Maybe. But if they were nerds they were pretty pathetic. I'd have expected plans on how to handle the bullies that did NOT end on the evening news with the statement "before turning the weapon on himself".
And talking about it where other students can hear? Not smart.
While we're covering the potential errors of Patreon, how about making the logout link/button easier to find? I'm tired of closing the entire browser to clear my connection to them.
I would say that I see our primary role is to proactively drive positive change while developing the right responses to capitalize on disruption in our industry.
If that even made sense... is there any "management" or CxO role in a company where the exact same could NOT be said?
I would make it clear that my team is not going to spend a lot of time spinning wheels on inventorying every nuance and the current state of our infrastructure.
I've worked for hazardous waste disposal companies, insurance companies and manufacturing companies. The CRITICAL parts are always 100% "nuance".
Otherwise you're operating the same as someone else and they're probably doing it for less than you charge. And taking all your clients.
We're also tasked with taking innovative new technology and coming up with a plan to apply that innovation to dominate the competition.
In other words, you want to play beta-tester with the company's business. For technology that you do NOT control.
The rest of it really is focused on driving change and optimizing.
I'm reminded of some old advice for CxO's. Claim something is a problem and then change it. No one ever filled out their resume with "maintained the status quo".
We will do everything in our power to build that trust and to aid in taking advantage of the rapid change that is happening in our industry.
What "rapid change"? If your name is "Google" or "Amazon" then you're probably doing the same thing in the same way in the same time you've been doing it for 10 years.
It can be difficult and they can change and they will probably be incomplete... but as you get more experience you should be better prepared to deal with those issues.
I've seen a company build a new production center and not know where the people would be who would be operating it. Some of it was backwards. We ended up putting down tape to delineate the different areas so they could be painted. So yeah, stupidity is rampant.
But the contractors all got paid. They didn't care whether what they were delivering met the customers actual needs (that the customer could not identify) as long as what they delivered met the specs and was up to code.
Software should, for the most part, be the same way. I'd guess that less than 1% of the programmers out there are really doing anything new.
The problem of traditional IT departments in large corporation is not getting "Ubered"; it's just a matter of having a large organization with all the bureaucracy that comes with it.
Which does not seem to be addressed by any of the people in TFA.
I see it as a manifestation of the The Dunningâ"Kruger effect. Those people got their positions NOT through creating something new and valuable but through relationships with other people.
So, should they be worried about getting "Ubered"? If by "Ubered" you mean "having your business cut out from under you by some who understands IT better than you" then yes.
The LAST thing I want is some idiot CIO trying to "fix" things that are not broken.
Now imagine that one of those junk sites gets cracked. They now have:
1. your email address 2. your password for that site 3. the "security" answers you've provided
Using #1 & #2 they can try to access other sites to collect more of #3.
Have you used the same email address (#1) and security answers (#3) on critical sites? If so, they can potentially bypass the password (#2) that they do not have for those critical sites.
So, unique passwords AND unique email addresses (with unique passwords) for critical sites.
But that's not even the greatest flaw. The greatest problem is expecting people to do a bunch of research to dig through past archives (thousands and thousands of jokes?) to determine if any of those are a substantial match with this one.
There are MANY flaws with Bennett Haselton's idea. There always are. That's the problem with his posts getting front page placement.
Anyway, let's deal with them in order of time.
1. Who is going to sign up to read a list of JOKES just because it promises "new" jokes in exchange for your work?
2. Who is going to SUBMIT jokes FOR FREE to that list to reach those readers?
3. Who is going to do the work FOR FREE of documenting duplicate jokes?
4. Who is going to do the work FOR FREE of verifying the documentation of #3?
That's why I think sock puppets will be the biggest exploit of those flaws. Anyone incentivized to reach the people in #1 will be incentivized to game it by creating sock puppets. It won't take many sock puppets because most people will soon give up on the effort to document a joke / moderate the documentation of a joke.
Eventually you will end up with sock puppets documenting jokes and sock puppets moderating that documentation. And the list of jokes will devolve into whatever personal vendetta the guy with the most sock puppets has.
EVERY story should be emailed to 1,000/. users who will ignore it and hope that they will do the research necessary to find if it is a dupe or similar enough to something that they will remember and care enough to link to so that SOMEONE ELSE can check that it is valid before releasing it.
