So, why do many of us perceive Whole Foods and the Creation Museum so differently?"
1) Whole Foods is a grocery store, the Creation Museum claims to be a museum.
2) Certain states aren't trying to teach children the "controversy" surrounding dandelion root extract supposedly curing my ailments. There isn't a national debate surrounding gluten-free pancake mix. Politicians don't get elected to office by appealing to the "this organic sea salt is only 4000 years old" crowd.
But to play ball: in the US as in many other developed nations you can't discriminate against employees because of things like that. If I have diabetes you can't discriminate against me because I may have low blood sugar one day and have to go home. You can't discriminate someone with a propensity to get the flu every winter because on average that person misses more days than someone who doesn't get the flu. Furthermore you can't just lump all women together and generalize about them. Some choose not to have children, should they be punished because some women do choose to have children?
Were you really trying to say that there is such a disparity between the number of men and women in software engineering because they may take more time off? Or were you just waiting for your chance to get in a cheap shot against women?
You may not be a misogynist, but you do have some silly thoughts regarding women.
Humm, if only there was some economic event that happened around that time that could explain why large amounts of people would switch careers. It is almost as if there was some kind of recession in the number of software jobs available that caused female CS grads to pick different careers.
The same productivity gap for women exists in all industries. 5 days a month and doesn't die, etc. etc.
Every time some neckbeard opens his mouth and allows the misogyny to flow out it just reinforces the notion that there needs to be more incentive for women to get into software. I know this is/. but you probably just made some femnazi's panties crawl up her ass....dammit.
I know it is impossible, but I just want there to be honest discourse about this supposed "STEM shortage / gender gap". There is no STEM shortage just like there is no Lawyer shortage. The gender gap in software engineering isn't a problem just like the gender gap in nursing isn't a problem. Corporations want to turn software engineers into a commodity. Period.
"This paper analyses and proposes a novel detection strategy for the 'Chameleon’ WiFi AP-AP virus."
The virus uses the AP's web interface to trigger a firmware upgrade, and then provides a malicious firmware that contains code that spreads the virus. If this is the first time someone did that I'm going to kick myself for not going into security research. Given the plethora of open source AP firmware that already supports many commodity APs it should be trivial to do something like this. All you need is a sufficiently dense collection of APs that are compatible with your malicious firmware. We all already know that a poorly secured AP is a great attack vector, even without malicious firmware you can redirect all of the client's traffic through your own routers and you have your self a classic man in the middle.
The main point of this research is to show that they developed better detection methods that don't compromise any of the AP's client's expectation of privacy.
It is impossible to speak in generalities about STEM. The fields that fall under STEM are so diverse and even within one of the letters there is such a stratification of positions and educations that any comparisons are difficult to make.
Is there a shortage in Computer Engineering Eng.Ds? Or is there a shortage in Computer Engineering B.S. degree holders? Your average B.S. isn't going to jump right into an advanced research position and write a new distributed computing algorithm. Your average Eng.D. isn't going to be happy working under an architect writing Java for a corporate back end system. What about your Information Systems graduate? Can he write C++ for embedded systems? Would your average embedded engineer be happy configuring ISS and Active Directory? Even though those things are drastically different they all get lumped together under "coder" or "programmer".
Take Mechanical Engineers. You have your B.S. Mechanical Engineers slaving away over Solid Works creating widgets. Your have your Eng.D. mechanical engineers developing new engine systems. Which do we need more of?
I think the reality is that when companies complain they need more STEM graduates they are saying they either want extremely talented B.S. graduates to make the business run (example: embedded engineer writing industrial control software, you dont need a PhD but your average B.S. couldn't do it) or they want extremely talented Eng.Ds to develop the next processor architecture that takes over the market. But they don't want middle of the road B.S. graduates that don't understand OO even though they only language they can write is Java, and they don't want Eng.Ds who have experience in far out research but aren't capable of doing practical work that makes a company money.
I'm genuinely curious: What position are you looking for? Are you trying to continue to do research?
