I'd emphasize the value in learning a language that's widely available. C isn't an ideal starter language, but it is a useful and practical language. It's not very user friendly for beginners, but it's not likely that the average user is going to outgrow the functionality of C.
I see a lot of recommendations for Ruby, Python, and much more obscure languages. As a point of reference, I looked at one of the Unix boxes that I don't run at work. I like to provide useful tools so developers can choose the right tool for the job. Not everyone takes such an enlightened view of tool selection. The box I don't administer has C, Java, and Perl. It does not have PHP, Python or Ruby. It also doesn't have emacs. While it's ok to have an emacs vs vi preference, you better know enough vi to get around. This is a Sun E25K supporting hundreds of users for a large company. This may not be representative of what systems students would end up with accounts on, but I don't think it's uncommon to run across systems that don't have utilities/languages I install on my machines.
Even though this is a flame, it's a common and legitimate criticism. If we want this stuff to be accepted by non-geeks, we have to recognize how painful this can be for people who haven't been doing it since the dawn of time.
As a unix sysadmin, I know exactly what he means. The only difference is that I also happen to know how to find config files and can make some educated guesses as to what to try.
In defense of the existing methodology, many of us have been doing this stuff so long that we forgot what it's like to sit in front of a computer and not know what to do next. We don't think twice about putting stuff in a config file or some other esoteric place.
It is if you have to aggregate desire and turn it into dollars before it can become action. Of course, enough people have to communicate the same set of requirements in a way that it's understood that a group of people are asking for particular functionality.
This process is a little too esoteric and slow for some, so they just do it. This is one of the cases where one lone lunatic can make a difference. A lot of the really good ideas, like virtual memory came from people who could just sit down and solve a problem without having to convince anyone else first. Try coming up with a business case for virtual memory in a world where it doesn't exist. The value of most really innovative ideas isn't realized until long after they have been implemented.
A base education in any field combined with understanding software design and implementation is good. People who call themselves programmers are a dime a dozen. People who can go from a user's description of a problem and turn it into a fully functional solution are still in demand.
I had not been involved with the spamming, so "justified" would be a stretch. However, I was well aware that everyone in the building would be collateral damage if attacked. They made a point of not having any identifying information on the building and emphasizing that the glass was bulletproof and all doors must be closed at all times. Apparently this had previously been a problem at some point. I left because they harshed my chi.
The important thing to realize is that "justified" means nothing. If you're dead, you're dead, and that's that. You don't get a do-over if you didn't earn it.
Yes, human life has lost all sanctity. He would do far worse to you without so noble of a reason. It would be nice if we lived in a world where everyone could treat each other with courtesy and respect. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who won't hesitate to kill you for little to no reason. Maybe I'm biased, but I'm inclined to think that this guy was probably not the courtesy and respect type.
I'm tired of all of the faux concern for humanity that gives sociopathic predators endless opportunities to victimize the kind of people who don't do this kind of stuff.
The legal system has failed to respond time and time again. Someone else responded using another system. The legal process is just one of the available systems. I believe it's the one with the least interest in those it claims to protect and most resistant to change. I've seen first hand its indifference to violent crimes, so I understand how little that system helps anyone.
I could not vote to convict someone for this type of crime in good conscience. I believe spamming is a sociopathic behavior with an impact on a large segment of society. I've had to maintain systems that get targeted by spammers. The mantra "just hit delete" may work for people who get one or two here or there, but it's very different for people who get several thousand a day and maintain servers that these criminals attack. Spamming is a behavior that should be discouraged. I have a hard time condemning someone doing something about it. Most spammers are into things far worse than spam, so there's probably something more serious than spam that caused this outcome.
These people are predators. There is nothing they won't do to make relatively little money. For a short time I worked for a company who did this stuff and word on the street was they had people killed for interfering with their business.
You put your faith in a system that does not work for everyone. Hopefully you'll never need to see how poorly it works in the real world.
I don't buy the "couple minutes". If you only show up 2 hours early to an airport, it's your own fault if you don't get through the lines in time. There are significant amounts of time being taken from a large number of people. If there were something that made this worthwhile, it may be justified. However, I don't accept that random searches for any contraband are a worthwhile purpose. We're turning the outside world into another prison and getting nothing for it. I don't believe this will make anyone the slightest bit safer. Do you?
