Remove eSignature Form Now

With reference to this blog - The Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017 - What Startups should know?There has been majorly 15 changes to the companies Act, 2017. But, from registration point of view, there has been just 2 changes -With reference to this blog: Reserve Unique Name electronicallyThe Ministry has also introduced Reserve Unique Name (RUN) forms to simplify the name reservation process of a company.The rules earlier required a company to reserve a name either in advance through the Name Reservation — INC-1 form or directly through the incorporation application (SPICe Form).Now, the RUN form has replaced the INC-1 form.Other features include:RUN form gives the option for only one name for the company, unlike INC-1 which had a provision of six options for the company’s name.RUN form doesn’t require any Director Identification Number (DIN) or a Digital Signature Certificate (DSC)The fees for RUN form is $15.7 (INR 1000), irrespective of whether the name is approved or notThe approved name is valid for up to 20 days and 60 days from the date of approval for a new company and an existing company, respectively.The proposed companies can apply for the reservation of name using the RUN form and they will be intimated of the approval by the MCA through email. However, it has been suggested that RUN form be used when there is an ambiguity about the name because of its similarity to existing companies or Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs).If the name is unique, a company can apply for the name directly with the SPICe form. This would save time and money for the applying company.e reservation - RUN. Registration fees (Government fees) has been removed.2. With reference to this blog “Zero Registration Fees”The Ministry has amended the fees payable to the Registrar to incorporate the companies.The Companies claimed the benefit of Zero Fees for incorporation shall maintain the status of small companies till one year. Therefore, the companies could not increase its Authorized Capital above INR 10 lakh within the span of 1 year from its incorporation.The fees payable to States were not reduced or eliminated i.e. the Stamp Duty on MoA and AoA of the companies would stay intact.Charges that remain in place are:Fee for Company Name ApplicationCompany Registration Fee (Based on Authorised Capital / Number of Members of the Company on Memorandum – Form No.INC-32-SPICe),Filing Fee for documents such as Memorandum of Association (Form No.INC-33-SPICe) and Articles of Association (Form No.INC-34-SPICe),Stamp duty payable to the state government on registration of Memorandum and Articles of Association based on authorized capital, declarations, affidavits etc.But the procedure to register a private limited company or an OPC still remains the same.

There’s a number of problems with the notation here that we need to get through.Firstly, the biggest problem is readability. The passage is incredibly difficult to read, it’s incredibly cluttered and horribly phrased unfortunately. The problems I can see for this are:Time signature - It’s incredibly rare and to be honest, it doesn’t seem practical. As composers we have to remember that we have to compromise our own creative desires for those of the performers. In this case, 36/16 seems incredibly pedantic and only clutters the notation.Alternatively, as you seemed to have grouped the notes in groups of six, you could make the time signature 6/16 or 12/16 instead. Or any time signature that can break the passage down without altering the rhythm of the piece.For instance, 6/16 compound time would work here because of the regular occurrence of dotted quavers. it would lend itself to that I think. Alternatively, the entire passage could be phrased in three bars of 12/16.Groupings - It’s terrible. No one will read that or be able to play it without having to analyse or group the notes mentally first.Personally, some of these tied chords could actually be expressed better in a simpler form. For example, if were to write the song in 12/16, we could phrase the bar a little bit like this…That makes it far easier to understand. Note, those aren’t brackets they’re just showing how I grouped the notes. I made sure to keep it even rather than odd.BA-ba-BA-ba-ba-ba-BA-ba-BA-ba-ba-baThis is irregular grouping of course. In basic theory they teach you that all notes must be grouped evenly - which his true- but as if with anything in music there’s exceptions to this.The exception here is that it makes far more sense to the eyes to group this bar in such a way. I don’t now if it would work for the whole passage, you’ll have to work that out yourself but realise that you can group notes differently if it makes the music less complicated for the player.With the tied notes, a good rule of thumb is that if you have a chord that is tied over three or more times in a bar (such as in bar 41 in your piece), it can probably be expressed in a simpler form. Not always but probably.Playability - A few things stand out to me here. Firstly, I hope the tempo is slow enough for me to play all those semiquavers! Secondly, you have the chord in the bass clef to start with (D flat and A flat) and then you tell the player to hold that chord for the whole bar, whilst also using the same hand to play D flat and A flat an octave higher.I think what you meant for the player to do here was use the pedal to sustain the chord and then quickly switch to the treble clef but still, it strikes me as being a little confusing.Personally, I would have just wrote the pedal mark because you don’t need to tell the player to sustain that chord for the whole bar - the pedal does it for you.This would also remove the need for those extra rests in the bass clef. They just cause clutter.Accidentals - It appears that you could use a key signature for this passage. Particularly the G flat major/E flat minor key signature and if you had split the passage into two or more bars, you could change the time signature on one of the bars.There’s a few natural symbols on the Fs near the end too. They don’t need to be there. More clutter.If it sounds good, that’s perfect. All you need to do now is work out how you’re going to make the score readable. I would personally start with the time signature, especially when that whole passage is begging to be split into two separate bars.As pictured below, one would wonder why this is all one bar. It seems more like two or three bars cramped together in one big bar. At the least, you could express this in two bars; one 12/16 and the other 24/16.So personally, I would start with the time signature. It seems to me like it’s over-complicating things just a smidge.So i know you asked for accidentals only, but personally I wouldn’t stop with accidentals - edit the whole bar! Make it easy to read and try to remove dome of the tied notes, or at least the tied notes that might throw musicians off.

