For instance, if the spec says "When A and B are both true, do essential function C" but in reality A implies ~B, it doesn't matter how awesome your test suite is, or how much coverage it has - your code will pass whatever tests you want to throw at it, but in practice C will never be executed.
Then your test suite is shit. Any test case should start with verifying the preconditions (and not actually execute the test code unless preconditions are not met). If A implies not B, a test case well constructed will always be "in error" (not failing the product to be tested, but the test environ execution).
A real coder knows that his chances of having his code looked at are infinitely bigger than having anyone look at his body.
Showering? When I could write the next piece of the most awesome piece of code ever in that time?
Before jumping into writing the code, I find better to think again: do I really need that code? Do I need it there (or in another place)?
In my case taking a shower (or anything else to keep me away from the temptation of the keyboard), is as good a way as any others (e.g. having a smoke outside).
Why should we be concerned only with security/privacy of data OR the actual location of the storage? Can't we care about both?
Actually, I reckon that the good point in the TFA is: why are you worried only of the location of the storage and not about the security/privacy in general - with the "location of your data" being only a particular aspect of security/privacy?
2. Security and privacy of data are affected by where the data is stored.
Actually, TFA has a good point: if you are so inflamed by the security level of your stored data, should you be equally worried about the data in transit?
He cited a meeting in Europe where he had tracked an email sent within an office as it bounced through five countries. In this circumstance, Feigenbaum said, security trumps data sovereignty.
Now, even if I send my email in encrypted form, can I expect every sender to do the same when sending me a (potentially sensitive) piece of information over email?
Your post fails to consider the completely reasonable choice of not handing your data off to a third party in the first place. ..
Huh?
t is a point buoyed by Michael Cloppert, a security intelligence analyst with a US Defence contractor. "I'm not convinced that the data location issue is a problem - after all, packets are routinely routed around the world irrespective of the export status of their content," he wrote in a blog.
Are you sure that the message is not handled (e.g. stored) by any 3rd party while in transit? Rephrase: can I really do anything to stop handing my data to a 3rd party (even if only for transport)? (yes, I can send encrypted emails. Is there any warranty that every sender will do the same? Is any email that I receive not my data?)
I can't control the sender (can't ask all of them to send the emails exclusively in encrypted form) and there's no warranty that the message is not intercepted while in transit (actually, with this crazy ISP data retention laws popping up everywhere, high chances that the messages are actually intercepted).
If the data is sensitive, you should be encrypting it anyway before passing it along to a third party thatr has no business looking at it. If the data isn't sensitive enough to encrypt, why do you care where Google keeps it?
Fair point. I think I'm going to send all my emails in encrypted form, even if I'm using a gmail account.
Problem is: I'm still receiving potentially sensitive data (one never knows when an innocent information gets sensitive) on my gmail account unencrypted, and... hell... even if I'd be moving away from gmail and set my own mail server, it's still a problem with the senders and the message on its way to that server.
I disagree; doctors cannot and should not be making up medicine as they go along.
Mate, I didn't say the MD-es making up medicine, but to think and make correlations while diagnosis. If you want an image of what I meant (even though a bit exaggerated), think House in a time where the labs and medical tests weren't so many and evolved.
Medical practice (as opposed to medical research) is fundamentally the same as car repair; you map a set of symptoms to the correct treatment
And this is where I don't agree. Because it is not just mapping symptoms, it is about discovering and, if possible, treating the causes. You can't do it without thinking, in many times creative and lateral thinking. Of course, a good MD won't act until s/he is sure about the thinking - and this is where the labs/equipment/whatnot comes handy. Unfortunately, for the great majority of nowadays cases, these equipment is used mostly so that any thinking is avoided: it's easier for the MD, less risky (similarly with "Nobody is ever fired for buying IBM") and the MD-es are also incentive-ized to do so by the big pharma - "see symptoms, write a prescription for my medicines. Easier for you, more profitable for me".
Aside from any "inherent" abilities of computers, it all depends on the quality and suitability of the particular implementation which is something else entirely
See? With the "regurgitation only", even when the "bugs" are not an issue (idealized case) - it's GIGO - he who feds Watson with the primary info may make a good profit. It doesn't matter if Watson is a computer or just an "idiocratic" MD. The only way to avoid it: have the courage to think.