You don't have to keep up on the laws of the other 49 states, but you will be liable for any violations you commit. Do not call lists come from an overly aggressive marketing industry having interests that directly conflict with consumers. The laws have been passed because the consumers have demanded it of their legislators. Businesses do not have a right that everything be convenient. In fact, most laws create an additional burden on businesses. This is exactly what they are intended to do.
The cat's already out of the bag with regards to who owns your personal data. Hint: it's not you.
If you don't like these things, give them bad information. Memorize the address of a crack house and the phone number of your local police department's fraud bureau. Nobody checks this information before reselling it. The more the databases are poisoned, the less value the data will have.
They don't believe it, but that won't stop them. They'll say these things, but they know very well that it has nothing to do with helping the consumer. In fact, it's very much the opposite.
Are you familiar with the concept of targeted marketing? The "customer" is very much considered a victim to be attacked from the marketing perspective. The goal of targeted marketing is to maximize the body count. You're a wallet with their money as far as they're concerned.
I think the problem is that the scale is misunderstood. Most people seem to give about 5% on average, so the person who is dedicated to working half the time is actually 10x more productive.
I don't know if two wrongs make a right, but I do know that spammers are vermin. They only care about making a quick buck by scamming people. They don't care about what is right. Being constrained by what is right ensures failure.
I decide who is bad or good. It doesn't matter who leads the mob, that person must be expendable anyway.
I don't live in that world. A solution that cannot be implemented isn't a solution. Is the goal to have everyone fantasize of a world where everyone is happy? I'd rather make the world I'm stuck with a little less miserable, even if that means having to bite off much smaller chunks.
Public education provides exactly what most people want to pay for. Those individuals who have the ability and desire to better themselves can do so with whatever resources they can scrape together. Those who are only willing to do the minimum required of them will never amount to much, so why waste too much money on them?
I went to public schools. They were pretty mediocre, but that hasn't really held me back. I don't think throwing more money at a bad system would have helped. The only thing that has changed since then is that people are still complaining about how poorly our public schools are. Ok, maybe that's not technically a change.
Higher salaries and better ratios both cost a lot more money. Our current system actually supports both of these currently. There are private schools with higher standards. If you want your kids to get a better education, you have to pay those costs. If you want the subsidized education for your kids, you're getting what you pay for. It may be a cold, heartless world, but it seems like the system is working fine.
Why is it always someone else's fault for not putting up protective fences? If you don't want to be in the path of a potential avalanche, do your own research on the area first. They're not all that common in most people's everyday lives.
It sounds like the kid and god are conspiring against the kid and anyone else in the path of the avalanche. I sure wouldn't blame some minimum wage fence jockeys. I bet they already have enough problems.
Software security has been going downhill a lot longer than that. Computers were a lot safer before we started plugging them into each other. There are a lot of cool things that come with large scale networks, but there are also some annoyances.
Do you want to FEEL secure, or do you want to BE secure? Sometimes you have to choose. Some people are good at destroying things. They can help provide insight on how to do it, even though you want them working in a controlled environment.
There's an old saying - keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.
It's exactly a problem with human nature. I'm inclined to agree with you - it can be prevented with a technically stronger infrastructure. However, that infrustructure has costs. The people to do the work, the hardware to support the solutions, all have costs. Those costs have to be paid if you want the solution. The people in control of the money look at cost/benefit ratios and do not believe this is a good use of their resources. If you want to change their mind, you have to do it in terms they can comprehend.
What about the managers of sysadmins who don't allow them enough time to secure the systems? You can follow the security-doesn't-increase-the-bottom-line thinking all the way to the top. The companies who don't worry about security up front will be forced to do it by events like this. The system doesn't work well, but it's vaguely functional.
I disagree with the Linux fish being an insult. There are plenty of people who have a set of strong beliefs centered around Linux. Many Linux followers have just as clear of an understanding of their belief system as people pushing other religions.
I look at the things I posted 10+ years ago and am surprised that I don't come off as stupid as I was back then. Fortunately, I lost a lot of email from those days where the same wasn't necessarily true. =)
Small companies are a good place for these people. They don't have enough extra money to pay for all the extra HR crap. I spent 13 years working for small companies before I started consulting for soul killing large companies. I like the people and environment in small companies, but they can't afford to pay as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd emphasize the value in learning a language that's widely available. C isn't an ideal starter language, but it is a useful and practical language. It's not very user friendly for beginners, but it's not likely that the average user is going to outgrow the functionality of C.