When I spent time at a university it was a common complaint that a lot of really really intelligent advanced degree holders couldn't find positions in academia or the corporate side of things. Maybe it was just my field but I observed that there are a lot more jobs for Computer Engineers with B.S. and M.S. degrees than there are for Computer Engineers with Eng.D or Ph.Ds. It actually seemed easier to get a job if you didn't' have anything above a M.S. It is unfortunate but it just doesn't seem like the economy can accommodate thousands of people doing research. It can however support thousands of software engineers doing average (relative to post-doc research) work. For every engineer at Google and Amazon developing advanced algorithms and distributed computing platforms there are probably 100 software engineers writing less advanced software while still making a great living.
You keep missing the part where I specifically use the term "as policy." I believe there have been incidents of everything imaginable under the sun involving the U.S. government; however, pre-9/11 these were not standard government policy in a time of peace.
Assmasher I really think we are in near agreement. I guess we just disagree about the definition of the phrase "as policy". If the President condones it, leaders in Congress condone it, the Attorney General condones it, the Joint Chiefs of Staff condone it, the directors of the FBI, CIA, and other 3 letter agencies condone it, then I consider it standard policy of the government. Just because they didn't make a press release announcing they were going to violate the constitution doesn't mean it wasn't the policy of the government to violate the constitution.
This is entirely the reason behind the bullsh** title "War on Terror" - it can never ever end, so justification of behaviors that could be potentially stomached as short term aberrations can continue ad nauseum.
There has always been a war on terror, it was just called something different. Replace terror with communist. Replace terror with drugs. I agree that the US government uses "war on X" to justify criminal acts. I just believe that it started long before 9/11.
I agree that no country is perfect. And honestly I think we do pretty well compared to some of our fellow 1st world nations. I also agree that our nation needs to do some soul searching and address the moral crisis we are currently facing.
We've basically given up many of the things that made us standout (despite our moral outrages.) Due process, habeas corpus, NO torture, the 4th amendment.
This is the only part that confuses me. You seriously think that we upheld the values of our constitution up to 9/11 and then just threw them out the window? You really think the US Government didn't violate due process and habeas corpus before 9/11? You claim that people of the WWII era would be disgusted with the current state of things. I completely agree. They also would have been disgusted with the state of affairs 50 years ago too if they had knows about it. I guess I just disagree that things got dramatically worse after 9/11. Things have always been very very bad. But as time passes we just forget, gloss over, and move on; we end up romanticizing the past and start pretending the present is much worse.
It is really important to be critical of our current government. It is also really important not to ignore or forget that our previous governments have violated the constitution and our laws on a massive and criminal scale. Most of the time they acted with impunity.
Sorry to break it to you but we have very rarely held the moral high ground. We systematically killed off the Native Americans. We locked the Japanese in internment camps. We carried out medical and military experiments on US citizens and military personnel without their consent or knowledge. Some of these people died and it took decades for the Government to apologize to the families of the victims. Our government put MLK on surveillance, planned to discredit him and smear him in the public eye. The CIA facilitated drug trafficking. Our government hatched plans to attack US cities to try to drum up support for an invasion of Cuba. The US has a long and rich history of violating human rights in the name of security.
TL;DR: We have been doing this shit for a long long time. Because of our dominance we get to write the history books and therefore your average person is ignorant of the crimes of the US government. It would disturb the general population so they just don't discuss it. Anyone who would care already knows, anyone who doesn't already know probably wouldn't care.
Well we used the MLA, and when my teacher didn't know something we would write to Dianna Hacker ask her to answer our confusion. What happens when teacher is asked about student loans? Does she ask Sallie Mae for advice? Personal finance is much much more subjective than grammar.
Well what I mean by "fighting evolution" is those states that are fighting to remove evolution from biology classes.
Pre-prepared refers to slides, homework assignments, and tests pre-prepared by the textbook companies to remove any need for the teacher to actually teach. It is in contrast to the old fashioned method of a teacher preparing their own lesson plans, homework assignments, and tests.
Well one thing they should be teaching is that the slippery slope argument is a fallacy.
I think this is a bad idea because there is a really good chance you aren't getting a teacher who is an expert in personal finance. My math teachers studied mathematics. I had a biology teacher who had a PHD. My literature teachers were english/lit majors. How many personal finance majors are currently teaching in public schools? What kind of nationally accredited programs exist to prepare college students to be personal finance teachers? Given that we seem to believe paying teachers shit is acceptable, what kind of person with a personal finance degree would become a teacher?
