Dude, I've been earning my living programming for over 35 years. I have never ever, not even once, encountered an instance of a programmer deliberately injecting a bug into a system.
You're either speaking out of your donkey, or you know some of the most worthless excuses for programmers in existence.
In my 30, or so, years working as a programmer, I have changed jobs several times. And when I say changed jobs, I mean different employers in different industries using a different tech stack, so really changed.
Switching jobs makes you worse in the sense that your corporate knowledge - local source code, local program design, local tools, contacts, etc - is now worthless and you need to replace it. That takes time to learn, and learning it will slow down your productivity.
Switching jobs makes you better in that you learn a new tech stack, new techniques, new concepts (design, how to work with clients, how to think about problems), etc.
Whether you switch jobs is somewhat irrelevant. In our industry, you need to be learning new stuff. If you cannot sit down at the end of a year and list a couple of significant things you learned over the past year, you've got problems. The industry is ALWAYS changing. You cannot keep up with everything, but if you don't grow, you will become obsolete. the good news is that it's never been easier to learn new stuff.
OR
you find yourself subjected to various forms of torture until you provide the decryption key. Followed by additional forms of torture because they're now POd that they had to work to get the decryption key.
As a developer, I've worked with 3 QA testers who were worth their weight in gold (well, at least silver). They did things that I would never have dreamed of doing and helped me make my code much better than it would otherwise have been.
Developers need to write unit tests. We need to automate them so they run every blessed time we compile our code.
QA tests at a higher level than we do. They don't test the same things we do. Having developers do QA work is a bean-counter move. If the bean-counters are running the projects, I'll be updating my resume and looking to jump ship.
My experience is along the following:
Noobs develop a new website. Senior devs have little time to review what the noobs have done. Website goes live. Users are happy.
A year or two down the line, the former noobs move to other employers so as to obtain a real raise.
Some time thereafter, serious security flaw is noted on original website. Flaw is fixed by senior devs, who may, or may not, adequately explain the problem to the noobs currently maintaining the website. The original devs involved never learn of the flaw or the fix.
Simply put, we are not adequately taught security in school and we are unlikely to learn it at work. Compounding the issue, there is always a rush to production and very often security is the low priority task that gets tossed in order to meet the (artificial) deadline.
That depends. My local airport has residential neighbourhoods right up to the fence surrounding the airport. Those residential neighbourhoods grew up AFTER the airport was built.
Bottom line is that it's entirely possible the helicopter being at 500 ft is perfectly reasonable for that locale. The article doesn't provide details for either side of the argument.
Seriously, traveling sans GPS is adventurous? You can get a wonderful book of maps at Flying J, or pretty much any real truck stop. If that's no good, there are things called signs that sit alongside the highways telling you how to get where.
I've travelled across North America (and Europe) without GPS or maps, relying on signage, without issue.
Try putting your brains into gear.
how would I be certain that the text message was not a spoof? I don't answer phone calls from numbers that are not in my contacts list. I don't respond to texts whose origin is questionable.
Not that I know much about texting, but how do I know for certain that the text ostensibly from the police is truly from the police? I'm not paranoid, at least not since the Snowdon revelations.
At work, many of our doors require both card and pin. On those doors, the pin pads are randomized. So unless "they" can be close enough to read the keys you are pressing, simply noting the pattern of your finger movements won't help.
At the end of the day, there is no 100% perfect security. Even then, I suspect that rubber-hose crypto would defeat your perfect security.
but the needed reinvention is less about being able to record the input than it is about the quality of the input being recorded. For all the dozens of channels I have in my cable package, there is precious little input worth recording or watching.
From the summary, the league owns the equipment and provides it to the team only during the game! So the users don't really get to learn to use the freaking things before the games!!! Make no wonder the users hate the things. They have to try and figure out how to use the tools at the very time that they are at their busiest. That's a planning fail on the part of both MS and the NFL.
If (well, let's be realistic - in reality) the cars are not properly secured, they will be hackable. That means they will be hacked. Imagine a car on the highway suddenly jamming on its brakes. Or a car suddenly racing down a crowded pedestrian mall.
Or an extremist government deciding to limit how far you may drive in a given year. Or limiting where you may drive. Much easier to do so if the cars are all controlled by computers.
