I always wanted a job where the title was "principle engineer". Not sure what that would involve, but it sounds much more interesting than "principal engineer".
I saw a demo of an ATM "jackpot" hack. The OS security doesn't come into it. The lack of a signed boot image does, as does what was described as "a fundamental design flaw in the auth protocol" that the researcher wouldn't elaborate on.
XP was never the issue - you want the ATM to auto-update from a legit image (remember: field maint costs dwarf fraud costs here). The problem is solved by the boot loader (for one a good use of the TPM chip, as you point out).
Mostly though: do any pen testing at all. They're so far from the security of the OS mattering right now it's silly. Clearly you want a lightweight, free OS in any case, but one where it's easy to find people to write secure apps seems like the first priority.
Google Image Search will auto-block-and-report anything matching the FBI CP database. Great idea in principle. But now the FBI has the ability to auto-block-and-report any image they want to. Ripe for abuse.
Petard-rollers aren't real engineers; they've never designed the kind of fortification they're trying to blow up. Who has, though? Civil engineers, that's who!
"For â(TM)tis the sport to have the engineer Hoist with his own petard: andâ(TM)t shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines,
And blow them at the moon"
Like it or not, that's what "engineer" originally meant - one who made siege engines.
quite a lot of software suffers from a distinct lack of "design;" it's not so much "engineered" as it is "crafted."
I've never seen that in a place where the job titles were "software engineer". I've seen plenty of bad designs, but that's a different story. Software engineering is still a new-ish field, with people with 20+ years of experience being quite rare still, rather than close to half of the engineering workforce. We still re-invent everything every 10 years simply because so much of the workforce is so young. But that doesn't make software "not real engineering", it makes it "not yet a mature field".
My salary's been steadily rising, except when I deliberately took a hit to change specialties.
I think it's different by specialty. "IT guys" are past the peak of demand, and shouldn't be conflated with the programmers writing the automation that made that so.
Academia is a different world, but we sure as Hell have a tuition bubble of epic proportions today (and sadly the profs are getting rich off of it).
Oh, stuff it. Programming consists of design, typing, and testing. It's rare (and silly) to write down the design to that level of detail separate from the code, but it's still true.
Is it a retirement plan, or a charity. If it's a retirement plan, of course the cost is capped as the payout is capped. Makes sense. If it's a charity it's regressive, but shouldn't people have a retirement plan so they don't need charity when older? (And it's a damn crappy retirement plan, returns-wise, but that's a different subject.)
I've done plenty of hiring. It's never about what languages people know. It's somewhat about problem domain expertise - it you want a senior position you need to already have the core concepts, not so much for a junior guy. It's mostly about people smart enough to do the job.
I don't care at all about education, experience, or citizenship unless you're: * Smart enough to solve the simple problems used in interview questions. * Have sufficient communication skills to explain your answer in the time available. * Don't have so much arrogance that you can't take constructive suggestions in a freaking job interview coding session. * Can actually write some damn code, in any language at all.
You'd be amazed how many senior guys fail the last point. I interviewed a guy recently where he did the coding problems in Go, since that's what he was most comfortable with. Neat - I learned a bit about Go. The fact he didn't know C# was irrelevant.
The vast majority of "Software Engineers" are indeed not true engineers.
Damn straight, hardly any of the have ever driven a train!
Bah, those new-fangled train drivers aren't real engineers, hardly any of them have ever rolled a petard up to the gate of a fortification while taking fire!
Engineers design systems. How that's expressed changes as technology moves along. As everything becomes automated, all engineering will become software design for some problem domain or another.
"Analyst" is a term from the 1970s. No one has that job title any more, aside from financial consulting places that also do coding (where, really, it makes sense).
Not all engineers design. Design engineers are different from "line engineers", who check the outcome of a process, rather than design a process.
Not all coders design, but something has gone wrong when a programmer with 5+ years isn't doing much of the design work for his own code.
Embedded programming has always paid poorly. Or, rather, programming pays quite well compared to most engineering, but embedded programming (at least for equipment) seems to pay similarly to "real" engineers in the same field.
I love the field, especially hard realtime, but I go where the money is.
Obviously, "climate science" gets a pass because it's so central to tribal identification in Western culture. By questioning it, you identify yourself as out-tribe, an unperson to be despised.
But seriously, a miss by 100% isn't bad for a fledgling scientific field. IMO, climate science is doing OK for how few years that real computer modeling has been available - it's far ahead of, say, psychiatry after it's first 30 years. The flaw is taking it seriously as a quantitative science. They're beyond mere descriptivism, and that's great, but they're a long way from providing any sort of information useful to economic or political decision-making.