Bennett Haselton has, once again, come up with an idiot "solution" to a problem that does not exist and and he expects free labour from THOUSANDS of people will solve this problem.
Yes, you idiot, that idea is "gameable" because sock puppet accounts will be the most likely to respond while real users will not have the time/dedication to research (for FREE) whether a joke is a dupe or not.
Who the fuck even cares?
Why is Bennett Haselton still posting to the front page of/.?
"The nice thing about Snappy is that it's completely worry-free updates," Shuttleworth said.
I don't think it was the PACKAGE that caused people to worry about an update.
For example, Shuttleworth said that if there is a security vulnerability, like a Heartbleed flaw, the way Ubuntu fixes the issue is with a.deb package.
Isn't that an issue with the code itself?
The great thing about.deb packages was that the OFFICIAL ones underwent a lot of testing to try to catch problems BEFORE they were deployed. NOT because they were magical.deb packages.
According to Rubalcava, the biggest barrier to carrying out terrorist plans until now has been the risk of getting caught or killed by law enforcement so that only depraved hatred, or religious fervor has been able to motivate someone to take on those risks as part of a plan to harm other people.
No. Because look the times when we have caught the criminal. We cannot stop them from setting off a bomb, but we will catch them after they do so.
So to be a terrorist you have to be willing to die or to spend the rest of your life in prison.
"A burner email account, a prepaid debit card purchased with cash, and an account, tied to that burner email, with an AV car service will get him a long way to being able to place explosives near crowds, without ever being there himself."
But it will not stop him from being found AFTERWARDS.
Because those actions leave traces. And you will be spending the rest of your life in jail.
Imagine if they could have dispatched their bombs in the trunk of a car that they were never in themselves? Catching them might have been an order of magnitude more difficult than it was.
No. You're confusing two different scenarios and ASSUMING that the technique that worked in one scenario WOULD BE THE ONLY TECHNIQUE USED in the other scenario.
"That shutdown could stretch from temporary to quasi-permanent with ease, as security professionals grapple with the technical challenge of distinguishing between safe, legitimate payloads and payloads that are intended to harm."
It COULD. But more likely it won't.
Mostly because he's assuming that an autonomous car will be exactly like a current car + driver... but with a really stupid robot driver that will do anything you tell it to do. Don't assume that.
I don't think he even understands FedEx. FedEx cannot tell you where a package is RIGHT NOW. They can only tell you where it was LAST SCANNED.
The reason this works well for packages is that packages don't move themselves. And even then it has failures. This will completely fail because HUMANS can wander around on their own.
Sounds more like Christie wants to associate his campaign with something that people have a mostly positive opinion of. But I'm pretty sure that FedEx will not want to be associated with a losing candidate OR the concept of tagging and tracking undesirable races/nationalities (shades of Nazi German there).
The entire populous can be wiped out, so there's no need for significant boots on the ground. Small arms fire erupts? drop a couple tons of explosives in the area and call it good.
Who is attacking whom in that scenario?
Seriously. Who is it?
Because you're postulating an attacker trying to exterminate 350 MILLION people in the USofA without any other country being able to stop them.
That might sound good as a thought experiment but it runs into problems in the real world.
I will never vote for someone who uses the word "evildoer".
Yep! Why the fuck does that word keep showing up in political statements? It makes them sound like children.
"If you create encryption, it makes it harder for the American government to do its job â" while protecting civil liberties â" to make sure that evildoers aren't in our midst."
Except that the majority of "evil" done in this country is NOT encrypted. It is publicly displayed and celebrated.
Slashdot Mirror
But it is possible to take someone with no experience and turn him/her into a code monkey in only 2 years.
And I think that that is the point with this. They aren't looking to educate new "engineers". They want cheap, fast labour. Code monkeys.
If one of those people goes on to learn more, on their own, so much the better.
If not, well the CxO's of those companies will claim that it is the fault of the workers.
If you want to change the system then you have to be involved a lot sooner than voting day.
And it all starts at the grassroots level.
Don't simply vote for the "lesser evil" in your local elections. Get out and help campaign for someone whom you could actually support.
