I do hope that this was because of the clients opening it up to the outside world by accident/stupidity and not the developers leaving it open by default by accident or just assuming people would know about there being an RPC interface open to the public by default. Because if it was a dev fuckup, then there's probably a lot of vulnerable clients still out there and they're probably get sued, badly.
Maybe you should think before you talk? Because talking actually gives you the opportunity to lower suspicion while refusing to do so can only have the exact opposite effect.
I mean the goal of managers in software development is to produce as much well tested high quality code for as little as possible. What you're describing is pretty much the natural end result of managers going overboard on any software development methodology, agile or not. Hell, I'd argue that whenever that happens it's not even the agile methodology they've chosen that's to blame, but rather just the fact they've just been over-eager to produce as much as possible with as little as possible. Agile is just the way they've chosen to try to drive their developers to the breaking point.
He didn't even mention the race of the perpetrators and all races commit some form of fraud so I have a hard time understanding what's so racist about bringing up child care fraud. Are we operating on some kind of "close enough" logic where if the perpetrators of a crime skew too much to a particular race talking about even with the race component removed is somehow racist?
When haven't regulators, at least in the U.S, been late to truly wake up to something new? Loads of companies out there literally rely on regulators being asleep at the wheel, probably the best known examples are "ride sharing" companies like Uber and the whole payday loan industry.
You're being a bit pretentious here... The fact that something isn't a person's #1 choice doesn't mean that they think it's beneath them. I'm not right now nor was I when I was still a student interested in actually pursuing a degree in history or political science, but I don't consider it beneath me and did elective courses in those subjects when I was upper secondary school (local HS equivalent). Hell, I also worked 3 summers in construction when I was a student and actually enjoyed it.
Tech is however what I'm most interested in so when I went to university, I got a degree in Computer Engineering and that was my #1 choice when applying.
Maybe people aren't entitled to a job straight out of college/university, but with the downturn in (good or at least decent) jobs for the uneducated and the resulting increase in the share of people who get themselves an education has lead to the end result is that it's harder to get a job right out of college. At least for those going trough less employable (mostly liberal arts) programs.
The point really is that good jobs are harder to come by these days both for the educated and the un-educated and the whole "I wasn't entitled to a job straight out of college" thing is just a straw man used by baby boomers and gen X:ers.
I don't think any shutdown or reduction in H1B visas is going to put all that much of a dent into total U.S jobs figures... The tech sector as a whole only accounts for about 4% of all jobs in the U.S and jobs where (ab)using H1Bs is even feasible is probably only fraction of that.
I really don't think making it harder to bring in foreign labor is going to do anything beyond pushing companies to move the jobs to the workers rather than bringing the workers here. A potential "programmer shortage" really was just an excuse to decry talk about slashing the numbers of H1B workers as it was actually going to hurt them in some way.
I know "Innocent until proven guilty" is kind of a cornerstone of western legal systems, but it seems like many are taking it a tad too far with the general stance here is that he can't possibly be guilty. Even thou there's loads of ex cybercriminals working in the infosec industry these days, many of them openly and some of them are even open about the convictions they've received.
I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like it's only making things worse and not better with the way you can use it to overturn even perfectly legitimate convictions.
It's not like refusing to even talk to the police or pleading the 5th to every question isn't going to make you look really suspicious even if you're completely innocent. Oh wait...
You do know that Canada was rather firmly a part of Britain back then? Canada wasn't granted a right to self-government until 1867 (i.e 55 years later) and full legal autonomy until 1931?
I know it's easy to find yourself jumping on the "Let's all laugh at Trump" bandwagon as there's all too much to just roll your eyes about that man, but in this case the low-effort mockery isn't actually deserved.
Maybe if they'd own a lot of their own stock, but from what I can see that doesn't seem to be the case (all of their stock is held by 3 entities, two of which are Chinese government ones and collectively own 51% of the company). As for little in terms of penalties, they still have to pay a billion in fines, put 400 million into escrow, completely replace the board and upper management along with having to put up with a U.S sanctions compliance team for the foreseeable future.