There are 5 key challenges to government’s policy on going cashless in India:Tech literacy - even reasonably educated often get stumped with many of the technologies.Tech coverage - India’s cellular internet coverage [3G/4G] is not that good and so is the smartphone penetration.Financial inclusion - Many don’t have easy access to banks, ATMs, Point of Sale terminals etc.Transaction fees - the existing players like Visa and Mastercard charge exorbitant fees especially for smaller transactions.Enforcing tax rules - In India, most shopkeepers escape from paying taxes as the rules are complicated and taxes are high. Getting them to comply is going to be hard.Here are ways to tackle this:Remove all taxes & duties involved in the import and sale of smartphones & data gear.Incentivize the aggressive rollout of data coverage and increase the government funds for supporting cellular/satellite data coverage in remote areas.A one-time subsidy of Rs. 1000 to a rural poor to buy a smartphone complying with government’s rules on Aadhar & digital signatures. They could buy this with their Aadhar card and the manufacturers could be forced to pre-install UPI app [instead of their usual bloatware] with a firmware tied to the person’s Aadhar. Since the entry level smartphones could come down to Rs. 2000 with the scale and without the import duties, most poor people could afford this. How do you define a poor? Now, that demonetization is done, you know how much each person has in their bank accounts. Anyone who has deposited less than Rs. 25000 should qualify [in fact, all future subsidies should be based on this - as that would punish those who use their accounts to deposit other people’s money].Carrying your smartphone should be like carrying your id - used carefully and universally. That means women who are denied their phones [due to their local/family compulsions] will get the access too.Build a new app to access all government services in one place in their native language driven mostly by voice and icons. A person should be able to open up the app and access forms, get food rations, banking services etc. Have this app pre-installed in the government smartphones.Have the third app for reporting all kinds of issues with governance with location tracking- school closed, ration rice not available, road broken, drainage issues etc. This app again comes pre-installed and the data from this should be audited by a separate government body and data should be made available to all.Have free wifi & usb charging stations in all ration shops, post offices, railway stations and other government offices. A person coming to do transaction with the government could be encouraged right there to use their new smartphone to buy train unreserved tickets, food rations, postal stamps etc. Cut the existing counters by half and use the staff to teach the people coming in.Embark on a massive tech literacy program. Rope in companies that can go around rural India and teach people basics of Internet, e-commerce and mobile wallets with their new smartphone. Emphasize the importance of passwords and secrets. Most in rural India can get it quite intuitively if told properly. Maybe a subsidy of Rs. 100 per person in rural India for the basic class.For the first year of that new person’s smartphone usage, the government could subsidize their basic data plan - say Rs. 30/month. You can rope in companies like Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Paytm, Ibibo and Flipkart to foot in part of the budget for this [with no strings attached on what sites they could use].For any mobile payment transaction below Rs. 100 there should be no transaction fees by law and banks should be asked to bear the costs. The shopkeepers who still don’t accept cards after that time could be reported for tax evasion.Have a separate fund for improving online security. The government should insure all the poor in this new plan to avoid them being liable for hacks and data thefts. They should also fund new encryption algorithms and end to end security of transactions.The government should plan this so aggressively that it should achieve all this by the end of 2017. It is ambitious, but possible. The budget is less about Rs. 80000 crores [40 crore rural poor * Rs. 2000 for the total cost of all subsidies above] and could be easily paid with the RBI’s profits from demonetization [even if 95% of black money comes back to the banks].Imagine having the rural poor able to use their new smartphones for better news access, weather coverage for farming, getting notification on impending disasters like cyclones, access education programs, access all government forms, get government loans that they qualify for etc. Imagine that world and all of that is within hand’s signNow.It is the beginning of a new India. Jai Hind!See other India dreams here: India Dreams Collection by Balaji Viswanathan

Algorithm for starting a Private Limited Company: Engineer's View Personally I believe, If someone is starting a company with long term perspective or to bring some change through their unique Product/Services, one must go for Private limited firm. Prime reason for this is easy to raise funds from Angels/VC in case you go for investment. Step 1. Registration of Company 1. Name Selection: Check whether your desired company name is available or not at MCA website [ http://www.mca.gov.in/ ]. Name must be unique & must resemble with business you intend to do (highlighted one). EX: Arihant Labs Retail Services Pvt. Ltd 2. Registration of Name at ROC: Name approval usually takes maximum of 14 days. This is done online through MCA website. Moreover, you need to apply with at least 4 names for approval with a writeup about significance of names with main business of the company. 3. 1. Documents Required: 2. 1. Options for names for the proposed Company (on the basis of preference) 2. Amount of Share Capital; proposed shareholding ratio 3. A paragraph on the proposed major line of business of the company (main objects) 4. City of Registered Office. 5. Copy of ownership deed/sale deed(if property is owned) 6. Copy of rent agreement with NOC (if property is rented) 7. Copy of latest electricity bill/telephone bill/mobile bill for both directors 8. Copy of latest electric bill/telephone bill for the registered office proof. 4. Obtaining DIN & DSC: 5. 1. Documents Required 2. 1. PAN Card copies for directors and shareholders. 2. Voter ID/Passport/Driving License for directors and shareholders. 3. Occupation of the Directors for directors and shareholders. 4. E-Mail IDs of all directors and shareholders. 5. Phone Numbers for all directors and shareholders. 