IE6 will never die... not as long as we still have retarded companies running retarded corporate IE6 "intranet" software written by retards for retarded executives who thought purposely locking themselves to one vendor wasn't collectively one of the most tragically retarded IT decisions ever made in history.
I'm going to buck the trend here and say it's NOT patents and copyrights and IP laws that are blocking innovation. No, it's a little more of a direct cause: An unproductive workforce that expects to get paid just for showing up with a degree.
There are a lot of people out there in the professional world, in technical professions, in engineering, in project management, etc. who can talk and talk but can't or won't deliver results. A lot of people full of degrees and education and smooth talk but no actual practical skill or work ethic. All hat and no cowboy as some say. I interview people all the time who bill themselves as hard-core in-the-weeds technical people, but when you actually dig and ask probing questions you find it's all superficial and the person actually isn't really capable of providing much value. For example:
Me: So, you write C++ software and work at XYZ corp, great! We're looking for C++ talent. Tell me about a project that you worked on! Candidate: Well, we developed software that did ABC... Me: We? No, what exactly did YOU do? Candidate: Well, I worked on a major sub-component of the software... Me: OK, so what are some of the algorithms and/or data structures you used while writing the code? Candidate: Um, well I didn't use much of that. I provided analysis and resolution of major defects... Me: So you fixed bugs. That's cool. What are some of the common C++ mistakes you have identified? Candidate: Uhh, I didn't really get deep into the code. I basically facilitated the analysis. Me: Oh, so you talked to the engineers and wrote bug reports? Candidate: Well, no, but I ENABLED them to deliver their results by... Me:...
It sounds like the "So what exactly do you do, Bob?" segment in Office Space, but these people are everywhere, and not all of them are interviewing. Many are in nice comfortable do-nothing jobs in corporate division 23 department B in high tech companies everywhere. These people are dragging down our companies and our country and need to go away.
This country has a major talent gap. You guys all deride the government when they talk about the huge shortage of technical talent but it's absolutely true. We have a shit-ton of people with "Engineer" on their diploma. We have a lot of people who claim to be technical but simply sit in meetings and "enable" others who are actually doing the work. We have a very, very small number of actual implementors who know their stuff and can actually innovate.
I don't know what the solution to the problem is, but think I see the symptoms all around me every day.
Really?? You would, assume any notification of a security breach to be fraudulent until proven otherwise? What web site do you operate, so I can be sure never to sign up or give you any personal details.
Reading both accounts of the story (one from the CEO, the other from the security expert), it seems to be a case of "who do you believe". All we truly know is that the site was hacked, these guys were involved somehow, and now they're mad at each other. Everything else is just based on what one side or the other says.
That said, looking through the blog postings of the CEO, he strikes me as having the classic case of paranoid narcissist personality disorder. Every other posting is a rant about how his competitors are all out to get him. Everything they do is about HIM and a response to HIS business. When eHarmony does something, it's not just an innocent business expansion, it's a direct personal attack on this guy. I've worked with presidents and CEOs who use similar wording to this CEO in their daily speech, and whose nuances and mannerisms seem to match this guy's perfectly. Although my examples are only anecdotal, I'd be willing to bet this disorder is quite common among business leaders.
Not knowing more about the situation and only having their two accounts to go with, I would probably fall on the side of believing the security expert's account more, just looking at the level of paranoia and exaggeration in the CEO's blogging history.
The reality is that a large number of businesses out there do not have front doors, or keep their doors wide open, as not every business can afford to have their office facilities penetration tested on a regular basis. Maintenance staff can do their best but they are only human, and hence they occasionally make mistakes. It only takes a single mistake made on a Friday afternoon while the office was winding down and you can be vulnerable.
Not every business model can support the profit margins needed to purchase doors, close them, and lock them, and penetration testing of every building entry and exit, especially while the entire economy shrinks and both companies and the public have less money to spend. Since creating an absolutely secure facility is both very expensive and often not entirely understood by management it is a very easy corner to cut.
Facebook gets to be dynamic and "just do it live"-y because even if the whole site goes down it's not a huge deal.. much less some small feature.
Uhh, according to the leaked financials (if you believe them), if their site goes down, they're losing approx. $50k in revenue an hour. That's not a huge deal?
I'd still take "the added developer time needed for IPC" over doing the whole project in C or C++.
Performance and scalability = more machines. I'd rather throw more hardware [cheap] at a Python or Ruby project than throw more time-to-market [expensive] and more developers [expensive] at a C++ project.