Obviously a lot less severe than the original sanctions, which essentially amounted to a corporate death sentence as pretty much everything they make has critical components made by U.S companies, but I wouldn't jump on the Trump hate bandwagon quite that hard. If he got some trade or security-related concessions (like backing the U.S in talks with North Korea) out of the Chinese in return it may even have been completely worth giving ZTE a stay of execution like this.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's the case, just that it's not out of question. However I do suspect this was more likely the condition for the trade deficit related concessions Trump got out of China not too long ago.
The man being able to get elected president despite clearly being the wrong person for the job is definitely a symptom of something, but probably not what you think it is.
Like it or not, but the 2016 election was a protest election where the electorate was simply sick and tired of the political establishment and as a result two people who normally would have been practically joke candidates (Trump and Sanders) got way further than they would have gotten in a normal election. Sanders got so close to the nomination the Democrats had to use dirty tricks to ensure he didn't get the nomination while Trump was able to get his party's nomination and went on to win the election despite how clearly the leadership of his party despised him. Hillary didn't lose because she was a completely awful candidate, she lost because she's as much of an embodiment of the political establishment as a person can be and went up for election in a year where this was practically the worst thing you could be.
I think you should add "far" to the groups you're describing there because I don't think the mainstream left or the right wants to censor games quite like that.
Don't get me wrong, there are still plenty of people who want to censor games for plain dumb reasons, but those people tend to belong to either the religious right (who are incidentally the reason why the App Store doesn't allow anything remotely sexual in nature) or their equivalent social justice obsessives on the left.
You'd be right in assigning potential blame on the director if it wasn't for how he needed acting coaching and that the director who finally finished the movie and after re-shots was the one directed most of the shooting of just about of the footage in the final movie is a very experienced director who definitely knows how to work with actors.
Seriously, when you consider everything we know, nepotism is very reasonable conclusion as to why Ehrenreich landed the role.
The difference here is that it's projected to actually lose money, not just appear to lose money as far as the IRS is concerned. Actually losing money is something company executives will really take notice of, giving the IRS the wrong picture for the grave injustice of paying taxes.
If it was a proper military grade flamethrower he'd definitely have a point, but it really isn't. I've seen people build similarly effective home-made flamethrowers out of a Super Soaker with a candle lighter in front of the muzzle and the tank filled with windshield wiper fluid instead of water. Are we going to start regulating squirt guns next?
If you're routinely expected to do overtime somewhere as a developer it's a red flag indicating fundamental flaws in the company that most experienced devs...
I never said that I was talking about regular overtime and if I need to be specific my experience with it has only been with irregular appearances of it caused by things like vendors delivering things behind schedule or with bugs we ended up finding before them.
No, instead they start putting Angular in everything and making life a living hell
In my experience the type you're referring to couldn't do it to work projects even if they wanted to. Sure, they may be able to screw up their university projects and open source projects they're working on in their free time, but at work it's older workers that are actually in charge of decisions like this. In my experience it's not younger developers that are actually responsible for this kind of stuff, instead it's pretty much always some external consultants brought in by management or management without a proper background in technology for some reason ending up in charge of development.
Unless you actually built that system...
I never said that I personally built the system, the lead architect on it was a guy with over a decade more experience than me and previous experience designing systems of similar or greater complexity. The system has from the get-go been built to be easier to extend and otherwise modify so I'm serious about what I said about the new system.
The reason why I brought up the old system was that it was bad in specific almost exclusive to older workers and something I was actually taught at university to avoid making many of the mistakes that had been made in it. As hard as it may be to accept to some older workers, experience in things actually tends to filter back into education and as a result students are taught not to make the mistakes made by their seniors. Education is not something that stands still, it's instead constantly improving itself.
I find it pretty funny how your way to counter me bringing up my personal observations and throwing around ideas as to why older workers tend to get the axe easier than younger ones is simply by trash talking younger workers and dismissing my observations simply because of my age and assumed experience. I'm not sure if you took my post personally considering the vitriol or if you're always this defensive on the subject, but I don't think that's an unreasonable assessment of your reply.