6. Photos for directors and shareholders 6. Company Incorporation: After above mentioned formalities have been completed, we need to file following forms/docs in Rs 100 stamp paper: 7. 1. Affidavits for non- acceptance 2. INC 9, INC 10 3. DIR 2 4. NOC : This is required to be filed by the owner of the property on which your company will be situated. 5. Subscriber Sheets of MOA & AOA 6. Documents required for filling MOA & AOA 7. 1. Must be filled on OWN handwriting 2. Passport size photos 3. Sheets needs to be witnessed by CA/CS/Advocate Step 2. Obtaining PAN/TAN: After company gets incorporated, you may apply for PAN/TAN. Step 3. Trade Licence in case you are selling PRODUCTS: This is required in some places for carrying out sales. You can obtain this from local Municipality. Step 4. VAT/CST registration for selling Products: For selling intra-state, you need VAT registration & for selling inter-state, you need to register for CST. 1. Documents Required: 2. 1. Trade Licence 2. Company Incorporation Certificate 3. PAN card of company as well as of all the directors 4. Proof of residence of Directors 5. Proof of occupancy of place of business (Rent agreement/ ownership deed, Rent Bills etc) 6. MOA & AOA of company 7. Current Account in the name of company in any national bank Step 5. Service tax registration for Service Industry: In India, you need to pay service tax of 14.5% on every services you have charged customer for. 1. Documents Required: 2. 1. Company Incorporation Certificate 2. PAN card of company as well as of all the directors 3. Proof of residence of Directors 4. Proof of occupancy of place of business (Rent agreement/ ownership deed, Rent Bills etc) 5. MOA & AOA of company 6. Current Account in the name of company in any national bank That's All folks! Your STARTUP is up to Conquer the World. UPVOTE & SHARE your views/issues We at labkafe [ http://labkafe.com/ ], prefer taxmantra [ http://taxmantra.com/ ] for our legal requirements.

Cracked versions of software are created with the use of debuggers. (A debugger is a special type of software that lets programmers deconstruct their software into its constituent parts for the purpose of finding bugs, and thus de-bugging. Additionally debuggers can be used for reverse-engineering, or to see what is inside the software, to learn its logic. The latter method is used mostly by malware researchers to study what malware (or computer viruses) do on-the-inside. But it can be also used by an attacker to "crack" (or bypass) legal software registration, or at times, to alter normal behavior of software, for instance by injecting a malicious code into it.)For the sake of this example, I will assume that the software that is being "cracked" was compiled into a native code, and is not a .NET or a JavaScript based application. (Otherwise it will be somewhat trivial to view its source code.) The compiled native code is a bit more tricky "beast" to study. (Native means that the code executes directly by the CPU, GPU, or other hardware.)So let's assume that the goal of an attacker is to bypass the registration logic in the software so that he or she doesn't have to pay for it. (Later for lolz, he or she may also post such "crack" on some shady online forum or on a torrent site so that others can "use" it too and give him or her their appreciation.)For simplicity let's assume that the original logic that was checking for the software registration was written in C++ and was something similar to the following code snippet:In this code sample "RegistrationName" and "RegistrationCode" are special strings of text that a legitimate software user will receive after paying for the license. (The name is usually that person's actual name or their email address, and the code is some string of unique/special characters that is tied to the name.)In the logic above, the function named "isRegistrationCodeGood()" will check if "RegistrationName" and "RegistrationCode" are accepted using some proprietary method. If they are, it will return true. Otherwise false. That outcode will dictate which branch (or scope) the execution will follow.So the logic above will either show that registration failed and quit:Or, if the registration code and name matched, it will save the registration details in persistent storage (such as the File System or System Registry) using the function named "rememberRegistrationParameters()" and then display the message thanking the user for registering:A "cracker" will obviously want to achieve the second result for any registration code that he or she enters. But they have a problem. They do not have the C++ source code, part of which I showed above. (I hope not!)So the only recourse for an attacker is to disassemble the binary code (that always ships with software in the form of .exe and .dll files on Windows, and mostly as Unix executables inside the .app packages on a Mac.) An attacker will then use a debugger to study the binary code and try to locate the registration logic that I singled out above.Next you can see the flowchart for a snippet of code that I showed in C++, presented via a low-level debugger. Or, as the code will be read in the binary form after compilation:(For readability I added comments on the right with the names of functions and variables. They will not be present in the code that an attacker could see.)(To understand what is shown above an attacker will have to have good knowledge of the Assembly language instructions for the native code.)I also need to point out that having a disassembly snippet like the one above is the final result for an attacker. The main difficulty for him or her is to locate it among millions and millions of other similar lines of code. And that is their main challenge. Not many people can do it and that is why software "cracking" is a special skill.So having found the code snippet above in the software binary file a "cracker" has two choices:1) Modify (or patch) the binary.2) Reverse-engineer the "isRegistrationCodeGood()" function and copy its logic to create what is known as a "KeyGen" or "Key Generator."Let's review both:The first choice is quite straightforward. Since an attacker got this far, he or she knows the Intel x64 Instruction Set quite well. So they simply change the conditional jump from "jnz short loc_7FF645671430" at the address 00007FF645671418 (circled in red in the screenshots) to unconditional jump, or "jmp short loc_7FF645671430". This will effectively remove any failed registration code entries and anything that the user types in will be accepted as a valid registration.Also note that this modification can be achieved by