Here's a pretty straightforward prediction : Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in higher temperatures.
Here's another : Burning lots of fossil fuels will increase levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
None of that is climate science. That's high school lab experiments. How much? Waving your hands vigorously enough may also cause global warming.
Predicting exact results is not easy
Neither is landing a probe on Mars, nor sequencing the genome of a pine tree (neat story today). Science does hard things. The dark matter to normal matter ratio was predicted accurately, which is why the idea was taken seriously after the CMBR data confirmed it to 2 significant digits. Before that it was one model among many, all of which were interesting.
Climate models are far from being useful science. Doesn't mean they're BS, but it does mean the field is young and has a long way to go.
I expect accurate, specific predictions. Those models that made such failed. Simple as that. If you're not making falsifiable predictions, you're not doing science.
Back in the day, Backup Exec was by far the most intuitive and easiest backup product going. Of course, that was before Symantec. Funny how that works.
Well, I've been repeated called a denier for asking just that. Even the slightest questioning of the Received Faith from the High Elders calls for immediate attacks and personal abuse in this religion.
But then, I think "climate science" is a bit of a reach so far, much like "soft science". The predictions form the models old enough (15+ years old) to be tested have been falsified. Are newer models better? No doubt. But accurate and specific (and true) predictions are still a thing of the future. Intellectual arrogance in this field is particularly unwarranted.
The few times I'm ever waiting on CPU, it's multi-threaded. Video transcoding, occasionally compiling. I can't remember the last time I heard of a game being CPU bound - that's always GPU-bound these days.
It's amazing how they jumped quickly on the heretic for the slightest non-orthodoxy. We've gone from grouping those who doubt that human CO2 emission costs more than eliminating it would with modern Nazis who deny the Holocaust, to burning the witch for claiming "you don't need global warming to explain this rise in costs".
Clearly he weighs the same as a duck!
When you start attacking people who say "I don't need your theory to explain this observation", not even doubting your theory is true, you've become a religion.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, that's one opinion. But that doesn't mean there's no place for such a product for people with a their own opinion about how to raise their kids.
I always wanted a job where the title was "principle engineer". Not sure what that would involve, but it sounds much more interesting than "principal engineer".
I saw a demo of an ATM "jackpot" hack. The OS security doesn't come into it. The lack of a signed boot image does, as does what was described as "a fundamental design flaw in the auth protocol" that the researcher wouldn't elaborate on.
XP was never the issue - you want the ATM to auto-update from a legit image (remember: field maint costs dwarf fraud costs here). The problem is solved by the boot loader (for one a good use of the TPM chip, as you point out).
Mostly though: do any pen testing at all. They're so far from the security of the OS mattering right now it's silly. Clearly you want a lightweight, free OS in any case, but one where it's easy to find people to write secure apps seems like the first priority.
Google Image Search will auto-block-and-report anything matching the FBI CP database. Great idea in principle. But now the FBI has the ability to auto-block-and-report any image they want to. Ripe for abuse.
There's really no difference in the security of browsers these days - it's all about the plug-ins.
And what does any of that have to do with wanting a porn-blocking filter for your kids?
Oh, sure. I remain amazed that the Romans had automatic ballistae, and that the U-joint was invented for ballista mounting.
Petard-rollers aren't real engineers; they've never designed the kind of fortification they're trying to blow up. Who has, though? Civil engineers, that's who!
"For â(TM)tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard: andâ(TM)t shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines,
And blow them at the moon"
Like it or not, that's what "engineer" originally meant - one who made siege engines.
quite a lot of software suffers from a distinct lack of "design;" it's not so much "engineered" as it is "crafted."
I've never seen that in a place where the job titles were "software engineer". I've seen plenty of bad designs, but that's a different story. Software engineering is still a new-ish field, with people with 20+ years of experience being quite rare still, rather than close to half of the engineering workforce. We still re-invent everything every 10 years simply because so much of the workforce is so young. But that doesn't make software "not real engineering", it makes it "not yet a mature field".
err, "profs aren't getting rich off of it." At least the ridiculous dot-com bubble made some milionaiers out of programmers.
My salary's been steadily rising, except when I deliberately took a hit to change specialties.
I think it's different by specialty. "IT guys" are past the peak of demand, and shouldn't be conflated with the programmers writing the automation that made that so.
Academia is a different world, but we sure as Hell have a tuition bubble of epic proportions today (and sadly the profs are getting rich off of it).
Oh, stuff it. Programming consists of design, typing, and testing. It's rare (and silly) to write down the design to that level of detail separate from the code, but it's still true.
He'll have a green card soon enough. You should probably cower in fear: another brown-skinned person becomes a citizen.
