In today's world of 24/7 and persistent network access, developers dispersed across multi-national sites can include open source, freeware, public domain, evalware (demos of commercial software), etc, into the code they are writing without triggering the usual checkpoints in the procurement process.
I've seen that same issue YEARS ago. And I'm not talking code snippets. I'm talking systems that had "evalware" tools in them.
This has NOTHING to do with "multi-national sites" or any of that.
This has EVERYTHING to do with clearly stating the rules and ENFORCING those rules.
The rules do not enforce themselves. Someone, somewhere has to approve the code that goes in.
The problem is that management does NOT understand code and will happily farm out the work to anyone who says that they can produce X lines for $Y. Without oversight. The less oversight, the less expensive the project is. Which means bigger bonuses for those same executives.
And if there actually is a "Hacker War" between us... and if our military is currently playing a role in such... are there any civilian applications that will be released to help defend our non-military assets (corporations, education, etc)?
I doubt that he'll answer ANYTHING with any details. This will be a recruiting and PR piece. His "answers" will be vetted by at least 3 different agencies and any content will have been removed.
By 'Cell' I mean using Cell for traditional voice, as opposed to using the towers for data.
If you're talking the current (3rd generation) of digital phones, there really isn't a difference between "voice" and "data" as it gets to your cell phone.
Do I just not know some Windows Admin secret magic, or is it true that I really can't back up my applications.
There is a little magic that you can try, but you are pretty much correct. You cannot EASILY backup your Windows apps.
For the Registry, you can "export" the entries for that app to a file and, later, you can import that file into the Registry.
The problem with the Registry is the same as you've noted with the file system. Stuff gets put EVERYWHERE. And there is no way to KNOW that you have EVERYTHING until AFTER you attempt to restore it. AND that doesn't include anything "updated" when you get a patch or point-zero-one release "upgrade".
Now, the installer can put that stuff everywhere... and in theory it can remove that stuff when you un-install it... but it cannot COPY that stuff to a backup directory/device?
And I don't want to hear that that is to prevent "piracy". Just encrypt the stuff with the unlocking key or whatever. That way I can keep a TEXT file of app-name -- key code on my USB drive along with the backups.
Encourage the application writers to make their applications EASY TO BACKUP.
The problem I keep seeing is that TELLING someone to back up their data is easy to do. FINDING ALL of the data is just about impossible.
You'll never know if you got it all until AFTER a problem.
Or even... how about just including a simple script that will look at how it's installed TODAY and back it up to a location chosen by the user? And then that script will generate a script to install that backup should you need it to. Along with license keys and decoding keys and unlocking keys, etc.
Let's just say he couldn't have pulled it off without our support.
Not my support. I was called a "Saddam lover" because I opposed our invasion.
And if Bush is a criminal, then so is the congress that authorized him and handed over the money.
That would depend upon the evidence that they had at the time they voted for the war. But I'm in favour of charging them, too. Any of them that voted for the war. Including the Republicans who are no longer in office. Let's be thorough on this.
This could all be another fake "evaluation" like the others were.
Just because they appear to be going through the steps that they're required to... doesn't mean that they're still not bought and paid for.
Until ISO can PUBLICLY state the errors that were made and WHO made those "errors" AND take action against those individuals they can not be trusted. Not even to follow the procedures that their own rules require of them.
They didn't follow them when they were fast-tracking this. There is no reason to believe that this time will be any different.
I've been a poll inspector in Los Angeles county for at least three maybe four years now and I kind of resent being the one that you think most likely to commit fraud.
You can resent all you want, but the facts are the facts. Deal with it.
It's not really that easy to do...
I did not say it was an easy job to do.
... and the precincts are small enough that the poll workers themselves can't have a huge affect anyway.
Individually they may not. But overall, they could.
You speak without any knowledge of what you say and if you have never worked the polls I suggest you kindly shut the fuck up.
If you don't like the facts then that is your problem.
There are only so many people involved in the voting process. The people with the ballot boxes ARE the ones more likely to commit fraud. Whether that offends you or not, it is a fact.
Preventing fraud means facing that fact. Not being offended by it.
When the various sides keep watch on each other, basic human suspicion helps prevent fraud. No one wants their side to lose because the other side stuffed the ballot box or "lost" votes that would have gone to them.
Actually, that's not true. It would have been pathetically easy to deposit extra votes in the ballot box without anyone noticing.
No, it is not. Not without having the cooperation of all the people who are supposedly watching the ballot box for that specific reason.
Simply have the voter hand his/her ballot to the Republican watching the box who then hands it to the Democrat watching the box who then hands it to the 3rd party representative watching the box who then deposits it in the box in front of the voter and the other two representatives.
The entire process would take 3 seconds per voter per box and ensure that each voter only submitted a single ballot.
Now, solving the problem of whether that person votes at multiple locations or under multiple names is a different issue. But one that can also be solved fairly easily.
It is fallacious to think we can have a foolproof voting system.
No one is saying that because no one wants to bet against the stupidity of some of the fools out there.