Also, I was (obviously) not the only one working on that new code to replace the work by the (now dead) gopher and it kind of goes to show how much extrapolation you're doing here based on your own prejudices. The main software architect of the new system was a co-worker in his late 30s and my contribution to that system was mostly in providing the documentation on the old system (thus providing a rough idea of how the new system should behave), software-hardware integration, debugging and general QA for the new system. I wouldn't have taken a lead role in developing a complex system like this even if it had been offered to me, because unlike what you're assuming of me without knowing me at all, I actually know my limits.
So next time you want to consider a more constructive way to respond to someone throwing around ideas and bringing up their personal observations than an all-out personal assault. This victim mentality you and many other slashdot commenters are exhibiting on this subject really isn't doing anyone any favors.
If it was a bad idea for companies to focus layoffs on older workers it would probably have shown itself by now, but if anything it seems like it's only accelerating, which would suggest there are good reasons for it.
Don't get me wrong, by "good reasons" I mean reasons that benefit the companies and not the laid off workers. The first thing that comes to mind is that maybe the additional experience just isn't worth the additional salary when compared to someone with less experience. Maybe salary should be tied to output and quality of output rather than years of experience.
There's also flexibility, an older worker in my experience is way less likely to agree to inconvenience themselves when necessary and will typically approach an issue only solvable by employee flexibility with an attitude of "it's not my problem" or similar. Another thing is that older workers are typically more commonly specialized in old or just plain out-of-date technology and methodologies which probably aren't what companies are actually using or wanting to implement. Finally there's the difficulty in learning new things that is basically just an observable fact among both animals and people. Sure, some older workers can learn new things better than younger ones, but on average they are at a disadvantage compared to your younger co-workers.
The color of your beard is not really what they don't like, it's that you're going to ask for a bigger salary, more likely to be stuck using out-of-date practices and be less eager to go above and beyond for the employer they're recruiting for in an effort to prove yourself than a 20-something.
I don't have any figures to back this up, but in my experience the older a co-worker is, the less likely they are to want to work overtime or otherwise inconvenience themselves to deliver things on-schedule after unexpected difficulties or setbacks. If something is going to be delivered behind schedule or in a non-complete state that's just management's problem, not theirs. Another things I've noticed is that salary increases pretty well in proportion to experience, but not so well in output or quality of work. Finally, you rarely see young co-workers using completely out-of-date practices and methodologies like an almost complete aversion to anything resembling object-orientation. The worst result of this was the 5k line spaghetti code monster of system-critical logic I once had to document for the re-engineering of a system after the original developer/maintainer of said code unexpectedly died from some lung disease after decades of chain smoking. (Oh and if you need to know, the new system was way better, used more off-the-shelf components for a lower total system cost and cut delivery time along with being way easier to maintain and extend)
I expect that this comment is going to end up at "-1 Troll" like many of the other times I've talked about my experienced with older workers, because apparently when you're still (barely) in your 20s you can't talk about these kinds things.
Was it really necessary to write a whole article about Intel thumps it's own chest and doesn't even announce anything new?
Two of the five things, performance and efficiency, is something every chip maker invests heavily into and have obviously been a priority for Intel since the 1980s. Wireless modems and connecting their chips to them is likewise old hat for them, thou just by a bit over a decade while hardware for faster and more efficient machine learning is more recent for them, it's something every big chip maker and their mother is working on. Finally, trying to get into new form factors is something they've been trying to for quite a while, but after getting into servers in the 90s they've only been semi-successful at getting into tablets and that was only while they were literally giving away chips for tablets. 2-in-1s are not a new category, they're just laptops with touch screens and keyboards that fold away or detach and they've existed since the 90s.
Maybe my natural cynicism is acting out here, but I really don't see anything in that yes man's statement worthy of attention. It's just some overpaid executive stating what they've been doing since at least the 1980s.
Your narrative is bullshit. People still come to America to get educated and get cured.
Sure, people come for high end or experimental treatments un-affordable to the wider public and higher education, which is also expensive so only about 1/3 of the adult population holds a batchelor's degree or higher. However the fact that things are fine for the rich minority doesn't really excuse the fact that things are not good when the same things are not good for the not-so-rich majority. Hell, even foreign enrollment at U.S universities has been declining, student visa applications by as much as 40% between 2015 and 2017 while countries like Canada and the U.K have been seeing a growth in the same figures.