You do realize that memorizing and regurgitating known information is the perfect skill for 99.9% of medical diagnosis?
As the GPP said: "Idiocracy, here we come".
Do you realize that about 20 years ago, a good physician was good because of thinking rather than regurgitating? Believe me, the good ones were much better than today's GP-s + the whole lot of newer lab kits. Granted, bad physicians of the time were much worse than today.
Depending on the skills, they may end in Siberia, in a highly comfortable cell with broadband optical fiber, doing same work for another (state) employer and possibly without pay.
As that deadline comes closer I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't *consider* slightly less than legal methods of earning money. I mean, even if I setup a website, printed some fliers and fixed local college kid's computers for $15 an hour, I'd be breaking the law.
Get a bank account, a Visa debit linked to it and look at the freelancing sites (elance.com and the like). 6-9 months may be long enough to bump your credit as a decent developer.
Goes to show how crude our current scanning techniques are.
That'n no true. What is however true is the/.-ers seldom read TFA.
I've burned my hand before and the sensation was quite different from being dumped.
Now, form the second FA:
a network of brain regions that support the aversive quality of physical pain (the “affective” component), principally the dorsal anterior cingulate (dACC) and anterior insula (AI), also underlie the feeling of social rejection. In contrast, the brain regions that support the somatic representation of physical pain, and are most closely aligned with the “sensory-discriminative” component—including the operculo-insular region [i.e., secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) and dorsal posterior insula (dpINS)]—are not activated by social rejection and do not factor into current theorizing about the neural overlap between social rejection and physical pain (1, 2).
Translation: yes, the main areas activated in "affective pain" and "physical pain" are different.
As plausible as this rationale is, here we suggest an alternative: that the neural overlap between social rejection and physical pain is more extensive than current findings suggest. Specifically, we propose that experiences of social rejection, when elicited powerfully enough, recruit brain regions involved in both the affective and sensory components of physical pain.
Which, applied to your case, seems to indicate that your feeling of social rejection was not powerful enough. That... hints a bit about you or the strength of your relation, isn't it?
The cost of ICS (Industrial Control Systems) and IA (Industrial Automation) equipment is never cheap.
If you are a Plant Manager, buying 10 whatsits for $10K a piece isn't a rounding error in your operations budget if your MTBF was reduced by %1 as a result.
Humor sense is in short supply these days.
The whatsits you mention (and construct your case against cheapness) are: "Write Only Memory" (guaranteed security, nobody can read them) with a high "First In Never Out" rate (performance matched only by/dev/null).
RSA's customers certainly need to have a copy of their tokens' seed keys on their authentication server; but RSA doesn't need a copy of their customers' seed keys...
Unfortunately, I imagine they do need the copy: otherwise how do they make sure they never issue duplicates to different customers?
If one is feeling really serious, the so-called "data diode" devices can be used to ensure that the data to be analyzed goes out and nothing goes back in... such hardware is Not Cheap
I have some WOM with high FINO rates, that I can provide quite cheap. Are they interested?
At some point, unless Siemens has a very nasty legal trump card of some sort, they are going to have to adopt the "fuck it, better that the admins know." approach.
Tell this to DHS! Do you expect a rational reaction? (even now, reading Wikileaks put one's security clearance prospects under question - no matter the whole world reads the Cablegate, DHS seems to need uninformed employees. Err... pardon... on a "need to know basis").
Slashdot Mirror
I saw some open source the other day riddled with gotos.
Not intrinsically bad. Code generators (e.g flex/bison) generate goto-s and there is no problem.
"...pick two."
If you're lucky or very good. In lots of projects, you get to pick just one. ..bruce..
More often than I like, you finish in picking none.
For instance, if the spec says "When A and B are both true, do essential function C" but in reality A implies ~B, it doesn't matter how awesome your test suite is, or how much coverage it has - your code will pass whatever tests you want to throw at it, but in practice C will never be executed.