But that doesn't matter as long as the margin between the candidates (authentic votes only) is larger than the number of votes cast by the "fools".
And THAT is achievable.
If a paper trail is added, suddenly they're tracking who votes for whom.
No they aren't. The paper trail is to validate the votes the machine counts. NOT to track the voter.
We just have to trust that most poll workers are civically responsible, and are doing their best to mitigate fraud.
Fuck that. The poll workers are the ones most likely to commit fraud. NEVER trust them. Have your people watch them at every step.
Anyone who doesn't think that is the case in his precinct is more than welcome to step away from his busy day of posting on Slashdot and volunteer to work the polls.
And many of us WILL be volunteering to do just that.
Is to make it easier for the voter to SEE how s/he has voted.
Instead of a punched hole or whatever on a card, you SHOULD have the name of the person you selected printed in NICE BIG LETTERS on the ballot. And ONLY the name of the person you selected. No confusion.
Other than that, the old style paper ballots work best.
A combination of age and cynicism combine to make me question anything I consider to be "extraordinary claims" without accompanying extraordinary evidence.
And claiming that better-than-average "soft" skills can compensate for a deficiency of "hard" skills is an extraordinary claim in my book.
Particularly when the issue is governance and the opportunity for massive profits.
The decisions the President makes SHAPE the economy.
If he says that it is okay for telco's to maintain their monopoly, then that business stagnates.
If he says that the telco's MUST allow competition, then we have change (and improvements in theory) in that business.
The more intelligent the President, the more he will see (and understand) how the various segments are tied together. And how one decision affecting one segment will resonate throughout the other segments. High speed Internet access for rural communities means... what? Increased mail order purchases? Increased education? Does it help the economy grow? Does it hamper it?
And I want a President who's better at reading people than I am.
There's nothing wrong with wanting a President who is more skilled/knowledgeable than you, personally, are.
The problem comes when you start saying that having LESS knowledge is acceptable because, somehow, this person will be able to identify real experts from charlatans. That is your mistake.
Personal and political skills are the foundation of a President, and can make up for most other shortcomings.
"Personal" skills? What? Like being toilet trained? Having adequate hygiene?
All the "political skills" in the world won't matter if the individual is using them to pass stupid laws or engage us in useless wars.
Since Bush did not have the expertise needed to evaluate REAL competence, he went with what he DID know. Loyalty. His advisers scored high on the loyalty test.
Someone else pointed out that Bush is all about loyalty, not necessarily the right person for the job.
Again, since Bush was not capable of evaluating their knowledge, he went with what he COULD evaluate.
An idiot cannot tell an expert from a charlatan. So the idiot chooses based upon criteria that he CAN evaluate. Whether those criteria have anything to do with the knowledge or not.
I believe The Simpsons tackled this very subject in They Saved Lisa's Brain--an episode in which Mensa gains control of Springfield. Horrible legislation ensues.
Far be it from me to contradict the political astuteness of a cartoon comedy... but you are aware that that is a cartoon comedy, aren't you?
Why would more intelligent politicians pass worse laws than less intelligent politicians?
I believe that more intelligent politicians would pass more intelligent laws (all other factors being equal).
Slashdot Mirror
This has NOTHING to do with "multi-national sites" or any of that.
This has EVERYTHING to do with clearly stating the rules and ENFORCING those rules.
The rules do not enforce themselves. Someone, somewhere has to approve the code that goes in.
The problem is that management does NOT understand code and will happily farm out the work to anyone who says that they can produce X lines for $Y. Without oversight. The less oversight, the less expensive the project is. Which means bigger bonuses for those same executives.
Saying that he's been consistently wrong
Remember the old saw about those who do not learn from history.
Now, he MIGHT be correct this time. But also remember that it is possible to get the correct answer with faulty "logic" and false "facts".
Or badly quoted out of context.
But The Linux Foundation needs to IMMEDIATELY address that with the CORRECT quote or the context.
Either that or immediately kick his idiot ass to the curb.
And I'd recommend reading Scott McClellan's book to see how the press was manipulated. And is still being manipulated.
McClellan's book also has about the only decent quote from Russert about Gulf War II.
Lou Dobbs asks harder questions about immigration almost every single week than Russert ever did about the war.
Jon Stewart is the best journalist we have and he's limited by whatever he can turn into a joke.
but ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/the-nobel-prize-and-russe_b_9307.html
And if there actually is a "Hacker War" between us ... and if our military is currently playing a role in such ... are there any civilian applications that will be released to help defend our non-military assets (corporations, education, etc)?
Example: the NSA has worked on SELinux.
I doubt that he'll answer ANYTHING with any details. This will be a recruiting and PR piece. His "answers" will be vetted by at least 3 different agencies and any content will have been removed.
What, specifically, would be a "cyber-electronic engagement".
Include examples.
Compare/contrast with traditional forms of intelligence gathering (wiretaps, listening devices, etc) and their counter-measures.
Can this get to my regular phone or cell phone?