Slashdot Mirror
I do hope that this was because of the clients opening it up to the outside world by accident/stupidity and not the developers leaving it open by default by accident or just assuming people would know about there being an RPC interface open to the public by default. Because if it was a dev fuckup, then there's probably a lot of vulnerable clients still out there and they're probably get sued, badly.
Maybe you should think before you talk? Because talking actually gives you the opportunity to lower suspicion while refusing to do so can only have the exact opposite effect.
Right... Please refrain from speaking your mind on matters like this is future.
Isn't everything just that?
I mean the goal of managers in software development is to produce as much well tested high quality code for as little as possible. What you're describing is pretty much the natural end result of managers going overboard on any software development methodology, agile or not. Hell, I'd argue that whenever that happens it's not even the agile methodology they've chosen that's to blame, but rather just the fact they've just been over-eager to produce as much as possible with as little as possible. Agile is just the way they've chosen to try to drive their developers to the breaking point.
He didn't even mention the race of the perpetrators and all races commit some form of fraud so I have a hard time understanding what's so racist about bringing up child care fraud. Are we operating on some kind of "close enough" logic where if the perpetrators of a crime skew too much to a particular race talking about even with the race component removed is somehow racist?
When haven't regulators, at least in the U.S, been late to truly wake up to something new? Loads of companies out there literally rely on regulators being asleep at the wheel, probably the best known examples are "ride sharing" companies like Uber and the whole payday loan industry.
You're being a bit pretentious here... The fact that something isn't a person's #1 choice doesn't mean that they think it's beneath them. I'm not right now nor was I when I was still a student interested in actually pursuing a degree in history or political science, but I don't consider it beneath me and did elective courses in those subjects when I was upper secondary school (local HS equivalent). Hell, I also worked 3 summers in construction when I was a student and actually enjoyed it.
Tech is however what I'm most interested in so when I went to university, I got a degree in Computer Engineering and that was my #1 choice when applying.
Maybe people aren't entitled to a job straight out of college/university, but with the downturn in (good or at least decent) jobs for the uneducated and the resulting increase in the share of people who get themselves an education has lead to the end result is that it's harder to get a job right out of college. At least for those going trough less employable (mostly liberal arts) programs.
The point really is that good jobs are harder to come by these days both for the educated and the un-educated and the whole "I wasn't entitled to a job straight out of college" thing is just a straw man used by baby boomers and gen X:ers.
I don't think any shutdown or reduction in H1B visas is going to put all that much of a dent into total U.S jobs figures... The tech sector as a whole only accounts for about 4% of all jobs in the U.S and jobs where (ab)using H1Bs is even feasible is probably only fraction of that.
I really don't think making it harder to bring in foreign labor is going to do anything beyond pushing companies to move the jobs to the workers rather than bringing the workers here. A potential "programmer shortage" really was just an excuse to decry talk about slashing the numbers of H1B workers as it was actually going to hurt them in some way.
I know "Innocent until proven guilty" is kind of a cornerstone of western legal systems, but it seems like many are taking it a tad too far with the general stance here is that he can't possibly be guilty. Even thou there's loads of ex cybercriminals working in the infosec industry these days, many of them openly and some of them are even open about the convictions they've received.
I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like it's only making things worse and not better with the way you can use it to overturn even perfectly legitimate convictions.
It's not like refusing to even talk to the police or pleading the 5th to every question isn't going to make you look really suspicious even if you're completely innocent. Oh wait...
You do know that Canada was rather firmly a part of Britain back then? Canada wasn't granted a right to self-government until 1867 (i.e 55 years later) and full legal autonomy until 1931?
I know it's easy to find yourself jumping on the "Let's all laugh at Trump" bandwagon as there's all too much to just roll your eyes about that man, but in this case the low-effort mockery isn't actually deserved.
Maybe if they'd own a lot of their own stock, but from what I can see that doesn't seem to be the case (all of their stock is held by 3 entities, two of which are Chinese government ones and collectively own 51% of the company). As for little in terms of penalties, they still have to pay a billion in fines, put 400 million into escrow, completely replace the board and upper management along with having to put up with a U.S sanctions compliance team for the foreseeable future.