changing just one byte in the binary code from 0x75 to 0xEB:But this approach comes with a "price" of modifying the original binary file. For that an attacker needs to write his own "patcher" (or a small executable that will apply the modification that I described above.) The downside of this approach for an attacker is that patching an original executable file will break its digital signature, which may alert the end-user or the vendor. Additionally the "patcher" executable made by an attacker can be easily flagged and blocked by the end-user's antivirus software, or lead criminal investigators to the identity of the attacker.The second choice is a little bit more tricky. An attacker will have to study "isRegistrationCodeGood()" function and copy it into his own small program that will effectively duplicate the logic implemented in the original software and let him generate the registration code from any name, thus giving any unscrupulous user of that software an ability to register it without making a payment.Vendors of many major software products understand the potential impact of the second method and try to prevent it by requiring what is known as "authentication." This is basically a second step after registration, where the software submits registration name to the company's web server that returns a response back to the software of whether the code was legitimate or not. This is done by Microsoft when you purchase Windows (they call it "Activate Windows") and also by signNow, and many other companies. This second step may be done behind-the-scenes on the background while the software is running, and will usually lead to cancellation of prior registration if it was obtained illegally.So now you know how software is "cracked".Let me answer why it is not possible to prevent it. It all boils down to the fact that any software code needs to be read either by CPU (in case of a binary native code) or by an interpreter or a JIT compiler (in case of JavaScript or .NET code.) This means that if there's a way to read/interpret something, no matter how complex or convoluted it is, an attacker with enough knowledge and persistence will be able to read it as well, and thus break it.There is an argument though that cloud-based software is more secure, which is true, since its (binary) code remains on the server and end-users do not have direct access to it. And even though cloud-based software is definitely the future, it has some major drawbacks that will never allow it to fully replace your conventional software. To name just a few:Not everyone has an internet connection, or is willing to upload their data online. Additionally someone’s internet connection can be very expensive or too slow to make the software run very laggy.Then there’s a question of distributed computing. For instance, Blizzard Entertainment would never make “World of Warcraft” to fully run on their servers due to immense computational resources needed to render every single scene for every player they have. Thus it is in their best interest to let each individual user’s computer to do the rendering instead.As a software developer myself, I obviously don't like when people steal software licenses. But I have to accept it and live with it. The good news is that there are not that many people who are willing to go extra mile and search for a cracked version of software. The main problem for those who do, is that by downloading a patched executable, or an attacker's KeyGen or a Patcher, they are effectively "trusting" him or her not to put anything "nasty" into it that was not "advertised on the package" (stuff like trojans, malware, or keyloggers.) So the question for those people becomes -- is it worth the cost of the software license to potentially infect your system with a nasty virus?On the other side of the equation, some developers react very negatively to any attempts to steal their software licenses. (I was there too.) They try to implement all kinds of countermeasures -- anything from tricking reverse-engineers, to adding booby traps in the code that may do something nasty if the code detects that it is being debugged, to obfuscating or scrambling the code, to enforcing all kinds of convoluted DRM schemes, to blocking users from certain countries. I personally try to stay away from all of those measures. And here's why:A) Any kind of anti-reverse-engineering tactics could be bypassed by an attacker with enough persistence. So why bother and waste my time when I can invest that time into adding something useful to my software that will make it more productive for legitimate users?B) Some code packers could create false positives with antivirus software, which is obviously not good for marketing of that software. It also creates unnecessary complexity for the developer to debug the software.C) Adding booby traps in the code can also “misfire” on your legitimate users, which will really infuriate them and can even lead to lawsuits.D) Any DRM scheme will probably catch some 100 illegal users and greatly inconvenience 10,000 legitimate ones. So why do it to your good customers?E) Our statistics show that about 75% of all illegal licenses come from China, Russia, Brazil, to name the worst offenders. (I also understand that the reason may be much lower incomes that people have in those countries.) The main issue for us though was the fact that if we enforce our DRM or add some strong registration authentication, many people that wanted to bypass our registration would simply use a stolen credit card number. And we had no control over it. Our system will use it to send them a legitimate license only to have the payment bounce in weeks time. As a result we would lose the money that were paid for the license, plus the credit card company will impose an additional chargeback fee to our account, which may range from $0.25 to $20 per bad purchase on top of the license cost.F) As was pointed out in the comments, some companies may actually benefit from allowing pirated copies of their software. Microsoft for instance gets a lot of free publicity from people using their Windows OS, the same goes for signNow with their Photoshop. That is a good point that I agree with.So my philosophy is now this -- if someone wants to go extra mile and steal our software, go for it! They went this far to do it anyway, so they probably have a good reason. On the positive side there are so many other customers that appreciate the work that goes into creating software that greatly outnumber those that don’t.PS. Thank you for all your feedback! It makes me feel good that the knowledge I shared is useful to others.