If yes, then this is a problem.
If no, then this is not that big of a problem.
If yes, but only if the spammers (spitters?) pay for cell minutes or something, then this is not a problem at all.
The problem with that is that if you didn't do it at the beginning ... and before/after every update ...
And anyone organized enough to do it at the beginning and prior to every update is organized enough to not need to do it.
For the Registry, you can "export" the entries for that app to a file and, later, you can import that file into the Registry.
The problem with the Registry is the same as you've noted with the file system. Stuff gets put EVERYWHERE. And there is no way to KNOW that you have EVERYTHING until AFTER you attempt to restore it. AND that doesn't include anything "updated" when you get a patch or point-zero-one release "upgrade".
Now, the installer can put that stuff everywhere
And I don't want to hear that that is to prevent "piracy". Just encrypt the stuff with the unlocking key or whatever. That way I can keep a TEXT file of app-name -- key code on my USB drive along with the backups.
Don't forget the corollary.
... how about just including a simple script that will look at how it's installed TODAY and back it up to a location chosen by the user? And then that script will generate a script to install that backup should you need it to. Along with license keys and decoding keys and unlocking keys, etc.
Encourage the application writers to make their applications EASY TO BACKUP.
The problem I keep seeing is that TELLING someone to back up their data is easy to do. FINDING ALL of the data is just about impossible.
You'll never know if you got it all until AFTER a problem.
Or even
This could all be another fake "evaluation" like the others were.
Just because they appear to be going through the steps that they're required to
Until ISO can PUBLICLY state the errors that were made and WHO made those "errors" AND take action against those individuals they can not be trusted. Not even to follow the procedures that their own rules require of them.
They didn't follow them when they were fast-tracking this. There is no reason to believe that this time will be any different.
If it's a choice, then raise taxes and hire more people to pursue more people (and corporations) who are breaking the law.
There are only so many people involved in the voting process. The people with the ballot boxes ARE the ones more likely to commit fraud. Whether that offends you or not, it is a fact.
Preventing fraud means facing that fact. Not being offended by it.
When the various sides keep watch on each other, basic human suspicion helps prevent fraud. No one wants their side to lose because the other side stuffed the ballot box or "lost" votes that would have gone to them.
Simply have the voter hand his/her ballot to the Republican watching the box who then hands it to the Democrat watching the box who then hands it to the 3rd party representative watching the box who then deposits it in the box in front of the voter and the other two representatives.
The entire process would take 3 seconds per voter per box and ensure that each voter only submitted a single ballot.
Now, solving the problem of whether that person votes at multiple locations or under multiple names is a different issue. But one that can also be solved fairly easily.No one is saying that because no one wants to bet against the stupidity of some of the fools out there.
But that doesn't matter as long as the margin between the candidates (authentic votes only) is larger than the number of votes cast by the "fools".
And THAT is achievable.No they aren't. The paper trail is to validate the votes the machine counts. NOT to track the voter.Fuck that. The poll workers are the ones most likely to commit fraud. NEVER trust them. Have your people watch them at every step.And many of us WILL be volunteering to do just that.
Is to make it easier for the voter to SEE how s/he has voted.
Instead of a punched hole or whatever on a card, you SHOULD have the name of the person you selected printed in NICE BIG LETTERS on the ballot. And ONLY the name of the person you selected. No confusion.
Other than that, the old style paper ballots work best.
A combination of age and cynicism combine to make me question anything I consider to be "extraordinary claims" without accompanying extraordinary evidence.
And claiming that better-than-average "soft" skills can compensate for a deficiency of "hard" skills is an extraordinary claim in my book.
Particularly when the issue is governance and the opportunity for massive profits.
The decisions the President makes SHAPE the economy.
... what? Increased mail order purchases? Increased education? Does it help the economy grow? Does it hamper it?
If he says that it is okay for telco's to maintain their monopoly, then that business stagnates.
If he says that the telco's MUST allow competition, then we have change (and improvements in theory) in that business.
The more intelligent the President, the more he will see (and understand) how the various segments are tied together. And how one decision affecting one segment will resonate throughout the other segments. High speed Internet access for rural communities means
The problem comes when you start saying that having LESS knowledge is acceptable because, somehow, this person will be able to identify real experts from charlatans. That is your mistake."Personal" skills? What? Like being toilet trained? Having adequate hygiene?
All the "political skills" in the world won't matter if the individual is using them to pass stupid laws or engage us in useless wars.
There is no substitute for personal knowledge.
An idiot cannot tell an expert from a charlatan. So the idiot chooses based upon criteria that he CAN evaluate. Whether those criteria have anything to do with the knowledge or not.
Yeah, see my statement above.
Why would more intelligent politicians pass worse laws than less intelligent politicians?
I believe that more intelligent politicians would pass more intelligent laws (all other factors being equal).
But they'll appear perfectly sincere and trustworthy.And they can fake that as easily as they can fake technical knowledge. It's even EASIER.
There is NO substitute for personal knowledge.