Get your friends together and form your own voting bloc.
Schedule time to meet with the candidates. Even the ones who "have no chance".
MAKE the change instead of waiting for someone who's already bought to do so for you. Because that isn't going to work.
What? Why do you think that a car would be programmed to hit "obstacle B" when "obstacle A" appears in front of it?
Instead, wouldn't the car be programmed to avoid ALL obstacles and apply the brakes with maximum efficiency?
Maybe. But if they were nerds they were pretty pathetic. I'd have expected plans on how to handle the bullies that did NOT end on the evening news with the statement "before turning the weapon on himself".
And talking about it where other students can hear? Not smart.
A quick experiment to demonstrate that you have not thought about this ... post your name and address here. Right now.
If you do not, then your question really was stupid.
While we're covering the potential errors of Patreon, how about making the logout link/button easier to find? I'm tired of closing the entire browser to clear my connection to them.
oops.
UNLESS your name is "Google" or "Amazon"...
Sorry for the error.
And that article is one of the worst I've seen.
If that even made sense ... is there any "management" or CxO role in a company where the exact same could NOT be said?
I've worked for hazardous waste disposal companies, insurance companies and manufacturing companies. The CRITICAL parts are always 100% "nuance".
Otherwise you're operating the same as someone else and they're probably doing it for less than you charge. And taking all your clients.
In other words, you want to play beta-tester with the company's business. For technology that you do NOT control.
I'm reminded of some old advice for CxO's. Claim something is a problem and then change it. No one ever filled out their resume with "maintained the status quo".
What "rapid change"? If your name is "Google" or "Amazon" then you're probably doing the same thing in the same way in the same time you've been doing it for 10 years.
I'm more reminded of this:
http://www.huhcorp.com/
Isn't that known as "gathering requirements"?
It can be difficult and they can change and they will probably be incomplete ... but as you get more experience you should be better prepared to deal with those issues.
I've seen a company build a new production center and not know where the people would be who would be operating it. Some of it was backwards. We ended up putting down tape to delineate the different areas so they could be painted. So yeah, stupidity is rampant.
But the contractors all got paid. They didn't care whether what they were delivering met the customers actual needs (that the customer could not identify) as long as what they delivered met the specs and was up to code.
Software should, for the most part, be the same way. I'd guess that less than 1% of the programmers out there are really doing anything new.
Which does not seem to be addressed by any of the people in TFA.
I see it as a manifestation of the The Dunningâ"Kruger effect. Those people got their positions NOT through creating something new and valuable but through relationships with other people.
So, should they be worried about getting "Ubered"? If by "Ubered" you mean "having your business cut out from under you by some who understands IT better than you" then yes.
The LAST thing I want is some idiot CIO trying to "fix" things that are not broken.
From the pictures in TFA, this looks like a SINGLE SHOT mod. So not much problem of jams or such.
But, how many times do cops fire a single round? Not often.
How many times do cops firing multiple rounds miss? A lot.
This is a stupid idea.
Now imagine that one of those junk sites gets cracked. They now have:
1. your email address
2. your password for that site
3. the "security" answers you've provided
Using #1 & #2 they can try to access other sites to collect more of #3.
Have you used the same email address (#1) and security answers (#3) on critical sites? If so, they can potentially bypass the password (#2) that they do not have for those critical sites.
So, unique passwords AND unique email addresses (with unique passwords) for critical sites.
There are MANY flaws with Bennett Haselton's idea. There always are. That's the problem with his posts getting front page placement.
Anyway, let's deal with them in order of time.
1. Who is going to sign up to read a list of JOKES just because it promises "new" jokes in exchange for your work?
2. Who is going to SUBMIT jokes FOR FREE to that list to reach those readers?
3. Who is going to do the work FOR FREE of documenting duplicate jokes?
4. Who is going to do the work FOR FREE of verifying the documentation of #3?
That's why I think sock puppets will be the biggest exploit of those flaws. Anyone incentivized to reach the people in #1 will be incentivized to game it by creating sock puppets. It won't take many sock puppets because most people will soon give up on the effort to document a joke / moderate the documentation of a joke.