There are plenty of practicals of programming language design (I think Adrian Ho’s answer is great in talking about this), but, to me, the most important thing to consider is that, eventually, your programming language will have to be used by people.Most (if not all) programming languages ignore this, and they come up with these beautiful mathematical foundations… and then people just ignore them and use it in ways the designers did not predict because the costs using it “the right way” are way too damn high (in a huge part because they never ran any usability study with actual humans).I’ll go through a couple of examples of this.Consider Java. When designing the language they thought that it would be great for reasoning about programs if the possible exceptions every operation could raise was expressed directly in the signature (known as “checked exceptions”). They were right about that. Exceptions bubble up all the way through your dynamic call stack, so you can’t know what to expect by just reading the operation’s source code. And you need to know the ways in which your program can fail if you want to build software that is resistant to errors.So checked exceptions are a great idea. They’re solving a real problem people have. The mathematical model for it is pretty solid. Yet a ton of Java programmers are extremely dissatisfied with them. To the point most other languages would never consider this feature even though it’s a good feature.The problem in Java is that they did not run usability studies. They did not think about things like “if we have a huge codebase, and this code is used by thousands of other projects, and I add this exception to this one operation, what happens?” What happens is that everyone’s code breaks, which is an unacceptable cost for any software. It may take months to years of work from people you don’t even know to get each piece of software to work again. So, instead of relying on this great feature for reasoning, people choose to take the costs of poor static reasoning by using less fine-grained exceptions, relying more on unchecked exceptions, etc.Note that this doesn’t mean that checked exceptions are bad. THEY’RE GREAT. They’re an amazing feature for static reasoning, and every programming language out there should support this task (static reasoning). The problem with Java’s implementation is in the costs for actual humans using the language. It’s in how humans write software collaboratively. In how software codebases evolve over time. In how we don’t really control every single piece of code we use. These costs were not considered when people decided to implement checked exceptions in Java the way they did.Now let’s consider another programming language with this very same feature: Frank[1] . Frank is a language where not only the exceptions are checked. EVERY EFFECT IS. If a function mutates a variable, its signature will have to say that it mutates a variable. If it sends a request over the network, its signature will have to say that. From just looking at the signature in Frank you know not only how an operation may fail, but all of the things that it or the functions it calls may do.You’d think that this would be a disaster. After all, if you add a simple piece of code to log some information, you’ll effectively change the signatures of all operations that call that function through any amount of indirection. If you change F, which is called by G, which is called by H, which is called by Main, then all of these functions would break.Yet, things work perfectly in Frank. It has none of the problems Java has. If you add new things to an operation that has a thousand of callers, none of those callers need any changes. But your IDE will now show all of the additional things all those thousand functions can do/how they can fail. If you remove things from an operation, only the callers that depended on those things will need changes—and this is good, because they’d break at runtime anyway.Frank allows this through the amazing power of type inference. The compiler does all of this work for you, and you get all of the benefits. Everyone’s happy, because the costs of maintaining and evolving software are now much lower. People feel like they can use the features, and it won’t end up just being a burden in the future.Now let’s talk about where Frank goes wrong. Indeed being able to get the benefits of static reasoning without paying a huge price for it is great. But in real code bases there’s usually a lot of code that never gets ran. You add a lot of dependencies, and you might use 5% of their functions, but if any of the 95% you don’t use have a problem your code won’t compile. You won’t be able to ship, even though the problematic code will never get executed—it would have never been a problem!Sadly, all static programming languages have this problem. They require that all of the code you’ve included is consistent according to the type system rules, even if you don’t use most of it. That’s not only an unreasonable cost to pay, but it’s not even a predictable cost. How would you know that this obscure function in a library you’ve only included for one of its data structures has a type error? You don’t even care, for Christ’s sake.Now, again, type checking is a good feature. And I think a lot more people agree with this one than with checked exceptions. After all, type systems prevent a lot of problems that would be much more costly if we left them to be found in production. But, still, why do we have to pay for things that we don’t even care about or use? We don’t buy the entire supermarket when doing grocery shopping.Some people realised this, and they’ve worked on a gradual typing theory. This means that your type system allows your program to be only partially correct—if the pieces you use are correct, that’s really all that matters, you should be able to run or ship it. But you don’t really have to give up all of those other benefits for this, like you would in a dynamically typed language. You can still have your cake and eat it. Hazel[2] is an example of this.This happens a lot with