it's in STAGING OR PRODUCTION!!!!   Your MSDN account comes with 750 free hours of small computing time per month which should be enough hours per month for one instance of one application deployed in the cloud...  So we're cool, the application you run in the cloud doesn't cost you a penny....  BUT the one that's in staging is still consuming time!!!   So if you don’t want to end up having to pay 42$ at the end of the month on your credit card like this happened to a friend of mine, DELETE them staging applications once you’ve put them in production! This also applies to the instance count you can modify in the configuration file… So stop and think before you decide you want to spawn 50 of those hello world apps  .     2) If you have an MSDN account, then you have the promotional 750 hours of Azure credits per month and can use the Azure credits to explore the Cloud! But be aware, this promotion ends in 8 months (maybe more like 7 now) and then you will most likely go back to the standard 250 hours of Azure credits. If you do not delete your applications by then, you’ll get billed for the extra hours, believe me…   There is a switch that you can toggle and which will STOP your automatic enrollment after the promotion and prevent you from renewing the Azure Account automatically. Yes the default setting is to automatically renew your account and remember, you entered your credit card information in the registration process so, yes, you WILL be billed…  Go disable that ASAP    Log into your account, go to “Windows Azure Platform” then click the “Subscriptions” tab and on the right side, you’ll see a drop down with different “Actions” into it… Choose “Opt out of auto renew” and, NOW you’re safe…   Still, this is a great offer by Microsoft and I think everyone that has a chance should play a bit with Azure to get to know this technology a bit more...     Happy Cloud Computing All

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >