When we talk about security by obscurity we mean that the way of how the security is produced is obscured. Not that a certain secret, a key, has to be kept secret to use it.
PGP contains a private key, this is not what obscurity means in this context. What obscurity means is when the basic algorithm used to produce the encrypted result is not open to a public audit.
He was probably told the "this is an open environment encouraging frank discussion of points of view" bullshit. And if he's a HFA he probably believed it, considered it and wrote his statement accordingly, honestly believing that there is actual interest in creating a "better" working environment instead of pushing an agenda.
It's a bit like Luther and his 95 theses. That man, too, believed that he could have an academic discussion with the Pope over his main income source...
What makes it problematic is the amount of assholes who label themselves "Autistic" to get away with being arrogant assholes with zero concern for their environment, bordering on being a psychopath (though I leave it open for debate what side of the border they're on). Which is the absolute opposite of what you'll find in a highly functional Autist who is actually trying what he can to appear "normal" and blend in.
It's a bit like the shit those transtrender assholes pull. Trust me in one thing: Someone who is really transgender will make it ABSOLUTELY and BLATANTLY clear what gender he or she wants to be associated with. There is absolutely ZERO ambiguity, again, with them going out of their way to make sure you know where to put them.
Autists usually believe you when you tell them something and they will respond honestly. So if you tell them that you want an "open and frank discussion", they will give you one. And they will of course not understand when you react in a hostile way because all they did was to give you what you wanted.
In other words, never ask an Autist for something you don't want because you WILL get it.
Another place where everyone dissenting with the obvious glorious achievements of the glorious revolution were labeled insane. I mean, you have to be insane to not realize you're living in the best of all possible worlds!
They aren't older. They just LOOK way older than they really are.
And they don't live longer. It just seems to them that way because, well, have you ever spent a few weeks without TV, computer or anything that a normal person would consider entertaining? Time REALLY gets long.
What really blows is that for a few hours, maybe even a day or two, you feel like you're actually getting better, even though you're certainly going to die.
One thing that worked for us was to tie social aid to retraining for new jobs. That way people had structure and a perspective in their life, and many were actually able to get new jobs. A reason why many people are unemployable in their job is that some new technology emerged that went by them and they don't know how to work new and critical infrastructure. Such retraining had some serious impact in our job market.
I don't doubt that the US spends a lot on welfare, but it seems the money is going poof with little impact to improve the situation of those dependent on it. It seems to be a little like the education system, a lot of money is spent but the outcome is mediocre in comparison. In my opinion, and please tell me what is yours, social aid should have a few functions, but it should not create a class of people that has no perspective other than being fully dependent on such a system with zero chance to get out of it, including their descendants. The goal should be to give people a means to survive times of hardship but also enable them to get back on their feet and get a job again.
And then of course there is that "having something to lose" part that's IMO critical. Our crime rate around here is very low. And I do attribute this to our social service system making sure that everyone has more to lose than to gain from a criminal lifestyle, that the potential gains from crime is not worth losing what you already got. That works pretty well. For this, though, the perspective to be able to escape the welfare dependence, better yourself, be able to get and hold down a sensible job (that's making you more than just another member of the working poor) is absolutely paramount.
It's nice that they have certis, hang them in the loo, so you got TP in case of an emergency.
The difference between good PMs and bad PMs is whether they "have" it. In my experience this is one of those positions where "soft skills" are more than anything you can certify or quantify. What you need here isn't someone who knows milestones and PM tools but someone who can talk, can read and handle people, can argue and convince and can navigate the corporate structure well.
Try to find a (sensible, not some BS) certification for this and we'll talk.
Think of it as something akin to a lateral Dilbert principle. Instead of promoting someone so he can do no damage to the project, you move him to a position in the project where the damage he can do is limited.
I don't think handing wealth to people will solve their problems. But giving them a social net to keep them from falling flat on their back does. I get the increasing feeling that to you there are only two binary opposite solutions, dead broke or filthy rich. The goal here is more sustenance, enough to live but not enough to be happy about it.
That's basically what we did over here in Europe. You can actually survive on unemployment and social security. It's basically enough to keep people alive (and, more importantly, away from the idea to mug me for the 20 bucks in my pocket), but hardly anything you want to do for long. Even the money you get stuffing shelves at the local grocery store is better than this.
And yes, that system works.
About job creation: Imagine you have an enterprise. Would you hire someone you don't need? I dare say that you wouldn't. Doing so is insane from a capitalist point of view, you would pay someone you do not need. Unless you need that person to provide the goods and services that you can sell (don't omit that last part, it's the crucial one, if you can't sell them those goods and services are cost, not profit), there is absolutely no good reason to hire anyone.
You know, I'm a bass player (when I get the time). Nothing even close to, say, Flea, mind you, but decent enough. Ever heard the bass player jokes? We're dumb, can't play, have no talent, you name it. Why? Because there's a lot, an awful lot, of really, really crappy ones. Why? Because of how bands start out. The guy who can play guitar well does lead, the guy who can play passable does the rhythm and the one that can barely coordinate fretting and strumming gets bass. Because you can't fuck up too much there, it's easier and with a bit of luck nobody notices when you suck, can't hit a note or be in time. Bass is easy to pick up, hard to master, I can tell you, but it's easy to not fuck up too badly early on. And if you fuck up, someone's gonna pick up your slack and play the bass for the records.
Same with project management.
When you look at the resume of project managers, you find that many of them had a lot of hats so far. Not necessarily even as part of a programming team or a project. But project management is easy, at least to pick up. You don't really have to produce much. You have to "coordinate", and with a hint of luck the team will be good enough to pick up your slack and compensate for your shortcomings.
That is not true for all project managers, mind you. Like it's not true for all bass players. Some get there because they really want to do it and they are really, really good at it.
It's just the army of really, really crappy ones that you encounter throughout the years that color your vision badly.
And tell you that you eat all wrong and you have to eat... well, whatever the latest eating craze is today. Eat this, eat that, and avoid this because it's poison. No matter that the next person recommends eating exactly that and only that, because what you just suggested is killing you within the year.
You know what? Take your eating disorder in the making and stuff it. As we can see right now, whenever we manage to get healthier, we just move the goalpost on unhealthy. Lower number of heart diseases? Just invent a few new ones!
We're getting older than ever before. And we die when we get to age 80 from diseases that didn't exist before because, guess what, we died from other diseases that we don't die from anymore. This is a GOOD thing people. Going on a diet that won't make you die at 80 because what you're eating now is slowly (insert bad thing for your body here) isn't going to do you any good if it gives you (bad thing that makes your organ fail) at 50. Then you won't die at 80 from (bad thing) but at 50 from (other bad thing).
It's also impossible for the majority of people to crack software. Yet it seems that nobody has ever had a problem getting their hand on it.
The reason for this, as with finding backdoors and spyware in OSS is that it only takes ONE person to remove the part that bugs people, repackage it and release it to those that cannot do it themselves.
And it's also trivially easy to see whether the source code I have is the same that canonical uses to build its binaries. Hash both binaries and see if they come up identically.
You think your army won't shoot at you? You do remember that your government not only has the biggest army but also a propaganda apparatus that would make Goebbels go green with envy. You think that you wouldn't be branded terrorists first to convince them that it's absolutely right and perfectly fine to round you up?
Do you think the Russians that mowed down the liberation attempts in the East Bloc during the time of the iron curtain were told that the nations tried to break free from Russian oppression? They were told it's small bands of counterrevolutionaries that tried to overthrow the rightful government.
You think your army would be told something different? Your army would be used against you. You, a terrorist, trying to overthrow the democratically elected government of the greatest country of the free world.
I don't remember where I tried to use the line about atheism on you, but yes, some people don't seem to get how you can live without an imaginary friend. But that's not really the topic now.
And yes, I'm also one of those that complain about "the rich", mostly because that is actually something I don't understand, how they can live happily, knowing that their daily income could feed, house and shelter a family of four while there are actually families that struggle to make ends meet and they're one of the reasons why it is that way. Yet at the same time complain about government programs that try to fight this.
About creating jobs... I don't know a single person who runs a business who does it for creating jobs. Creating jobs is at best a side effect. At worst a necessary evil. Nobody wants to create a job. Creating a job means that you first and foremost have expenses. Those expenses have to be recovered by the additional workforce at your disposal. So whatever you pay a worker has to be less than what he nets you, or you'd be better off not hiring him.
So please, the myth of the "job creating entrepreneur" doesn't sit well with me. If anything, that job is created if I as a customer go and want to buy something from said entrepreneur and he can't do it alone, or doesn't already have the manpower to fulfill it. If you want to look for job creators, look at the demand side. This is, by the way, why we're currently in the economic situation we are now, without full order books, people get laid off.
I heard of them. But I never heard of the times when the ACLU, EFF or whatever other organization stormed some place with blazing guns (that they had thanks to the second) and shot up the place to defend their other rights. What I see instead is complacent Americans who watch as their governments take away one right after another (4th and 5th are already toothless and hollow thanks to the war on terror, the 1st is basically gone thanks to the war on huwt widdle feelings and I wouldn't rely on 6th to 8th to stand the test of time much longer).
What's left? The 3rd because it doesn't really bother anyone (it's cheap to build barracks), the 9th and 10th because we didn't get that far yet (but don't rely on you or your state retaining certain rights forever) and the 2nd because... well, because that would really piss people off it seems.
I'm told time and again that the 2nd is supposed to be the defender of the rest of the constitution, that its reason to exist is so that people can take up arms against an oppressive regime and defend their rights. If that was its reason to exist, it failed miserably. Because it failed to see that just because people CAN do something, it doesn't mean that they HAVE TO. And I'm not talking about Trump, if anything the past 20ish years showed then that it doesn't mean jack shit whether this side or the other side of The Party rule over you, they BOTH exist to dick you over and cheat you blind. And they both did their best to take away rights right underneath you without you even looking.
And it seems they're right in their assumption that they can do whatever they want to you as long as they don't touch your all holy guns. Guns that won't be able to defend you in any way considering that you'd stand against the biggest and most modern army of the current world. They'd literally just gun you down like rabbits.
You have seen the US army fight on this planet. Against real armies that have real money invested in real war gear. Not some rifles and maybe, if you're rich and what's considered a "gun nut" maybe assault rifles, but tanks, jets, artillery and rockets. And they wiped the floor with them after days. Do you think those BB-guns you can field against this military can stop them for 10 seconds?
And now tell me again what that second amendment of yours protects or what purpose it serves.
Slashdot Mirror
When we talk about security by obscurity we mean that the way of how the security is produced is obscured. Not that a certain secret, a key, has to be kept secret to use it.
PGP contains a private key, this is not what obscurity means in this context. What obscurity means is when the basic algorithm used to produce the encrypted result is not open to a public audit.
The key is secret. Not the lock. Big difference.
He was probably told the "this is an open environment encouraging frank discussion of points of view" bullshit. And if he's a HFA he probably believed it, considered it and wrote his statement accordingly, honestly believing that there is actual interest in creating a "better" working environment instead of pushing an agenda.
It's a bit like Luther and his 95 theses. That man, too, believed that he could have an academic discussion with the Pope over his main income source...
What makes it problematic is the amount of assholes who label themselves "Autistic" to get away with being arrogant assholes with zero concern for their environment, bordering on being a psychopath (though I leave it open for debate what side of the border they're on). Which is the absolute opposite of what you'll find in a highly functional Autist who is actually trying what he can to appear "normal" and blend in.
It's a bit like the shit those transtrender assholes pull. Trust me in one thing: Someone who is really transgender will make it ABSOLUTELY and BLATANTLY clear what gender he or she wants to be associated with. There is absolutely ZERO ambiguity, again, with them going out of their way to make sure you know where to put them.
Autists usually believe you when you tell them something and they will respond honestly. So if you tell them that you want an "open and frank discussion", they will give you one. And they will of course not understand when you react in a hostile way because all they did was to give you what you wanted.
In other words, never ask an Autist for something you don't want because you WILL get it.
Another place where everyone dissenting with the obvious glorious achievements of the glorious revolution were labeled insane. I mean, you have to be insane to not realize you're living in the best of all possible worlds!
(I wish I was kidding)
They aren't older. They just LOOK way older than they really are.
And they don't live longer. It just seems to them that way because, well, have you ever spent a few weeks without TV, computer or anything that a normal person would consider entertaining? Time REALLY gets long.
Cue me asking him why that hilariously overpriced phone then not only implemented it but also announced it as the biggest thing since sliced bread.
But ... the phone did what I wanted it to do, so I guess I'm looking at it doubleplusright?
No kidding.
What really blows is that for a few hours, maybe even a day or two, you feel like you're actually getting better, even though you're certainly going to die.
One thing that worked for us was to tie social aid to retraining for new jobs. That way people had structure and a perspective in their life, and many were actually able to get new jobs. A reason why many people are unemployable in their job is that some new technology emerged that went by them and they don't know how to work new and critical infrastructure. Such retraining had some serious impact in our job market.
I don't doubt that the US spends a lot on welfare, but it seems the money is going poof with little impact to improve the situation of those dependent on it. It seems to be a little like the education system, a lot of money is spent but the outcome is mediocre in comparison. In my opinion, and please tell me what is yours, social aid should have a few functions, but it should not create a class of people that has no perspective other than being fully dependent on such a system with zero chance to get out of it, including their descendants. The goal should be to give people a means to survive times of hardship but also enable them to get back on their feet and get a job again.
And then of course there is that "having something to lose" part that's IMO critical. Our crime rate around here is very low. And I do attribute this to our social service system making sure that everyone has more to lose than to gain from a criminal lifestyle, that the potential gains from crime is not worth losing what you already got. That works pretty well. For this, though, the perspective to be able to escape the welfare dependence, better yourself, be able to get and hold down a sensible job (that's making you more than just another member of the working poor) is absolutely paramount.
It's nice that they have certis, hang them in the loo, so you got TP in case of an emergency.
The difference between good PMs and bad PMs is whether they "have" it. In my experience this is one of those positions where "soft skills" are more than anything you can certify or quantify. What you need here isn't someone who knows milestones and PM tools but someone who can talk, can read and handle people, can argue and convince and can navigate the corporate structure well.
Try to find a (sensible, not some BS) certification for this and we'll talk.
Think of it as something akin to a lateral Dilbert principle. Instead of promoting someone so he can do no damage to the project, you move him to a position in the project where the damage he can do is limited.
A few days later they were relabeled Walking Ghosts.
You're right, I should've nutrition "experts" in quotes. But I guess you got what I wanted to say absolutely right
I don't think handing wealth to people will solve their problems. But giving them a social net to keep them from falling flat on their back does. I get the increasing feeling that to you there are only two binary opposite solutions, dead broke or filthy rich. The goal here is more sustenance, enough to live but not enough to be happy about it.
That's basically what we did over here in Europe. You can actually survive on unemployment and social security. It's basically enough to keep people alive (and, more importantly, away from the idea to mug me for the 20 bucks in my pocket), but hardly anything you want to do for long. Even the money you get stuffing shelves at the local grocery store is better than this.
And yes, that system works.
About job creation: Imagine you have an enterprise. Would you hire someone you don't need? I dare say that you wouldn't. Doing so is insane from a capitalist point of view, you would pay someone you do not need. Unless you need that person to provide the goods and services that you can sell (don't omit that last part, it's the crucial one, if you can't sell them those goods and services are cost, not profit), there is absolutely no good reason to hire anyone.