Eventually you will end up with sock puppets documenting jokes and sock puppets moderating that documentation. And the list of jokes will devolve into whatever personal vendetta the guy with the most sock puppets has.
We should implement Haselton's stupid idea then!
EVERY story should be emailed to 1,000 /. users who will ignore it and hope that they will do the research necessary to find if it is a dupe or similar enough to something that they will remember and care enough to link to so that SOMEONE ELSE can check that it is valid before releasing it.
Bennett Haselton has, once again, come up with an idiot "solution" to a problem that does not exist and and he expects free labour from THOUSANDS of people will solve this problem.
Yes, you idiot, that idea is "gameable" because sock puppet accounts will be the most likely to respond while real users will not have the time/dedication to research (for FREE) whether a joke is a dupe or not.
Who the fuck even cares?
Why is Bennett Haselton still posting to the front page of /.?
I don't think it was the PACKAGE that caused people to worry about an update.
Isn't that an issue with the code itself?
The great thing about .deb packages was that the OFFICIAL ones underwent a lot of testing to try to catch problems BEFORE they were deployed. NOT because they were magical .deb packages.
And he's wrong.
No. Because look the times when we have caught the criminal. We cannot stop them from setting off a bomb, but we will catch them after they do so.
So to be a terrorist you have to be willing to die or to spend the rest of your life in prison.
But it will not stop him from being found AFTERWARDS.
Because those actions leave traces. And you will be spending the rest of your life in jail.
No. You're confusing two different scenarios and ASSUMING that the technique that worked in one scenario WOULD BE THE ONLY TECHNIQUE USED in the other scenario.
It COULD. But more likely it won't.
Mostly because he's assuming that an autonomous car will be exactly like a current car + driver ... but with a really stupid robot driver that will do anything you tell it to do. Don't assume that.
But it wouldn't work anyway.
I don't think he even understands FedEx. FedEx cannot tell you where a package is RIGHT NOW. They can only tell you where it was LAST SCANNED.
The reason this works well for packages is that packages don't move themselves. And even then it has failures. This will completely fail because HUMANS can wander around on their own.
Sounds more like Christie wants to associate his campaign with something that people have a mostly positive opinion of. But I'm pretty sure that FedEx will not want to be associated with a losing candidate OR the concept of tagging and tracking undesirable races/nationalities (shades of Nazi German there).
And why would they do that?
Not that they could NOT do that.
But WHY would they do that?
And illogical statement is not a refutation. It is only an illogical statement.
Who is attacking whom in that scenario?
Seriously. Who is it?
Because you're postulating an attacker trying to exterminate 350 MILLION people in the USofA without any other country being able to stop them.
That might sound good as a thought experiment but it runs into problems in the real world.
You're on the wrong point.
"Well regulated" means "trained" or "skilled" in that context at that time. The SCOTUS has already ruled on that.
And "militia" means most male citizens (between certain ages).
But neither of those are an issue because the last part says:
And the SCOTUS has also ruled on who "the people" are in that context.
All systems require support.
No one is saying that installing Linux means that you do not have to pay for any of the standard costs associated with a system.
And remember that the opposition NEEDS to find a cause to champion that is contrary to the current system. Otherwise they aren't the opposition.
Whether or not their complaints are valid is irrelevant. That's how politics works.
Yep! Why the fuck does that word keep showing up in political statements? It makes them sound like children.
Except that the majority of "evil" done in this country is NOT encrypted. It is publicly displayed and celebrated.
I think it has more to do with how you phrase it to people.
I'm pretty sure that anyone sweating over the Ashley Madison leak is now in favour of encryption.
Encryption - because sometimes even "good" people don't want EVERYONE reading what they're doing.
I think that it is more about chasing the flavour-of-the-month.
Is it enough to be on AOL?
No? How about MySpace?
Okay, is LiveJournal acceptable then?
And so forth.
If you're looking for YOUNGER programmers then you look for them where YOUNG people hang out.
But don't demand that OLDER programmers try to socialize the way that younger people do.
If you have X years of programming experience, then you should be able to sell yourself based upon that.
Social media and such would be useful to programmers JUST STARTING THEIR CAREERS.
BUT! If you are an older programmer you DO need to keep expanding your knowledge. Learn newer languages / systems.