The C++ project will also occupy more lines of code to maintain [expensive].
It's amazing to see people continuously insult those who are successful. As if their success is magical.
It's also amazing to see people continuously imagining a causal relationship between personal qualities and success.
Is a superstar stock picker really talented and hard-working, or was he simply the one (out of millions trying) who flipped a coin heads 20 times in a row?
No matter how many numbers are written on a credit card, they must be considered together as a single authentication factor. If the thief has access to one number physically on the card, he likely has access to all numbers on the card.
The additional password is a good start, but relies on the merchant not being a retard and linking the password with the CC number in a way that can be compromised. Also, as we have seen over and over, however, passwords are not great security tokens because they are either easy to memorize (and easy to guess) or they are hard to memorize and likely will be written down somewhere (or stored somewhere that's protected by an easy-to-remember[guess] password.
I'm convinced that biometrics are going to play an increasing role, since it's orders of magnitude more difficult to steal someone's eyes or fingers, or to steal the keyfob implanted on a bone in his hand than it is to steal a credit card or a password on a post-it note.
If I drive something worth stealing, nobody is going to go through any effort that involves my number plate or other "personal information". They're going to tow it away in 45 seconds while I'm in the grocery store.
The point is, there is no value in this particular "account number" because minus a few concocted movie-like scenarios, it cannot help anyone get anything. But my credit card number can be used by itself, without any other meaningful authentication, to make purchases. This is what needs to change. My name/address/ssn can be used to take out a loan in my name. This is what has to change.
I don't try to hide and lock down my car's license plate number. My car's license plate number is 6NHG617. Nobody cares about it and nobody wants to steal it. It's not valuable. The solution to the "problem" of personal identification theft is not to keep trying to hide and lock down personal information. The solution is to make personal information no longer valuable.
4) If you ARE under arrest, you have the right to a lawyer. Ask for one immediately: "I would like to speak with my lawyer immediately, sir."
This is always the one that confused me a little. Who even "has a lawyer" until they're in trouble with the law? What, do people thumb through the yellow pages down at the police station looking under "L"? Serious question.. As someone who has never been in jail, I'm curious.
Sure, it may be tough to nail down and definitely varies region-to-region, but the whole point of having the term is to make the point that what the government calls "minimum wage" is not necessarily a wage that someone can actually live on.
Saying the term itself is smug and politically charged is like saying the word "gun" is politically charged because some people support "gun control".
I don't know how criminality was brought into this. We're comparing idle wealth with idle poverty.
Take a 25 year old guy who sits around eating cheetos and watching TV all day: If he's poor and on welfare, people are critical of him, he's lazy, he's not a contributor to society, etc. But if that guy (same behavior) was the grandson of the CEO of Exxon, well suddenly we have no problem with his cheeto-eating? I say they're morally equivalent:
1. Neither produce anything for society. 2. Neither live off their own money.
I've never heard it associated with unions or smugness. That's a pretty politically charged take on a benign, neutral term. I've always seen it as simply the minimum hourly wage necessary for an individual to meet basic needs, food, clothing, shelter, etc. We use the term to differentiate from "minimum wage" which is set by law and often has nothing to do with how much it takes to live. Why bring politics into it?
Once we have production-grade replicators or nth-generation Repraps [reprap.org], that will become a reality, indistinguishable from magic.
We'll never get there. The powerful people whose wealth and power are wrapped up in our dominant "few producers / many consumers" wealth redistribution scheme will never allow it.
If we ever get close to the Star Trek replicator, I guarantee you that the IP, know-how and everything related will be suppressed and destroyed by the small ownership class who profit from scarcity.
I don't see how multi-generational welfare families are any morally worse than multi-generational wealthy families, yet tons more complain about the former than they do about the latter. Idle is idle. Both are a net drain on society, but in different ways.
If Amazon came out tomorrow and said, "We will no longer carry books that promote Christianity, have 'Christian themes' or portray Christianity in a good light, because we determined these books are not profitable" would you call it censorship? Come on--say it with a straight face...
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh yes, "fix it with a law". That's right, there's no amount of danger or risk that a good ol' Form 544813 written by a bureaucrat can't mitigate.
IE6 will never die... not as long as we still have retarded companies running retarded corporate IE6 "intranet" software written by retards for retarded executives who thought purposely locking themselves to one vendor wasn't collectively one of the most tragically retarded IT decisions ever made in history.