security too, so let’s talk about that. JavaScript introduced a construct called Template Literals[3] . The idea comes from Quasi-Literals[4] in E, which in turn comes from Quasi-Quotation in Lisps. And it’s a brilliant idea—and as you may have been expecting by now, poorly executed.See, we have a lot of security issues in software that comes from people not using structured data formats[5] . SQL injections happen because people are putting strings together to form SQL queries. Shell injections happen because people are putting strings together to form Shell commands. HTML injections (XSS) happen because people are putting strings together to form HTML pages.This makes it seem that strings are evil, but the problem here is not strings per se. If you look at what people are doing in the places that have these security vulnerabilities there are two common themes:They want to build complex components from simpler parts. The usual case with templating in HTML involves things like “include this header here”, for example. In SQL it could be “include this filter in the WHERE clause, but only if that condition is fulfilled.”They want to include information that they don’t control in the components. For example, the text the user sent in a search input could be included in a WHERE clause to find things containing it.Both of these are very valid use cases, so it’s not like people are just creating security vulnerabilities for the fun of it. Both of these cases still happen with experienced programmers, and they’re equally ridden with security vulnerabilities, so it’s not a problem with experience either. These two cases also happen in all programming languages, so it’s not like some programming language is forcing these on people either—people want to do this.Interestingly, even though people’re doing this same thing in Lisp dialects, the vulnerabilities seem to happen less frequently. Conversely, it happens very frequently in PHP. We do need to keep in mind PHP is very popular, while Lisp dialects are not. The Lisp community can’t represent the PHP community, nor the programming community at large. But it’s still interesting; after all, people are writing systems that use databases in both languages.One difference between Lisp dialects and PHP is that Lisp dialects tend to represent everything with structured data (S-expressions-based). While using S-expressions, combining data always preserves the composition rules.For example, if you have “(select table (where (gt 'id x)))”, it doesn’t matter what the variables “table” and “x” contain, they won’t be able to arbitrarily change your query. You can’t just make “table = ‘* FROM user; DROP TABLE user’” and hope that it’ll work. The likelihood is low because only one person has to get the query implementation right—the person who implements the SQL library. The people creating queries (and thus dealing with the two “wants” above) don’t have to care. They just can’t possibly get it wrong. And the cost of using it is really low, so there’s no reason to look for alternative ways of achieving the same thing.In PHP your database library expects a String, and it’s very usual to find people building strings like: “SELECT * FROM “ . $table . “ WHERE id > “ . $x. The attack above now works, because you have to guarantee that your textual composition is correct every time you do it. The people who implemented the SQL library can’t help you.The costs keep growing because every composition, every context, requires special attention. People aren’t good with things that require a lot of attention all the time. They might get it wrong when they’re trying to fix a production bug at 00:00 because something else broke and they have to bring the system back really quickly. They might get it wrong because they didn’t get enough sleep last night. Or because they had a fight with their spouse. Or because their grandfather passed away. There’ll always be something that affects people’s attention, and we can’t rely on it for security. So, the cost can’t be there.And this is why template strings are such a great idea. They give people exactly what they’re familiar with when using strings—you can keep writing your SQL queries like you used to, mostly. But at the same time gives us the same properties Lisp libraries have when using structured data. We don’t have to care about composition rules anymore. When we write something like:sql`SELECT * FROM $table WHERE id > $x` We only have to rely on the person who wrote the “sql” function getting it right. Only one person has to get it right. And they don’t have to implement that under stress or emotional pressure or whatever!Yet, it doesn’t work in JavaScript. And it doesn’t happen for three simple reasons:JavaScript has a string interpolation syntax. You can write `SELECT * FROM $table WHERE id > $x`. This has the same semantics as the PHP example, which means it’s every bit as problematic for humans. But it’s also more straightforward to write than the tagged version, which is safer. The cost of writing secure code is higher than writing potentially vulnerable one.There’s no “sql” function in the standard library. I think they did consider adding common implementations of these in the standard library, but they never did. Rolling your own parser is a lot of work. Not everyone has learned how to write parsers and compilers. And a lot of people’d approach it with things like Yacc or Bison. While things like Miller’s Quasi Parser Generator would reduce this cost, it’s still a unlikely that people will choose to write a parser for SQL instead of just concatenating strings and hoping for the best.All database libraries in JavaScript accept strings for the query, instead of structured data, so using strings is much cheaper for the developer.As a result, the tagged variant of String Templates in JavaScript is hardly ever used by programmers. It doesn’t feel like it’s solving a problem (even though it is). It is very cumbersome to use, compared to just naive concatenation with untagged templates. And all libraries already encourage using strings anyway.I could go on, but this is already too long, and you get the idea :’)So, to summarise:Think about how humans will use your programming language.Think about what it means to use your features in terms of costs for humans, not just for computers. Thinking about execution performance and memory is great, but think about the human cost as well.Footnotes[1] Do be do be do[2] Hazel, a live functional programming environment featuring typed holes.[3] Template literals (Template strings)[4] QuasiLiterals[5] The Importance Of Being Typed