"Socialist" is an insult now? Cool! The battle has been won.
Social security is regressive,
Is it a retirement plan, or a charity. If it's a retirement plan, of course the cost is capped as the payout is capped. Makes sense. If it's a charity it's regressive, but shouldn't people have a retirement plan so they don't need charity when older? (And it's a damn crappy retirement plan, returns-wise, but that's a different subject.)
I've done plenty of hiring. It's never about what languages people know. It's somewhat about problem domain expertise - it you want a senior position you need to already have the core concepts, not so much for a junior guy. It's mostly about people smart enough to do the job.
I don't care at all about education, experience, or citizenship unless you're:
* Smart enough to solve the simple problems used in interview questions.
* Have sufficient communication skills to explain your answer in the time available.
* Don't have so much arrogance that you can't take constructive suggestions in a freaking job interview coding session.
* Can actually write some damn code, in any language at all.
You'd be amazed how many senior guys fail the last point. I interviewed a guy recently where he did the coding problems in Go, since that's what he was most comfortable with. Neat - I learned a bit about Go. The fact he didn't know C# was irrelevant.
The vast majority of "Software Engineers" are indeed not true engineers.
Damn straight, hardly any of the have ever driven a train!
Bah, those new-fangled train drivers aren't real engineers, hardly any of them have ever rolled a petard up to the gate of a fortification while taking fire!
Engineers design systems. How that's expressed changes as technology moves along. As everything becomes automated, all engineering will become software design for some problem domain or another.
"Analyst" is a term from the 1970s. No one has that job title any more, aside from financial consulting places that also do coding (where, really, it makes sense).
Not all engineers design. Design engineers are different from "line engineers", who check the outcome of a process, rather than design a process.
Not all coders design, but something has gone wrong when a programmer with 5+ years isn't doing much of the design work for his own code.
Embedded programming has always paid poorly. Or, rather, programming pays quite well compared to most engineering, but embedded programming (at least for equipment) seems to pay similarly to "real" engineers in the same field.
I love the field, especially hard realtime, but I go where the money is.
Obviously, "climate science" gets a pass because it's so central to tribal identification in Western culture. By questioning it, you identify yourself as out-tribe, an unperson to be despised.
But seriously, a miss by 100% isn't bad for a fledgling scientific field. IMO, climate science is doing OK for how few years that real computer modeling has been available - it's far ahead of, say, psychiatry after it's first 30 years. The flaw is taking it seriously as a quantitative science. They're beyond mere descriptivism, and that's great, but they're a long way from providing any sort of information useful to economic or political decision-making.
Right, right, life is so much simpler if you just assume everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. Or a sinner. Some kind of unperson anyhow.
Here's a pretty straightforward prediction : Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in higher temperatures.
Here's another : Burning lots of fossil fuels will increase levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
None of that is climate science. That's high school lab experiments. How much? Waving your hands vigorously enough may also cause global warming.
Predicting exact results is not easy
Neither is landing a probe on Mars, nor sequencing the genome of a pine tree (neat story today). Science does hard things. The dark matter to normal matter ratio was predicted accurately, which is why the idea was taken seriously after the CMBR data confirmed it to 2 significant digits. Before that it was one model among many, all of which were interesting.
Climate models are far from being useful science. Doesn't mean they're BS, but it does mean the field is young and has a long way to go.
I expect accurate, specific predictions. Those models that made such failed. Simple as that. If you're not making falsifiable predictions, you're not doing science.
Back in the day, Backup Exec was by far the most intuitive and easiest backup product going. Of course, that was before Symantec. Funny how that works.
Well, I've been repeated called a denier for asking just that. Even the slightest questioning of the Received Faith from the High Elders calls for immediate attacks and personal abuse in this religion.
But then, I think "climate science" is a bit of a reach so far, much like "soft science". The predictions form the models old enough (15+ years old) to be tested have been falsified. Are newer models better? No doubt. But accurate and specific (and true) predictions are still a thing of the future. Intellectual arrogance in this field is particularly unwarranted.
The few times I'm ever waiting on CPU, it's multi-threaded. Video transcoding, occasionally compiling. I can't remember the last time I heard of a game being CPU bound - that's always GPU-bound these days.
It's amazing how they jumped quickly on the heretic for the slightest non-orthodoxy. We've gone from grouping those who doubt that human CO2 emission costs more than eliminating it would with modern Nazis who deny the Holocaust, to burning the witch for claiming "you don't need global warming to explain this rise in costs".
Clearly he weighs the same as a duck!
When you start attacking people who say "I don't need your theory to explain this observation", not even doubting your theory is true, you've become a religion.