Fuck our "standing in the world". I don't give a damn what others think of my country, and I'm pretty sure they don't care what I think of theirs.
Your attitude and the actions of those who share it is why we have to be careful self-identifying as Americans when travelling to certain countries.
I'm going to buck the trend here and say it's NOT patents and copyrights and IP laws that are blocking innovation. No, it's a little more of a direct cause: An unproductive workforce that expects to get paid just for showing up with a degree.
There are a lot of people out there in the professional world, in technical professions, in engineering, in project management, etc. who can talk and talk but can't or won't deliver results. A lot of people full of degrees and education and smooth talk but no actual practical skill or work ethic. All hat and no cowboy as some say. I interview people all the time who bill themselves as hard-core in-the-weeds technical people, but when you actually dig and ask probing questions you find it's all superficial and the person actually isn't really capable of providing much value. For example:
Me: So, you write C++ software and work at XYZ corp, great! We're looking for C++ talent. Tell me about a project that you worked on! ...
Candidate: Well, we developed software that did ABC...
Me: We? No, what exactly did YOU do?
Candidate: Well, I worked on a major sub-component of the software...
Me: OK, so what are some of the algorithms and/or data structures you used while writing the code?
Candidate: Um, well I didn't use much of that. I provided analysis and resolution of major defects...
Me: So you fixed bugs. That's cool. What are some of the common C++ mistakes you have identified?
Candidate: Uhh, I didn't really get deep into the code. I basically facilitated the analysis.
Me: Oh, so you talked to the engineers and wrote bug reports?
Candidate: Well, no, but I ENABLED them to deliver their results by...
Me:
It sounds like the "So what exactly do you do, Bob?" segment in Office Space, but these people are everywhere, and not all of them are interviewing. Many are in nice comfortable do-nothing jobs in corporate division 23 department B in high tech companies everywhere. These people are dragging down our companies and our country and need to go away.
This country has a major talent gap. You guys all deride the government when they talk about the huge shortage of technical talent but it's absolutely true. We have a shit-ton of people with "Engineer" on their diploma. We have a lot of people who claim to be technical but simply sit in meetings and "enable" others who are actually doing the work. We have a very, very small number of actual implementors who know their stuff and can actually innovate.
I don't know what the solution to the problem is, but think I see the symptoms all around me every day.
Really?? You would, assume any notification of a security breach to be fraudulent until proven otherwise? What web site do you operate, so I can be sure never to sign up or give you any personal details.
Reading both accounts of the story (one from the CEO, the other from the security expert), it seems to be a case of "who do you believe". All we truly know is that the site was hacked, these guys were involved somehow, and now they're mad at each other. Everything else is just based on what one side or the other says.
That said, looking through the blog postings of the CEO, he strikes me as having the classic case of paranoid narcissist personality disorder. Every other posting is a rant about how his competitors are all out to get him. Everything they do is about HIM and a response to HIS business. When eHarmony does something, it's not just an innocent business expansion, it's a direct personal attack on this guy. I've worked with presidents and CEOs who use similar wording to this CEO in their daily speech, and whose nuances and mannerisms seem to match this guy's perfectly. Although my examples are only anecdotal, I'd be willing to bet this disorder is quite common among business leaders.
Not knowing more about the situation and only having their two accounts to go with, I would probably fall on the side of believing the security expert's account more, just looking at the level of paranoia and exaggeration in the CEO's blogging history.
The reality is that a large number of businesses out there do not have front doors, or keep their doors wide open, as not every business can afford to have their office facilities penetration tested on a regular basis. Maintenance staff can do their best but they are only human, and hence they occasionally make mistakes. It only takes a single mistake made on a Friday afternoon while the office was winding down and you can be vulnerable.
Not every business model can support the profit margins needed to purchase doors, close them, and lock them, and penetration testing of every building entry and exit, especially while the entire economy shrinks and both companies and the public have less money to spend. Since creating an absolutely secure facility is both very expensive and often not entirely understood by management it is a very easy corner to cut.
This will have the exact same effect on copying as... well... as every scheme the industry has concocted to try to stop copying.
Facebook gets to be dynamic and "just do it live"-y because even if the whole site goes down it's not a huge deal.. much less some small feature.
Uhh, according to the leaked financials (if you believe them), if their site goes down, they're losing approx. $50k in revenue an hour. That's not a huge deal?
I'd still take "the added developer time needed for IPC" over doing the whole project in C or C++.