Until Snowden, people called me paranoid. Now, not so much.
Just because a technology has been around for a while doesn't mean it's obsolete. We've been using A/C electricity in our homes for a century or more. It still works just fine. For printing, bottom line is we need something to make marks on paper.
Been there, done that, got away from it as soon as I could. Looks dreadful. If the label comes off in your drive (it does happen) kiss you drive bye-bye. If you have a drive with a narrow opening, it may not fit (seriously).
That's an excellent question. There are probably problems that could be solved by technology, but do the relevant techies know about the problems? A previous post mentioned automating testing of, say, TB. Great idea. But how would I, a programmer, know that that particular need exists? I'm not psychic (possibly psychotic, but that's a different issue). If techies are not improving the world, if they're spending their time creating stuff like Angry Birds, maybe they simply haven't found anything more interesting. Or maybe they see a better potential ROI in Angry Birds rather than testing for TB. Solving problems is great. Having a roof over your head and food on your table is better still.
Every time I read about some idiot scheme like this, I'm very tempted to write a program that will take a file and randomly (okay, for well known file types, randomly with a bit of intelligence) change a single bit in the file. Wonder if I could sell it for a buck a copy? Think I'd call it NeenerNeener.
Let's put aside the ethics/morals debate for a moment and consider the math.
To send a spacecraft, using our current technology, to the nearest star would take tens of thousands of years. There is no reasonable expectation that a spacecraft built using our current technology could survive that long, so we cannot simply do this yet. Realistically, we're at least centuries away from being able to do this. That gives us a lot of time to research these planets.
We don't really understand the effect of mosquitoes on the overall biosphere. Is there something critical to us that relies, perhaps indirectly, on the little buggers? Quite possibly, but there is no one who knows enough to tell us. Better not to go with the nuclear option when we are in such a state of ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, I've been earning my living programming for over 35 years. I have never ever, not even once, encountered an instance of a programmer deliberately injecting a bug into a system. You're either speaking out of your donkey, or you know some of the most worthless excuses for programmers in existence.
Seriously? I've been changing tires on my family's vehicles since I was 12 (aka more than 4 decades). Why would I need a tow truck to change a tire?
In my 30, or so, years working as a programmer, I have changed jobs several times. And when I say changed jobs, I mean different employers in different industries using a different tech stack, so really changed. Switching jobs makes you worse in the sense that your corporate knowledge - local source code, local program design, local tools, contacts, etc - is now worthless and you need to replace it. That takes time to learn, and learning it will slow down your productivity. Switching jobs makes you better in that you learn a new tech stack, new techniques, new concepts (design, how to work with clients, how to think about problems), etc. Whether you switch jobs is somewhat irrelevant. In our industry, you need to be learning new stuff. If you cannot sit down at the end of a year and list a couple of significant things you learned over the past year, you've got problems. The industry is ALWAYS changing. You cannot keep up with everything, but if you don't grow, you will become obsolete. the good news is that it's never been easier to learn new stuff.
OR you find yourself subjected to various forms of torture until you provide the decryption key. Followed by additional forms of torture because they're now POd that they had to work to get the decryption key.
As a developer, I've worked with 3 QA testers who were worth their weight in gold (well, at least silver). They did things that I would never have dreamed of doing and helped me make my code much better than it would otherwise have been. Developers need to write unit tests. We need to automate them so they run every blessed time we compile our code. QA tests at a higher level than we do. They don't test the same things we do. Having developers do QA work is a bean-counter move. If the bean-counters are running the projects, I'll be updating my resume and looking to jump ship.
My experience is along the following: Noobs develop a new website. Senior devs have little time to review what the noobs have done. Website goes live. Users are happy. A year or two down the line, the former noobs move to other employers so as to obtain a real raise. Some time thereafter, serious security flaw is noted on original website. Flaw is fixed by senior devs, who may, or may not, adequately explain the problem to the noobs currently maintaining the website. The original devs involved never learn of the flaw or the fix. Simply put, we are not adequately taught security in school and we are unlikely to learn it at work. Compounding the issue, there is always a rush to production and very often security is the low priority task that gets tossed in order to meet the (artificial) deadline.