New Changes Introduced Last YearOn the proposal of Union Health Ministry, MCI approved several changes in the NEET UG entrance exam. Below we have listed the new changes introduced last year:Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have joined 15% All India Quota scheme. Candidates of these states need not to submit Self Declaration form now.Aadhaar Card is also not compulsory to fill the NEET Application. But, candidates have to required any ID proof to apply for the exam.Indian candidates those wish to pursue MBBS/BDS in foreign nationals, they have qualify NEET UG exam.The attempt limit has been removed from the last year. Now, candidates may attempt the NEET untill the age limit as per their categories.NIOS or State Open School or private candidates’ are not eligible to NEET exam.There will be one set for question paper in all languages.As per officials the exam will be bilingual (except language chosen in English).NTA will set up 3,000 practice centres for NEET UG examination from August 2018. It will function on saturdays and sundays & candidates will get around an hour to practice.NEET 2019 Exam DateIn the table given below, candidates can check official NEET Exam dates:NEET 2019 Application FormCandidates should fill the application form as per the instructions given in the information bulletin. Below we are providing NEET 2019 application form details:The application form will be issued through online mode only.No application will be entertained through offline mode.NEET UG registration 2019 will be commenced from the 1st October 2018 (Feb Exam) & second week of March 2018 (May Exam).Candidates should upload the scanned images of recent passport size photograph and signature.After filling the application form completely, a confirmation page will be generated. Download it.There will be no need to send the printed confirmation page to the board.Application Fee:Check Here – How to Fill NEET 2019 Application FormNEET UG Application Correction:One time opportunity will be provided by the board to make correction in the applications. Details regarding NEET application correction are mentioned below:Corrections can be done only through online mode.Correction facility will be provided in the first week of November 2018 (Feb Exam) & third week of April 2018 (May Exam).Candidates will be intimated through e-mail/SMS regarding correction in photograph and signature. The same will be available in the candidate‟s login account.Candidates can also make corrections in particular fields like:Date of birthIdentification IdentityGenderState code of eligibilityCategoryMedium of exam paperDisability statusExamination CenterQualifying Examination Code & Percentage (%) of Marks Obtained in Class 12thParents Name (Father’s & Mother’s)In case of any additional fee, candidates can pay through debit/credit card and net banking.NEET UG Eligibility CriteriaStudents must check their eligibility before filling the application form. Candidates can check the detailed NEET 2019 eligibility criteria from below:Age Limit:Candidates must have completed the age of 17 years.The maximum age limit will be 25 years (30 years for SC/ST & OBC).Nationality:Indian Nationals, Non Resident Indians (NRIs), Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs), Overseas Citizen of India (OCIs) & Foreign Nationals are eligible to apply for NEET UG.Candidates belong to J&K state will be eligible to apply for 15% All India Quota on the basis of self declaration.Adhaar Card Mandate:Aadhar number is not mandatory to apply for NEET exam.J&K, Assam & Meghalaya candidates can also apply by providing their passport number, ration card number, bank account number or any other valid Government ID number.NRI candidates can apply by Adhaar Card number or Passport Number.PIO, OCI & Foreign nationals candidates can apply by Passport Number.Qualification Eligibility:QualifyingExamStudents must have passed 10+2 or equivalent exam.Appearing CandidatesStudents appearing in the qualifying exam are also eligible.SubjectsIn the qualifying exam, students should have physics, chemistry, biology/bio-technology with English as compulsory subject.PercentageCriteriaMinimum 50% marks for general, 45% marks for PH and 40% marksfor SC/ST candidates in the PCB group.Also Check:NEET 2019 Qualification CodesNEET 2019 Rules & Dress CodeNEET 2019 Exam PatternBelow we are providing the details about NEET 2019 exam pattern:Date of Exam: The exam will be organized on 3rd February to 17th February 2019 (Feb exam) & 12th May to 26th May 2019 (May Exam).Mode of Exam: The exam will be organized through computer based (online) mode.Type of Questions: There will be objective typequestions in the exam.Duration: The exam duration will be of three hours.Number of Questions: Total 180 questions will be asked.Language: The question paper will be asked in Hindi, English, Gujarati, Marathi, Oriya, Bengali, Assamese, Telugu, Tamil, Urdu and Kananda languages.Marking Scheme: For each correct answer, four marks will be given.Negative Marking: For each incorrect answer, one mark will be deducted.How to Prepare for NEET UG 2019A good preparation for NEET UG exam will help students to achieve good rank in the examination. Candidates can follow the NEET 2019 preparations tipsgiven below:Firstly, candidates should create a study scheduleand give equal time to all the subjects.Never prepare long hours of study in schedule also includes short intervals of rest.Students should prepare as per the officially prescribed syllabus and exam pattern.Candidates should focus in the weak topics of the syllabus and work hard on them.Practice from previous year question papers it will help you to know the exam pattern.Also take care of your health while preparing for exams.Take healthy and nutritious diet and avoid junk foods.ALL THE BEST ✌️✌️