Performance and scalability = more machines. I'd rather throw more hardware [cheap] at a Python or Ruby project than throw more time-to-market [expensive] and more developers [expensive] at a C++ project.
The C++ project will also occupy more lines of code to maintain [expensive].
It's amazing to see people continuously insult those who are successful. As if their success is magical.
It's also amazing to see people continuously imagining a causal relationship between personal qualities and success.
Is a superstar stock picker really talented and hard-working, or was he simply the one (out of millions trying) who flipped a coin heads 20 times in a row?
No matter how many numbers are written on a credit card, they must be considered together as a single authentication factor. If the thief has access to one number physically on the card, he likely has access to all numbers on the card.
The additional password is a good start, but relies on the merchant not being a retard and linking the password with the CC number in a way that can be compromised. Also, as we have seen over and over, however, passwords are not great security tokens because they are either easy to memorize (and easy to guess) or they are hard to memorize and likely will be written down somewhere (or stored somewhere that's protected by an easy-to-remember[guess] password.
I'm convinced that biometrics are going to play an increasing role, since it's orders of magnitude more difficult to steal someone's eyes or fingers, or to steal the keyfob implanted on a bone in his hand than it is to steal a credit card or a password on a post-it note.
If I drive something worth stealing, nobody is going to go through any effort that involves my number plate or other "personal information". They're going to tow it away in 45 seconds while I'm in the grocery store.
The point is, there is no value in this particular "account number" because minus a few concocted movie-like scenarios, it cannot help anyone get anything. But my credit card number can be used by itself, without any other meaningful authentication, to make purchases. This is what needs to change. My name/address/ssn can be used to take out a loan in my name. This is what has to change.
I don't try to hide and lock down my car's license plate number. My car's license plate number is 6NHG617. Nobody cares about it and nobody wants to steal it. It's not valuable. The solution to the "problem" of personal identification theft is not to keep trying to hide and lock down personal information. The solution is to make personal information no longer valuable.
Are you saying the rich aren't getting richer and the poor aren't getting poorer?
4) If you ARE under arrest, you have the right to a lawyer. Ask for one immediately: "I would like to speak with my lawyer immediately, sir."
This is always the one that confused me a little. Who even "has a lawyer" until they're in trouble with the law? What, do people thumb through the yellow pages down at the police station looking under "L"? Serious question.. As someone who has never been in jail, I'm curious.
Sure, it may be tough to nail down and definitely varies region-to-region, but the whole point of having the term is to make the point that what the government calls "minimum wage" is not necessarily a wage that someone can actually live on.
Saying the term itself is smug and politically charged is like saying the word "gun" is politically charged because some people support "gun control".
I don't know how criminality was brought into this. We're comparing idle wealth with idle poverty.
Take a 25 year old guy who sits around eating cheetos and watching TV all day: If he's poor and on welfare, people are critical of him, he's lazy, he's not a contributor to society, etc. But if that guy (same behavior) was the grandson of the CEO of Exxon, well suddenly we have no problem with his cheeto-eating? I say they're morally equivalent:
1. Neither produce anything for society.
2. Neither live off their own money.
Yet all the judgment is heaped onto the poor one.
I've never heard it associated with unions or smugness. That's a pretty politically charged take on a benign, neutral term. I've always seen it as simply the minimum hourly wage necessary for an individual to meet basic needs, food, clothing, shelter, etc. We use the term to differentiate from "minimum wage" which is set by law and often has nothing to do with how much it takes to live. Why bring politics into it?
Free market capitalism
What exactly do you have against the term "living wage"? Did it murder your grandmother or something?
Once we have production-grade replicators or nth-generation Repraps [reprap.org], that will become a reality, indistinguishable from magic.
We'll never get there. The powerful people whose wealth and power are wrapped up in our dominant "few producers / many consumers" wealth redistribution scheme will never allow it.
If we ever get close to the Star Trek replicator, I guarantee you that the IP, know-how and everything related will be suppressed and destroyed by the small ownership class who profit from scarcity.
I don't see how multi-generational welfare families are any morally worse than multi-generational wealthy families, yet tons more complain about the former than they do about the latter. Idle is idle. Both are a net drain on society, but in different ways.
I should have responded to the GP post.. my mistake!
If Amazon came out tomorrow and said, "We will no longer carry books that promote Christianity, have 'Christian themes' or portray Christianity in a good light, because we determined these books are not profitable" would you call it censorship? Come on--say it with a straight face...