Obviously a lot less severe than the original sanctions, which essentially amounted to a corporate death sentence as pretty much everything they make has critical components made by U.S companies, but I wouldn't jump on the Trump hate bandwagon quite that hard. If he got some trade or security-related concessions (like backing the U.S in talks with North Korea) out of the Chinese in return it may even have been completely worth giving ZTE a stay of execution like this.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's the case, just that it's not out of question. However I do suspect this was more likely the condition for the trade deficit related concessions Trump got out of China not too long ago.
The man being able to get elected president despite clearly being the wrong person for the job is definitely a symptom of something, but probably not what you think it is.
Like it or not, but the 2016 election was a protest election where the electorate was simply sick and tired of the political establishment and as a result two people who normally would have been practically joke candidates (Trump and Sanders) got way further than they would have gotten in a normal election. Sanders got so close to the nomination the Democrats had to use dirty tricks to ensure he didn't get the nomination while Trump was able to get his party's nomination and went on to win the election despite how clearly the leadership of his party despised him. Hillary didn't lose because she was a completely awful candidate, she lost because she's as much of an embodiment of the political establishment as a person can be and went up for election in a year where this was practically the worst thing you could be.
I think you should add "far" to the groups you're describing there because I don't think the mainstream left or the right wants to censor games quite like that.
Don't get me wrong, there are still plenty of people who want to censor games for plain dumb reasons, but those people tend to belong to either the religious right (who are incidentally the reason why the App Store doesn't allow anything remotely sexual in nature) or their equivalent social justice obsessives on the left.
You'd be right in assigning potential blame on the director if it wasn't for how he needed acting coaching and that the director who finally finished the movie and after re-shots was the one directed most of the shooting of just about of the footage in the final movie is a very experienced director who definitely knows how to work with actors.
Seriously, when you consider everything we know, nepotism is very reasonable conclusion as to why Ehrenreich landed the role.
The difference here is that it's projected to actually lose money, not just appear to lose money as far as the IRS is concerned. Actually losing money is something company executives will really take notice of, giving the IRS the wrong picture for the grave injustice of paying taxes.
If it was a proper military grade flamethrower he'd definitely have a point, but it really isn't. I've seen people build similarly effective home-made flamethrowers out of a Super Soaker with a candle lighter in front of the muzzle and the tank filled with windshield wiper fluid instead of water. Are we going to start regulating squirt guns next?
If you're routinely expected to do overtime somewhere as a developer it's a red flag indicating fundamental flaws in the company that most experienced devs...
I never said that I was talking about regular overtime and if I need to be specific my experience with it has only been with irregular appearances of it caused by things like vendors delivering things behind schedule or with bugs we ended up finding before them.
No, instead they start putting Angular in everything and making life a living hell
In my experience the type you're referring to couldn't do it to work projects even if they wanted to. Sure, they may be able to screw up their university projects and open source projects they're working on in their free time, but at work it's older workers that are actually in charge of decisions like this. In my experience it's not younger developers that are actually responsible for this kind of stuff, instead it's pretty much always some external consultants brought in by management or management without a proper background in technology for some reason ending up in charge of development.
Unless you actually built that system...
I never said that I personally built the system, the lead architect on it was a guy with over a decade more experience than me and previous experience designing systems of similar or greater complexity. The system has from the get-go been built to be easier to extend and otherwise modify so I'm serious about what I said about the new system.
The reason why I brought up the old system was that it was bad in specific almost exclusive to older workers and something I was actually taught at university to avoid making many of the mistakes that had been made in it. As hard as it may be to accept to some older workers, experience in things actually tends to filter back into education and as a result students are taught not to make the mistakes made by their seniors. Education is not something that stands still, it's instead constantly improving itself.
I find it pretty funny how your way to counter me bringing up my personal observations and throwing around ideas as to why older workers tend to get the axe easier than younger ones is simply by trash talking younger workers and dismissing my observations simply because of my age and assumed experience. I'm not sure if you took my post personally considering the vitriol or if you're always this defensive on the subject, but I don't think that's an unreasonable assessment of your reply.