Einstein didn’t show that Black Holes exist. In fact, he even rejected the idea. It was his big mistake.The first person to show that General Relativity can have singular solution (i.e. the theory can produce a gravitational singularity) at the center of a spherical region of spacetime with very high energy density was Karl Schwarzschild.Just within 3 months after Einstein published General Relativity, Schwarzschild found out a solution of Einstein Field Equations of General Relativity for non-rotating massive spherically-symmetric object. The result is called Schwarzschild’s metric.Deriving the Schwarzschild solution - WikipediaIn Schwarzschild coordinates, with signature (1, −1, −1, −1), the line element for the Schwarzschild metric has the form:where,when dτ^2 is positive, τ is the proper time (time measured by a clock moving along the same world line with the test particle),c is the speed of light,t is the time coordinate (measured by a stationary clock located infinitely far from the massive body),r is the radial coordinate (measured as the circumference, divided by 2π, of a sphere centered around the massive body),θ is the colatitude (angle from north, in units of radians),φ is the longitude (also in radians), andr_s is the Schwarzschild radius of the massive body, a scale factor which is related to its mass M by r_s = 2GM/c2 where G is the gravitational constant.at very large r, (1- r_s/r) ~ 1. So, dτ^2= dt^2- dr^2- (angular part)This is the metric for flat spacetime (in polar co-ordinate).At r~r_s (i.e. close to Schwarzschild radius), we can show the spacetime is still (approximately) flat. We have to take r-r_s= Ɛ for a co-ordinate transformation and the Schwarzschild metric turns out to be flat spacetime metric. So the spacetime is locally approximately flat in the vicinity of the gravitating object.at r=r_s i.e. exactly at Schwarzschild radius, co-efficient of dt is zero (although co-efficient of dr blows up i.e. there is apparently a singularity). But it can be shown that nothing dramatic happens physically at this point. A certain co-ordinate transformation (Kruskal-Szekeres co-ordinate) makes this point non-singular.There is something very interesting happen when an object passes r_s from outside (r> r_s) to inside (r0 means X>T (i.e. in-falling object which is outside Schwarzschild radius is in 1st quadrant i.e ‘right’ quadrant). r-r_s=Ɛ<0 means T>X (i.e. in-falling object which is inside Schwarzschild radius is in 2nd quadrant i.e. ‘up’ quadrant).So, if the in-falling astronaut moves along negative X direction, signNowing the origin, he has to move along positive T direction. So Ɛ goes from being a space co-ordinate to time co-ordinate!This means, the object that once passed the Schwarzschild radius moves towards r=0 in time. Time can’t run backward. So the object can’t return and MUST signNow r=0.Finally the object signNowes r=0.Here, at r=0, (in Schwarzschild metric) dτ^2= infinity. dt^2 We have got another singular point. No clever co-ordinate transformation can remove it from the theory unlike that at r_s we faced earlier which was just due to choice of co-ordinate and transforming into a different co-ordinate could remove it.The proper time (the invariant measurement of spacetime) becomes infinite. That means the curvature of spacetime and hence the tidal gravity becomes infinite. Something very nasty is happening at this point. This is our actual Gravitational singularity at the center of the region. The Hawking-Penrose theorem shows that the Geodesic (shortest path an in-falling object follows in a Gravitational field) abruptly ends at this point. It means the in-falling object is doomed signNowing this point. What actually happens here is unknown. Physics couldn't yet solve it.Now let’s summarize the entire scenario:1) At large r, spacetime is flat.2) At very close to r_s, spacetime is still approximately flat3) Just passing r_s, spacelike co-ordinate becomes time-like. Object must go towards r=0 once it passes r_s. 4) At r=0, spacetime ends and the in-falling object is doomed.What does it look like? Yes, it’s a Black Hole in spacetime! r_s is the Event Horizon.Penrose diagram for ‘right’ and ‘up’ quadrant where an in-falling object in universe ends signNowing the singularity:This is a light cone in flat spacetime (trajectory of light in spacetime):Light moves along the cone (45 degree angle). Any object can’t go out of this cone and moves with any angle with the time axis but not more than 45 degree. The light cone gradually bends and bends in curved spacetime and eventually the cone overlaps time axis signNowing the Event horizon:So even light cannot get out of the event horizon.Thus according to General Relativity, the Black Hole is Black.

The people who are deciding educational curriculum are short sighted enough to think so. But it’s not just about writing one’s name. Not knowing cursive means they cant read it either. Which means they won’t be able to read historic documents. Future generations will be unable to access the original Declaration if Independence and US Constitution and Bill of Rights because they are in ‘cursive’. It’s like returning to the middle ages when the Catholic clergy were the only ones literate enough to read the Christian bible. The masses had to rely on them to tell them what was in the bible. And now the future masses are going to have to rely on the literate minority once again.Its a huge step backward socially and intellectually, isn’t it?Because future generations will in majority be beholden to the minority if their homeschooled and private schooled peers who are still being taught to do cursive. The argument is that writing isn’t necessary because everyone types now.But what happens if the electric grid goes down? What happens if electronics are sabotaged or cease to work?Typing is impossible and no one can write. The world is in trouble.