Furthermore: mathematics, spelling, rhetoric; these are less subjective than personal finance. Visa doesn't have an interest in your children reading The Old Man and the Sea. They do have an interest in your children believing they need a credit card and should use it frequently. JP Morgan could care less if your children know the periodic table, they are interested in teaching your children that they should take out a 0 down, variable interest mortgage and refinance whenever they want some cash.
I'm not saying schools are bad, teachers are universally terrible, or that we should do away with the education system. I'm just trying to express that there is a ton of opportunity for abuse here and since there are so many other things our schools are failing at (see: core subjects) maybe we should focus on those things and leave personal finance up to parents.
This scares me. We have to realize that textbooks and curriculum are not guaranteed to be written by truly objective and qualified academics, and that not all teachers are qualified to teach personal finance. With those things in mind, do we want our public schools teaching personal finance?
Look at those states fighting evolution, look at those states fighting climate change. Think of all the times in high school that it was obvious the teacher had no real knowledge of the subject matter and was just reading out of a book and relying on pre-prepared material.
In theory, teaching students personal finance would result in financially literate young adults that would avoid the pitfalls of not understanding finance and pass on those positive skills to their children. In practice, theory is never the same as practice.
Except no one has used visual studio's GUI wizards for web apps in ages. They're barely maintained, and in the javascript heavy world, they don't even work.
From TFA:
From 2002 up to 2008 or so the Microsoft web world was (and to a large degree still is) all about "Visual Component Development". What that means is you basically do a lot of drag and drop and let the components do the work for you (write HTML, hookup server code, CSS, etc).
One of this guy's main points is that he became a drag and drop drone and not a web developer. That is why I said this question is more about "relying on Visual Studio's GUI for ASP.net" than a general extencial question of "is relying on an IDE bad?"
The answer to this question is going to be drastically diferent for web application development in ASP.net than it would be for firmware development in C++. These guys are speaking from the web application side of the world, that context really shapes this debate.
The question these two are discussing really is: "Is it wise to become dependent on the GUI wizzards in Visual Studio to develop ASP.net applications?"
A hard real time system has to be deterministic. Operations have to happen exactly at the right times, and take exactly the same amount of time every time. Nothing can go on inside the OS that could delay or slow down the vital operations of the embedded device.
That being said you can have a real time os and do things that will make your system not deterministic. Unless specially designed (ethercat ect...), filesystems and network communication are typically non deterministic.
I suppose another thing I associate with real time is concept of a watch-dog. If you have a task that monitors some A2D and it absolutely has to run every 10ms in order for the system to function properly, you want your watch-dog to trip if your task doesn't run within some window.
God fucking dammit everyone knew this. This happens everywhere. I have been a professional software engineer for less than 5 years and this has happened several times to me.
But what really irks me the testimony that retailer's CTOs gave before congress.
Neiman Marcus CTO:
"I think what we've learned... is that just having the tools and technology isn't enough in this day and age," Neiman Marcus Chief Information Officer Michael Kingston told the panel. "These attackers again are very, very sophisticated and they've figured out ways around that."
Translation: "We did everything we possibly could, those hackers are just too damn smart. You should probably pass some laws to make knowing how to hack illegal."
Target CTO on if they knew about the attack before they were notified:
"Despite significant investment in multiple layers of detection that we had in our systems, we did not," Mulligan replied.
Translation: "It isn't that we got caught with our pants down, we were doing our best, honest!"
There is just no accountability! Why were there even congressional hearings if congress didn't even do an investigation and call in experts to find out why Target fucked up so badly? Senator Tech. Illiterate (D) and Representative STICKYKEYS (R) don't know enough to call bullshit.
There is no penalty for ignoring your engineers when they bring up problems. Investing in security is a well known joke amongst CTOs. Target's bottom line isn't going to be affected by this in a year. The business world learned a lesson recently: you can lose 100 million people's credit card data and nothing bad will happen.
Yeah no doubt there are a lot of organizations/people who are making a handsome living from "non-profit" work. But being a non-profit isn't really what I was thinking of when I described them as "hippy".
Reading their about page and the event involving a bunch of people running around like a human tie dye t-shirt is why I describe them as "hippy".