Also, I was (obviously) not the only one working on that new code to replace the work by the (now dead) gopher and it kind of goes to show how much extrapolation you're doing here based on your own prejudices. The main software architect of the new system was a co-worker in his late 30s and my contribution to that system was mostly in providing the documentation on the old system (thus providing a rough idea of how the new system should behave), software-hardware integration, debugging and general QA for the new system. I wouldn't have taken a lead role in developing a complex system like this even if it had been offered to me, because unlike what you're assuming of me without knowing me at all, I actually know my limits.
So next time you want to consider a more constructive way to respond to someone throwing around ideas and bringing up their personal observations than an all-out personal assault. This victim mentality you and many other slashdot commenters are exhibiting on this subject really isn't doing anyone any favors.
If it was a bad idea for companies to focus layoffs on older workers it would probably have shown itself by now, but if anything it seems like it's only accelerating, which would suggest there are good reasons for it.
Don't get me wrong, by "good reasons" I mean reasons that benefit the companies and not the laid off workers. The first thing that comes to mind is that maybe the additional experience just isn't worth the additional salary when compared to someone with less experience. Maybe salary should be tied to output and quality of output rather than years of experience.
There's also flexibility, an older worker in my experience is way less likely to agree to inconvenience themselves when necessary and will typically approach an issue only solvable by employee flexibility with an attitude of "it's not my problem" or similar. Another thing is that older workers are typically more commonly specialized in old or just plain out-of-date technology and methodologies which probably aren't what companies are actually using or wanting to implement. Finally there's the difficulty in learning new things that is basically just an observable fact among both animals and people. Sure, some older workers can learn new things better than younger ones, but on average they are at a disadvantage compared to your younger co-workers.
The color of your beard is not really what they don't like, it's that you're going to ask for a bigger salary, more likely to be stuck using out-of-date practices and be less eager to go above and beyond for the employer they're recruiting for in an effort to prove yourself than a 20-something.
I don't have any figures to back this up, but in my experience the older a co-worker is, the less likely they are to want to work overtime or otherwise inconvenience themselves to deliver things on-schedule after unexpected difficulties or setbacks. If something is going to be delivered behind schedule or in a non-complete state that's just management's problem, not theirs. Another things I've noticed is that salary increases pretty well in proportion to experience, but not so well in output or quality of work. Finally, you rarely see young co-workers using completely out-of-date practices and methodologies like an almost complete aversion to anything resembling object-orientation. The worst result of this was the 5k line spaghetti code monster of system-critical logic I once had to document for the re-engineering of a system after the original developer/maintainer of said code unexpectedly died from some lung disease after decades of chain smoking. (Oh and if you need to know, the new system was way better, used more off-the-shelf components for a lower total system cost and cut delivery time along with being way easier to maintain and extend)
I expect that this comment is going to end up at "-1 Troll" like many of the other times I've talked about my experienced with older workers, because apparently when you're still (barely) in your 20s you can't talk about these kinds things.
Was it really necessary to write a whole article about Intel thumps it's own chest and doesn't even announce anything new?
Two of the five things, performance and efficiency, is something every chip maker invests heavily into and have obviously been a priority for Intel since the 1980s. Wireless modems and connecting their chips to them is likewise old hat for them, thou just by a bit over a decade while hardware for faster and more efficient machine learning is more recent for them, it's something every big chip maker and their mother is working on. Finally, trying to get into new form factors is something they've been trying to for quite a while, but after getting into servers in the 90s they've only been semi-successful at getting into tablets and that was only while they were literally giving away chips for tablets. 2-in-1s are not a new category, they're just laptops with touch screens and keyboards that fold away or detach and they've existed since the 90s.
Maybe my natural cynicism is acting out here, but I really don't see anything in that yes man's statement worthy of attention. It's just some overpaid executive stating what they've been doing since at least the 1980s.
Your narrative is bullshit. People still come to America to get educated and get cured.
Sure, people come for high end or experimental treatments un-affordable to the wider public and higher education, which is also expensive so only about 1/3 of the adult population holds a batchelor's degree or higher. However the fact that things are fine for the rich minority doesn't really excuse the fact that things are not good when the same things are not good for the not-so-rich majority. Hell, even foreign enrollment at U.S universities has been declining, student visa applications by as much as 40% between 2015 and 2017 while countries like Canada and the U.K have been seeing a growth in the same figures.