Then your test suite is shit. Any test case should start with verifying the preconditions (and not actually execute the test code unless preconditions are not met). If A implies not B, a test case well constructed will always be "in error" (not failing the product to be tested, but the test environ execution).
Well, you gotta have priorities.
A real coder knows that his chances of having his code looked at are infinitely bigger than having anyone look at his body.
Showering? When I could write the next piece of the most awesome piece of code ever in that time?
Before jumping into writing the code, I find better to think again: do I really need that code? Do I need it there (or in another place)?
In my case taking a shower (or anything else to keep me away from the temptation of the keyboard), is as good a way as any others (e.g. having a smoke outside).
Upon further reflection I think sloppy code can be attributed to laziness.
Laziness to think but, unfortunately, not too lazy to write code.
Why should we be concerned only with security/privacy of data OR the actual location of the storage? Can't we care about both?
Actually, I reckon that the good point in the TFA is: why are you worried only of the location of the storage and not about the security/privacy in general - with the "location of your data" being only a particular aspect of security/privacy?
Actually, TFA has a good point: if you are so inflamed by the security level of your stored data, should you be equally worried about the data in transit?
He cited a meeting in Europe where he had tracked an email sent within an office as it bounced through five countries. In this circumstance, Feigenbaum said, security trumps data sovereignty.
Now, even if I send my email in encrypted form, can I expect every sender to do the same when sending me a (potentially sensitive) piece of information over email?
Your post fails to consider the completely reasonable choice of not handing your data off to a third party in the first place. . .
Huh?
t is a point buoyed by Michael Cloppert, a security intelligence analyst with a US Defence contractor. "I'm not convinced that the data location issue is a problem - after all, packets are routinely routed around the world irrespective of the export status of their content," he wrote in a blog.
Are you sure that the message is not handled (e.g. stored) by any 3rd party while in transit?
Rephrase: can I really do anything to stop handing my data to a 3rd party (even if only for transport)? (yes, I can send encrypted emails. Is there any warranty that every sender will do the same? Is any email that I receive not my data?)
I can't control the sender (can't ask all of them to send the emails exclusively in encrypted form) and there's no warranty that the message is not intercepted while in transit (actually, with this crazy ISP data retention laws popping up everywhere, high chances that the messages are actually intercepted).
If the data is sensitive, you should be encrypting it anyway before passing it along to a third party thatr has no business looking at it. If the data isn't sensitive enough to encrypt, why do you care where Google keeps it?
Fair point. I think I'm going to send all my emails in encrypted form, even if I'm using a gmail account.
Problem is: I'm still receiving potentially sensitive data (one never knows when an innocent information gets sensitive) on my gmail account unencrypted, and... hell... even if I'd be moving away from gmail and set my own mail server, it's still a problem with the senders and the message on its way to that server.
And now a judge is ruling that it's enough, along with a "device fingerprint" that can be trivially faked? That is complete bullshit.
Bullshit you say? If PI can be legislated to a value of 3.2 and a city can ban Styrofoam cups because water is used in their fabrication, why not?
Here's another site that may interest you - some comparisons/reviews on a bunch of freelance sites.
We're all still mentally 15, so targeting us with boobs and explosions is still cool.
Yeah... those were good times... no goatse, I mean.
I disagree; doctors cannot and should not be making up medicine as they go along.
Mate, I didn't say the MD-es making up medicine, but to think and make correlations while diagnosis. If you want an image of what I meant (even though a bit exaggerated), think House in a time where the labs and medical tests weren't so many and evolved.
Medical practice (as opposed to medical research) is fundamentally the same as car repair; you map a set of symptoms to the correct treatment
And this is where I don't agree. Because it is not just mapping symptoms, it is about discovering and, if possible, treating the causes. You can't do it without thinking, in many times creative and lateral thinking. Of course, a good MD won't act until s/he is sure about the thinking - and this is where the labs/equipment/whatnot comes handy.
Unfortunately, for the great majority of nowadays cases, these equipment is used mostly so that any thinking is avoided: it's easier for the MD, less risky (similarly with "Nobody is ever fired for buying IBM") and the MD-es are also incentive-ized to do so by the big pharma - "see symptoms, write a prescription for my medicines. Easier for you, more profitable for me".