Who would have thought a legal system designed by lawyers works for lawyers. Eventually a court might side with Mr. Jackson, but either way we all know who is going to be making a lot of money here: the lawyers representing both sides.
Besides that point, do you think it would bother the participants of this event that the organization running it has such disregard for a college photographer? I added in the college part because the participants of these things are usually 20 somethings. I have never participated (partially because I only run if there is a fire or if someone chases me) but if I did I would be upset. This organization makes money off of me and then tries to rip off another college guy just trying to do his thing? That seems to be against the whole hippy color run spirit. It would be appropriate if there was a boycott until the suit against Mr. Jackson is dropped.
Thats why at least in the U.S. it seems like we keep inventing artificial scarcity. Our GDP goes up but the average salary has been stagnant. There is more wealth than there use to be, but for most people it is more scarce. You can access this wealth, but you must pay interest. Now you have a system where people can make money on the artificial scarcity of wealth.
In America's current society, if somehow we invented technology that could create unlimited energy and then invented replicators, you would still have a class of people controlling those resources and creating artificial scarcity so they could profit from it. We need to progress more as a society before we are ready to deal with evaporating scarcity in a way that is just for everyone.
Generally, politicians with (R) next to their name claim to be against regulations and state/federal interference with free enterprise. Therefore I would expect the (R) members of the Ohio Senate to be up in arms about this law, capitalizing on this opportunity to show that the (D) guys are always putting unreasonable burdens on private enterprise and stifling innovation and growth.
But the fact that the sponsor and co sponsors of the bill are all (R)s contradicts that long held (R) stance. What gives? And why aren't there any reporters pointing out this contradiction?
Hire a mason to build a wall. Give him a plan: how long, how high, how wide, what kind of brick. Give him a budget and a timeline.
Wait until he starts building the wall. Wait until he is about half way done. Then change how wide you want it.
Then change the kind of brick. Then change the kind of brick back. Then cut the timeline. Then cut the budget. Then decide you don't really want a wall, you want a fence. Then take that back and decide you want a wall.
That's modern software projects. It doesn't work for software and it wont work for walls.
Slashdot Mirror
So, why do many of us perceive Whole Foods and the Creation Museum so differently?"
1) Whole Foods is a grocery store, the Creation Museum claims to be a museum.
2) Certain states aren't trying to teach children the "controversy" surrounding dandelion root extract supposedly curing my ailments. There isn't a national debate surrounding gluten-free pancake mix. Politicians don't get elected to office by appealing to the "this organic sea salt is only 4000 years old" crowd.
You obviously ignored the sarcasm tags.
But to play ball: in the US as in many other developed nations you can't discriminate against employees because of things like that. If I have diabetes you can't discriminate against me because I may have low blood sugar one day and have to go home. You can't discriminate someone with a propensity to get the flu every winter because on average that person misses more days than someone who doesn't get the flu. Furthermore you can't just lump all women together and generalize about them. Some choose not to have children, should they be punished because some women do choose to have children?
Were you really trying to say that there is such a disparity between the number of men and women in software engineering because they may take more time off? Or were you just waiting for your chance to get in a cheap shot against women?
You may not be a misogynist, but you do have some silly thoughts regarding women.
Humm, if only there was some economic event that happened around that time that could explain why large amounts of people would switch careers. It is almost as if there was some kind of recession in the number of software jobs available that caused female CS grads to pick different careers.
The same productivity gap for women exists in all industries. 5 days a month and doesn't die, etc. etc.
Every time some neckbeard opens his mouth and allows the misogyny to flow out it just reinforces the notion that there needs to be more incentive for women to get into software. I know this is /. but you probably just made some femnazi's panties crawl up her ass....dammit.
In 2011, 9 percent of all nurses were men while 91 percent were women. Men earned, on average, $60,700 per year, while women earned $51,100 per year.
I know it is impossible, but I just want there to be honest discourse about this supposed "STEM shortage / gender gap". There is no STEM shortage just like there is no Lawyer shortage. The gender gap in software engineering isn't a problem just like the gender gap in nursing isn't a problem. Corporations want to turn software engineers into a commodity. Period.
"This paper analyses and proposes a novel detection strategy for the 'Chameleon’ WiFi AP-AP virus."