I see a lot of recommendations for Ruby, Python, and much more obscure languages. As a point of reference, I looked at one of the Unix boxes that I don't run at work. I like to provide useful tools so developers can choose the right tool for the job. Not everyone takes such an enlightened view of tool selection. The box I don't administer has C, Java, and Perl. It does not have PHP, Python or Ruby. It also doesn't have emacs. While it's ok to have an emacs vs vi preference, you better know enough vi to get around. This is a Sun E25K supporting hundreds of users for a large company. This may not be representative of what systems students would end up with accounts on, but I don't think it's uncommon to run across systems that don't have utilities/languages I install on my machines.
Even though this is a flame, it's a common and legitimate criticism. If we want this stuff to be accepted by non-geeks, we have to recognize how painful this can be for people who haven't been doing it since the dawn of time.
As a unix sysadmin, I know exactly what he means. The only difference is that I also happen to know how to find config files and can make some educated guesses as to what to try.
In defense of the existing methodology, many of us have been doing this stuff so long that we forgot what it's like to sit in front of a computer and not know what to do next. We don't think twice about putting stuff in a config file or some other esoteric place.
It is if you have to aggregate desire and turn it into dollars before it can become action. Of course, enough people have to communicate the same set of requirements in a way that it's understood that a group of people are asking for particular functionality.
This process is a little too esoteric and slow for some, so they just do it. This is one of the cases where one lone lunatic can make a difference. A lot of the really good ideas, like virtual memory came from people who could just sit down and solve a problem without having to convince anyone else first. Try coming up with a business case for virtual memory in a world where it doesn't exist. The value of most really innovative ideas isn't realized until long after they have been implemented.
A base education in any field combined with understanding software design and implementation is good. People who call themselves programmers are a dime a dozen. People who can go from a user's description of a problem and turn it into a fully functional solution are still in demand.
I had not been involved with the spamming, so "justified" would be a stretch. However, I was well aware that everyone in the building would be collateral damage if attacked. They made a point of not having any identifying information on the building and emphasizing that the glass was bulletproof and all doors must be closed at all times. Apparently this had previously been a problem at some point. I left because they harshed my chi.
The important thing to realize is that "justified" means nothing. If you're dead, you're dead, and that's that. You don't get a do-over if you didn't earn it.
Yes, human life has lost all sanctity. He would do far worse to you without so noble of a reason. It would be nice if we lived in a world where everyone could treat each other with courtesy and respect. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who won't hesitate to kill you for little to no reason. Maybe I'm biased, but I'm inclined to think that this guy was probably not the courtesy and respect type.
I'm tired of all of the faux concern for humanity that gives sociopathic predators endless opportunities to victimize the kind of people who don't do this kind of stuff.
One will not have an impact. A few thousand might send a message.
I'm sure there are plenty of people here who find this to be a fitting end. It's good to see that karma works.
The legal system has failed to respond time and time again. Someone else responded using another system. The legal process is just one of the available systems. I believe it's the one with the least interest in those it claims to protect and most resistant to change. I've seen first hand its indifference to violent crimes, so I understand how little that system helps anyone.
I could not vote to convict someone for this type of crime in good conscience. I believe spamming is a sociopathic behavior with an impact on a large segment of society. I've had to maintain systems that get targeted by spammers. The mantra "just hit delete" may work for people who get one or two here or there, but it's very different for people who get several thousand a day and maintain servers that these criminals attack. Spamming is a behavior that should be discouraged. I have a hard time condemning someone doing something about it. Most spammers are into things far worse than spam, so there's probably something more serious than spam that caused this outcome.
These people are predators. There is nothing they won't do to make relatively little money. For a short time I worked for a company who did this stuff and word on the street was they had people killed for interfering with their business.
You put your faith in a system that does not work for everyone. Hopefully you'll never need to see how poorly it works in the real world.
I don't buy the "couple minutes". If you only show up 2 hours early to an airport, it's your own fault if you don't get through the lines in time. There are significant amounts of time being taken from a large number of people. If there were something that made this worthwhile, it may be justified. However, I don't accept that random searches for any contraband are a worthwhile purpose. We're turning the outside world into another prison and getting nothing for it. I don't believe this will make anyone the slightest bit safer. Do you?