That depends. My local airport has residential neighbourhoods right up to the fence surrounding the airport. Those residential neighbourhoods grew up AFTER the airport was built. Bottom line is that it's entirely possible the helicopter being at 500 ft is perfectly reasonable for that locale. The article doesn't provide details for either side of the argument.
Seriously, traveling sans GPS is adventurous? You can get a wonderful book of maps at Flying J, or pretty much any real truck stop. If that's no good, there are things called signs that sit alongside the highways telling you how to get where. I've travelled across North America (and Europe) without GPS or maps, relying on signage, without issue. Try putting your brains into gear.
For gaming, it might be useful. Not into gaming. Other than gaming, is there a good reason to care about VR?
That attitude is not limited to Americans. Any national government ought to think like that.
Muggles should not be allowed to create laws pertaining to magic.
how would I be certain that the text message was not a spoof? I don't answer phone calls from numbers that are not in my contacts list. I don't respond to texts whose origin is questionable.
Not that I know much about texting, but how do I know for certain that the text ostensibly from the police is truly from the police? I'm not paranoid, at least not since the Snowdon revelations.
At work, many of our doors require both card and pin. On those doors, the pin pads are randomized. So unless "they" can be close enough to read the keys you are pressing, simply noting the pattern of your finger movements won't help. At the end of the day, there is no 100% perfect security. Even then, I suspect that rubber-hose crypto would defeat your perfect security.
but the needed reinvention is less about being able to record the input than it is about the quality of the input being recorded. For all the dozens of channels I have in my cable package, there is precious little input worth recording or watching.
From the summary, the league owns the equipment and provides it to the team only during the game! So the users don't really get to learn to use the freaking things before the games!!! Make no wonder the users hate the things. They have to try and figure out how to use the tools at the very time that they are at their busiest. That's a planning fail on the part of both MS and the NFL.
If (well, let's be realistic - in reality) the cars are not properly secured, they will be hackable. That means they will be hacked. Imagine a car on the highway suddenly jamming on its brakes. Or a car suddenly racing down a crowded pedestrian mall. Or an extremist government deciding to limit how far you may drive in a given year. Or limiting where you may drive. Much easier to do so if the cars are all controlled by computers. Until Snowden, people called me paranoid. Now, not so much.
Just because a technology has been around for a while doesn't mean it's obsolete. We've been using A/C electricity in our homes for a century or more. It still works just fine. For printing, bottom line is we need something to make marks on paper.
Been there, done that, got away from it as soon as I could. Looks dreadful. If the label comes off in your drive (it does happen) kiss you drive bye-bye. If you have a drive with a narrow opening, it may not fit (seriously).
That's an excellent question. There are probably problems that could be solved by technology, but do the relevant techies know about the problems? A previous post mentioned automating testing of, say, TB. Great idea. But how would I, a programmer, know that that particular need exists? I'm not psychic (possibly psychotic, but that's a different issue). If techies are not improving the world, if they're spending their time creating stuff like Angry Birds, maybe they simply haven't found anything more interesting. Or maybe they see a better potential ROI in Angry Birds rather than testing for TB. Solving problems is great. Having a roof over your head and food on your table is better still.
Every time I read about some idiot scheme like this, I'm very tempted to write a program that will take a file and randomly (okay, for well known file types, randomly with a bit of intelligence) change a single bit in the file. Wonder if I could sell it for a buck a copy? Think I'd call it NeenerNeener.
Let's put aside the ethics/morals debate for a moment and consider the math.
To send a spacecraft, using our current technology, to the nearest star would take tens of thousands of years. There is no reasonable expectation that a spacecraft built using our current technology could survive that long, so we cannot simply do this yet. Realistically, we're at least centuries away from being able to do this. That gives us a lot of time to research these planets.
Yay! Rationality!
Because we're not smart enough to keep track of what we have in our own fridge. What a waste.
We don't really understand the effect of mosquitoes on the overall biosphere. Is there something critical to us that relies, perhaps indirectly, on the little buggers? Quite possibly, but there is no one who knows enough to tell us. Better not to go with the nuclear option when we are in such a state of ignorance.
Will older chips still be able to run the latest version of Windows 10?