The virus uses the AP's web interface to trigger a firmware upgrade, and then provides a malicious firmware that contains code that spreads the virus. If this is the first time someone did that I'm going to kick myself for not going into security research. Given the plethora of open source AP firmware that already supports many commodity APs it should be trivial to do something like this. All you need is a sufficiently dense collection of APs that are compatible with your malicious firmware. We all already know that a poorly secured AP is a great attack vector, even without malicious firmware you can redirect all of the client's traffic through your own routers and you have your self a classic man in the middle.
The main point of this research is to show that they developed better detection methods that don't compromise any of the AP's client's expectation of privacy.
It is impossible to speak in generalities about STEM. The fields that fall under STEM are so diverse and even within one of the letters there is such a stratification of positions and educations that any comparisons are difficult to make.
Is there a shortage in Computer Engineering Eng.Ds? Or is there a shortage in Computer Engineering B.S. degree holders? Your average B.S. isn't going to jump right into an advanced research position and write a new distributed computing algorithm. Your average Eng.D. isn't going to be happy working under an architect writing Java for a corporate back end system. What about your Information Systems graduate? Can he write C++ for embedded systems? Would your average embedded engineer be happy configuring ISS and Active Directory? Even though those things are drastically different they all get lumped together under "coder" or "programmer".
Take Mechanical Engineers. You have your B.S. Mechanical Engineers slaving away over Solid Works creating widgets. Your have your Eng.D. mechanical engineers developing new engine systems. Which do we need more of?
I think the reality is that when companies complain they need more STEM graduates they are saying they either want extremely talented B.S. graduates to make the business run (example: embedded engineer writing industrial control software, you dont need a PhD but your average B.S. couldn't do it) or they want extremely talented Eng.Ds to develop the next processor architecture that takes over the market. But they don't want middle of the road B.S. graduates that don't understand OO even though they only language they can write is Java, and they don't want Eng.Ds who have experience in far out research but aren't capable of doing practical work that makes a company money.
I'm genuinely curious: What position are you looking for? Are you trying to continue to do research?
When I spent time at a university it was a common complaint that a lot of really really intelligent advanced degree holders couldn't find positions in academia or the corporate side of things. Maybe it was just my field but I observed that there are a lot more jobs for Computer Engineers with B.S. and M.S. degrees than there are for Computer Engineers with Eng.D or Ph.Ds. It actually seemed easier to get a job if you didn't' have anything above a M.S. It is unfortunate but it just doesn't seem like the economy can accommodate thousands of people doing research. It can however support thousands of software engineers doing average (relative to post-doc research) work. For every engineer at Google and Amazon developing advanced algorithms and distributed computing platforms there are probably 100 software engineers writing less advanced software while still making a great living.
You keep missing the part where I specifically use the term "as policy." I believe there have been incidents of everything imaginable under the sun involving the U.S. government; however, pre-9/11 these were not standard government policy in a time of peace.
Assmasher I really think we are in near agreement. I guess we just disagree about the definition of the phrase "as policy". If the President condones it, leaders in Congress condone it, the Attorney General condones it, the Joint Chiefs of Staff condone it, the directors of the FBI, CIA, and other 3 letter agencies condone it, then I consider it standard policy of the government. Just because they didn't make a press release announcing they were going to violate the constitution doesn't mean it wasn't the policy of the government to violate the constitution.
This is entirely the reason behind the bullsh** title "War on Terror" - it can never ever end, so justification of behaviors that could be potentially stomached as short term aberrations can continue ad nauseum.
There has always been a war on terror, it was just called something different. Replace terror with communist. Replace terror with drugs. I agree that the US government uses "war on X" to justify criminal acts. I just believe that it started long before 9/11.
We've basically given up many of the things that made us standout (despite our moral outrages.) Due process, habeas corpus, NO torture, the 4th amendment.
This is the only part that confuses me. You seriously think that we upheld the values of our constitution up to 9/11 and then just threw them out the window? You really think the US Government didn't violate due process and habeas corpus before 9/11? You claim that people of the WWII era would be disgusted with the current state of things. I completely agree. They also would have been disgusted with the state of affairs 50 years ago too if they had knows about it. I guess I just disagree that things got dramatically worse after 9/11. Things have always been very very bad. But as time passes we just forget, gloss over, and move on; we end up romanticizing the past and start pretending the present is much worse.