You don't have to keep up on the laws of the other 49 states, but you will be liable for any violations you commit. Do not call lists come from an overly aggressive marketing industry having interests that directly conflict with consumers. The laws have been passed because the consumers have demanded it of their legislators. Businesses do not have a right that everything be convenient. In fact, most laws create an additional burden on businesses. This is exactly what they are intended to do.
The cat's already out of the bag with regards to who owns your personal data. Hint: it's not you.
If you don't like these things, give them bad information. Memorize the address of a crack house and the phone number of your local police department's fraud bureau. Nobody checks this information before reselling it. The more the databases are poisoned, the less value the data will have.
They don't believe it, but that won't stop them. They'll say these things, but they know very well that it has nothing to do with helping the consumer. In fact, it's very much the opposite.
Are you familiar with the concept of targeted marketing? The "customer" is very much considered a victim to be attacked from the marketing perspective. The goal of targeted marketing is to maximize the body count. You're a wallet with their money as far as they're concerned.
I think the problem is that the scale is misunderstood. Most people seem to give about 5% on average, so the person who is dedicated to working half the time is actually 10x more productive.
I don't know if two wrongs make a right, but I do know that spammers are vermin. They only care about making a quick buck by scamming people. They don't care about what is right. Being constrained by what is right ensures failure.
I decide who is bad or good. It doesn't matter who leads the mob, that person must be expendable anyway.
I hope this has helped clarify the issue for you.
I don't live in that world. A solution that cannot be implemented isn't a solution. Is the goal to have everyone fantasize of a world where everyone is happy? I'd rather make the world I'm stuck with a little less miserable, even if that means having to bite off much smaller chunks.
Public education provides exactly what most people want to pay for. Those individuals who have the ability and desire to better themselves can do so with whatever resources they can scrape together. Those who are only willing to do the minimum required of them will never amount to much, so why waste too much money on them?
I went to public schools. They were pretty mediocre, but that hasn't really held me back. I don't think throwing more money at a bad system would have helped. The only thing that has changed since then is that people are still complaining about how poorly our public schools are. Ok, maybe that's not technically a change.
Higher salaries and better ratios both cost a lot more money. Our current system actually supports both of these currently. There are private schools with higher standards. If you want your kids to get a better education, you have to pay those costs. If you want the subsidized education for your kids, you're getting what you pay for. It may be a cold, heartless world, but it seems like the system is working fine.
Why is it always someone else's fault for not putting up protective fences? If you don't want to be in the path of a potential avalanche, do your own research on the area first. They're not all that common in most people's everyday lives.
It sounds like the kid and god are conspiring against the kid and anyone else in the path of the avalanche. I sure wouldn't blame some minimum wage fence jockeys. I bet they already have enough problems.
Software security has been going downhill a lot longer than that. Computers were a lot safer before we started plugging them into each other. There are a lot of cool things that come with large scale networks, but there are also some annoyances.
Do you want to FEEL secure, or do you want to BE secure? Sometimes you have to choose. Some people are good at destroying things. They can help provide insight on how to do it, even though you want them working in a controlled environment.
There's an old saying - keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.
It's exactly a problem with human nature. I'm inclined to agree with you - it can be prevented with a technically stronger infrastructure. However, that infrustructure has costs. The people to do the work, the hardware to support the solutions, all have costs. Those costs have to be paid if you want the solution. The people in control of the money look at cost/benefit ratios and do not believe this is a good use of their resources. If you want to change their mind, you have to do it in terms they can comprehend.
What about the managers of sysadmins who don't allow them enough time to secure the systems? You can follow the security-doesn't-increase-the-bottom-line thinking all the way to the top. The companies who don't worry about security up front will be forced to do it by events like this. The system doesn't work well, but it's vaguely functional.
I disagree with the Linux fish being an insult. There are plenty of people who have a set of strong beliefs centered around Linux. Many Linux followers have just as clear of an understanding of their belief system as people pushing other religions.
I look at the things I posted 10+ years ago and am surprised that I don't come off as stupid as I was back then. Fortunately, I lost a lot of email from those days where the same wasn't necessarily true. =)
Small companies are a good place for these people. They don't have enough extra money to pay for all the extra HR crap. I spent 13 years working for small companies before I started consulting for soul killing large companies. I like the people and environment in small companies, but they can't afford to pay as well.
This is good advice.
If you're not good at something, find a way to subcontract that work to someone who works entirely on commission.