Aside from any "inherent" abilities of computers, it all depends on the quality and suitability of the particular implementation which is something else entirely
See? With the "regurgitation only", even when the "bugs" are not an issue (idealized case) - it's GIGO - he who feds Watson with the primary info may make a good profit. It doesn't matter if Watson is a computer or just an "idiocratic" MD. The only way to avoid it: have the courage to think.
You do realize that memorizing and regurgitating known information is the perfect skill for 99.9% of medical diagnosis?
As the GPP said: "Idiocracy, here we come".
Do you realize that about 20 years ago, a good physician was good because of thinking rather than regurgitating?
Believe me, the good ones were much better than today's GP-s + the whole lot of newer lab kits. Granted, bad physicians of the time were much worse than today.
Watson: I'll refer you to one of my idiotic human assistants to remove them, this is totally under my stature.
, what kind of prison will they go to?
Depending on the skills, they may end in Siberia, in a highly comfortable cell with broadband optical fiber, doing same work for another (state) employer and possibly without pay.
I'm a decent developer, but I'm nothing special.
I still have months before it comes to that;
As that deadline comes closer I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't *consider* slightly less than legal methods of earning money. I mean, even if I setup a website, printed some fliers and fixed local college kid's computers for $15 an hour, I'd be breaking the law.
Get a bank account, a Visa debit linked to it and look at the freelancing sites (elance.com and the like). 6-9 months may be long enough to bump your credit as a decent developer.
Goes to show how crude our current scanning techniques are.
That'n no true. What is however true is the /.-ers seldom read TFA.
I've burned my hand before and the sensation was quite different from being dumped.
Now, form the second FA:
a network of brain regions that support the aversive quality of physical pain (the “affective” component), principally the dorsal anterior cingulate (dACC) and anterior insula (AI), also underlie the feeling of social rejection. In contrast, the brain regions that support the somatic representation of physical pain, and are most closely aligned with the “sensory-discriminative” component—including the operculo-insular region [i.e., secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) and dorsal posterior insula (dpINS)]—are not activated by social rejection and do not factor into current theorizing about the neural overlap between social rejection and physical pain (1, 2).
Translation: yes, the main areas activated in "affective pain" and "physical pain" are different.
As plausible as this rationale is, here we suggest an alternative: that the neural overlap between social rejection and physical pain is more extensive than current findings suggest. Specifically, we propose that experiences of social rejection, when elicited powerfully enough, recruit brain regions involved in both the affective and sensory components of physical pain.
Which, applied to your case, seems to indicate that your feeling of social rejection was not powerful enough. That... hints a bit about you or the strength of your relation, isn't it?
I agree that Zotero is awesome. I just wish it wasn't tied so closely to Firefox.
Use it as a plugin in your word processor?
The cost of ICS (Industrial Control Systems) and IA (Industrial Automation) equipment is never cheap.
If you are a Plant Manager, buying 10 whatsits for $10K a piece isn't a rounding error in your operations budget if your MTBF was reduced by %1 as a result.
Humor sense is in short supply these days.
The whatsits you mention (and construct your case against cheapness) are: "Write Only Memory" (guaranteed security, nobody can read them) with a high "First In Never Out" rate (performance matched only by /dev/null).
RSA's customers certainly need to have a copy of their tokens' seed keys on their authentication server; but RSA doesn't need a copy of their customers' seed keys...
Unfortunately, I imagine they do need the copy: otherwise how do they make sure they never issue duplicates to different customers?
If one is feeling really serious, the so-called "data diode" devices can be used to ensure that the data to be analyzed goes out and nothing goes back in... such hardware is Not Cheap
I have some WOM with high FINO rates, that I can provide quite cheap. Are they interested?
At some point, unless Siemens has a very nasty legal trump card of some sort, they are going to have to adopt the "fuck it, better that the admins know." approach.
Tell this to DHS! Do you expect a rational reaction? (even now, reading Wikileaks put one's security clearance prospects under question - no matter the whole world reads the Cablegate, DHS seems to need uninformed employees. Err... pardon... on a "need to know basis").
Who is they?
DHS, who else?