Unethical Human Experimentation
Eugenics
Torture
Drug Trafficking
It is really important to be critical of our current government. It is also really important not to ignore or forget that our previous governments have violated the constitution and our laws on a massive and criminal scale. Most of the time they acted with impunity.
Sorry to break it to you but we have very rarely held the moral high ground. We systematically killed off the Native Americans. We locked the Japanese in internment camps. We carried out medical and military experiments on US citizens and military personnel without their consent or knowledge. Some of these people died and it took decades for the Government to apologize to the families of the victims. Our government put MLK on surveillance, planned to discredit him and smear him in the public eye. The CIA facilitated drug trafficking. Our government hatched plans to attack US cities to try to drum up support for an invasion of Cuba. The US has a long and rich history of violating human rights in the name of security.
TL;DR: We have been doing this shit for a long long time. Because of our dominance we get to write the history books and therefore your average person is ignorant of the crimes of the US government. It would disturb the general population so they just don't discuss it. Anyone who would care already knows, anyone who doesn't already know probably wouldn't care.
Well we used the MLA, and when my teacher didn't know something we would write to Dianna Hacker ask her to answer our confusion. What happens when teacher is asked about student loans? Does she ask Sallie Mae for advice? Personal finance is much much more subjective than grammar.
Well what I mean by "fighting evolution" is those states that are fighting to remove evolution from biology classes.
Pre-prepared refers to slides, homework assignments, and tests pre-prepared by the textbook companies to remove any need for the teacher to actually teach. It is in contrast to the old fashioned method of a teacher preparing their own lesson plans, homework assignments, and tests.
Well one thing they should be teaching is that the slippery slope argument is a fallacy.
I think this is a bad idea because there is a really good chance you aren't getting a teacher who is an expert in personal finance. My math teachers studied mathematics. I had a biology teacher who had a PHD. My literature teachers were english/lit majors. How many personal finance majors are currently teaching in public schools? What kind of nationally accredited programs exist to prepare college students to be personal finance teachers? Given that we seem to believe paying teachers shit is acceptable, what kind of person with a personal finance degree would become a teacher?
Furthermore: mathematics, spelling, rhetoric; these are less subjective than personal finance. Visa doesn't have an interest in your children reading The Old Man and the Sea. They do have an interest in your children believing they need a credit card and should use it frequently. JP Morgan could care less if your children know the periodic table, they are interested in teaching your children that they should take out a 0 down, variable interest mortgage and refinance whenever they want some cash.
I'm not saying schools are bad, teachers are universally terrible, or that we should do away with the education system. I'm just trying to express that there is a ton of opportunity for abuse here and since there are so many other things our schools are failing at (see: core subjects) maybe we should focus on those things and leave personal finance up to parents.
This scares me. We have to realize that textbooks and curriculum are not guaranteed to be written by truly objective and qualified academics, and that not all teachers are qualified to teach personal finance. With those things in mind, do we want our public schools teaching personal finance?
Look at those states fighting evolution, look at those states fighting climate change. Think of all the times in high school that it was obvious the teacher had no real knowledge of the subject matter and was just reading out of a book and relying on pre-prepared material.
In theory, teaching students personal finance would result in financially literate young adults that would avoid the pitfalls of not understanding finance and pass on those positive skills to their children. In practice, theory is never the same as practice.
Except no one has used visual studio's GUI wizards for web apps in ages. They're barely maintained, and in the javascript heavy world, they don't even work.
From TFA:
From 2002 up to 2008 or so the Microsoft web world was (and to a large degree still is) all about "Visual Component Development". What that means is you basically do a lot of drag and drop and let the components do the work for you (write HTML, hookup server code, CSS, etc).
One of this guy's main points is that he became a drag and drop drone and not a web developer. That is why I said this question is more about "relying on Visual Studio's GUI for ASP.net" than a general extencial question of "is relying on an IDE bad?"
The answer to this question is going to be drastically diferent for web application development in ASP.net than it would be for firmware development in C++. These guys are speaking from the web application side of the world, that context really shapes this debate.
The question these two are discussing really is: "Is it wise to become dependent on the GUI wizzards in Visual Studio to develop ASP.net applications?"
A hard real time system has to be deterministic. Operations have to happen exactly at the right times, and take exactly the same amount of time every time. Nothing can go on inside the OS that could delay or slow down the vital operations of the embedded device.
That being said you can have a real time os and do things that will make your system not deterministic. Unless specially designed (ethercat ect...), filesystems and network communication are typically non deterministic.
I suppose another thing I associate with real time is concept of a watch-dog. If you have a task that monitors some A2D and it absolutely has to run every 10ms in order for the system to function properly, you want your watch-dog to trip if your task doesn't run within some window.
But what really irks me the testimony that retailer's CTOs gave before congress.
Neiman Marcus CTO:
"I think what we've learned ... is that just having the tools and technology isn't enough in this day and age," Neiman Marcus Chief Information Officer Michael Kingston told the panel. "These attackers again are very, very sophisticated and they've figured out ways around that."
Translation: "We did everything we possibly could, those hackers are just too damn smart. You should probably pass some laws to make knowing how to hack illegal."
Target CTO on if they knew about the attack before they were notified:
"Despite significant investment in multiple layers of detection that we had in our systems, we did not," Mulligan replied.
Translation: "It isn't that we got caught with our pants down, we were doing our best, honest!"
There is just no accountability! Why were there even congressional hearings if congress didn't even do an investigation and call in experts to find out why Target fucked up so badly? Senator Tech. Illiterate (D) and Representative STICKYKEYS (R) don't know enough to call bullshit.
There is no penalty for ignoring your engineers when they bring up problems. Investing in security is a well known joke amongst CTOs. Target's bottom line isn't going to be affected by this in a year. The business world learned a lesson recently: you can lose 100 million people's credit card data and nothing bad will happen.
Yeah no doubt there are a lot of organizations/people who are making a handsome living from "non-profit" work. But being a non-profit isn't really what I was thinking of when I described them as "hippy".
Reading their about page and the event involving a bunch of people running around like a human tie dye t-shirt is why I describe them as "hippy".
Who would have thought a legal system designed by lawyers works for lawyers. Eventually a court might side with Mr. Jackson, but either way we all know who is going to be making a lot of money here: the lawyers representing both sides.
Besides that point, do you think it would bother the participants of this event that the organization running it has such disregard for a college photographer? I added in the college part because the participants of these things are usually 20 somethings. I have never participated (partially because I only run if there is a fire or if someone chases me) but if I did I would be upset. This organization makes money off of me and then tries to rip off another college guy just trying to do his thing? That seems to be against the whole hippy color run spirit. It would be appropriate if there was a boycott until the suit against Mr. Jackson is dropped.
Thats why at least in the U.S. it seems like we keep inventing artificial scarcity. Our GDP goes up but the average salary has been stagnant. There is more wealth than there use to be, but for most people it is more scarce. You can access this wealth, but you must pay interest. Now you have a system where people can make money on the artificial scarcity of wealth.
In America's current society, if somehow we invented technology that could create unlimited energy and then invented replicators, you would still have a class of people controlling those resources and creating artificial scarcity so they could profit from it. We need to progress more as a society before we are ready to deal with evaporating scarcity in a way that is just for everyone.
The web administration port should not be open to the public internet by default on these routers.
Generally, politicians with (R) next to their name claim to be against regulations and state/federal interference with free enterprise. Therefore I would expect the (R) members of the Ohio Senate to be up in arms about this law, capitalizing on this opportunity to show that the (D) guys are always putting unreasonable burdens on private enterprise and stifling innovation and growth.
But the fact that the sponsor and co sponsors of the bill are all (R)s contradicts that long held (R) stance. What gives? And why aren't there any reporters pointing out this contradiction?
Hire a mason to build a wall. Give him a plan: how long, how high, how wide, what kind of brick. Give him a budget and a timeline.
Wait until he starts building the wall. Wait until he is about half way done. Then change how wide you want it.
Then change the kind of brick. Then change the kind of brick back. Then cut the timeline. Then cut the budget. Then decide you don't really want a wall, you want a fence. Then take that back and decide you want a wall.
That's modern software projects. It doesn't work for software and it wont work for walls.