Can we at least agree on this part?
You know, I'm a bass player (when I get the time). Nothing even close to, say, Flea, mind you, but decent enough. Ever heard the bass player jokes? We're dumb, can't play, have no talent, you name it. Why? Because there's a lot, an awful lot, of really, really crappy ones. Why? Because of how bands start out. The guy who can play guitar well does lead, the guy who can play passable does the rhythm and the one that can barely coordinate fretting and strumming gets bass. Because you can't fuck up too much there, it's easier and with a bit of luck nobody notices when you suck, can't hit a note or be in time. Bass is easy to pick up, hard to master, I can tell you, but it's easy to not fuck up too badly early on. And if you fuck up, someone's gonna pick up your slack and play the bass for the records.
Same with project management.
When you look at the resume of project managers, you find that many of them had a lot of hats so far. Not necessarily even as part of a programming team or a project. But project management is easy, at least to pick up. You don't really have to produce much. You have to "coordinate", and with a hint of luck the team will be good enough to pick up your slack and compensate for your shortcomings.
That is not true for all project managers, mind you. Like it's not true for all bass players. Some get there because they really want to do it and they are really, really good at it.
It's just the army of really, really crappy ones that you encounter throughout the years that color your vision badly.
And tell you that you eat all wrong and you have to eat ... well, whatever the latest eating craze is today. Eat this, eat that, and avoid this because it's poison. No matter that the next person recommends eating exactly that and only that, because what you just suggested is killing you within the year.
You know what? Take your eating disorder in the making and stuff it. As we can see right now, whenever we manage to get healthier, we just move the goalpost on unhealthy. Lower number of heart diseases? Just invent a few new ones!
We're getting older than ever before. And we die when we get to age 80 from diseases that didn't exist before because, guess what, we died from other diseases that we don't die from anymore. This is a GOOD thing people. Going on a diet that won't make you die at 80 because what you're eating now is slowly (insert bad thing for your body here) isn't going to do you any good if it gives you (bad thing that makes your organ fail) at 50. Then you won't die at 80 from (bad thing) but at 50 from (other bad thing).
Odd. Grain has been a staple for humans for ... well, pretty much all of civilization. Shouldn't that poison have killed us off far earlier?
That takes courage.
And therefore a new set of headphones.
It's also impossible for the majority of people to crack software. Yet it seems that nobody has ever had a problem getting their hand on it.
The reason for this, as with finding backdoors and spyware in OSS is that it only takes ONE person to remove the part that bugs people, repackage it and release it to those that cannot do it themselves.
And it's also trivially easy to see whether the source code I have is the same that canonical uses to build its binaries. Hash both binaries and see if they come up identically.
You think your army won't shoot at you? You do remember that your government not only has the biggest army but also a propaganda apparatus that would make Goebbels go green with envy. You think that you wouldn't be branded terrorists first to convince them that it's absolutely right and perfectly fine to round you up?
Do you think the Russians that mowed down the liberation attempts in the East Bloc during the time of the iron curtain were told that the nations tried to break free from Russian oppression? They were told it's small bands of counterrevolutionaries that tried to overthrow the rightful government.
You think your army would be told something different? Your army would be used against you. You, a terrorist, trying to overthrow the democratically elected government of the greatest country of the free world.
I don't remember where I tried to use the line about atheism on you, but yes, some people don't seem to get how you can live without an imaginary friend. But that's not really the topic now.
And yes, I'm also one of those that complain about "the rich", mostly because that is actually something I don't understand, how they can live happily, knowing that their daily income could feed, house and shelter a family of four while there are actually families that struggle to make ends meet and they're one of the reasons why it is that way. Yet at the same time complain about government programs that try to fight this.
About creating jobs... I don't know a single person who runs a business who does it for creating jobs. Creating jobs is at best a side effect. At worst a necessary evil. Nobody wants to create a job. Creating a job means that you first and foremost have expenses. Those expenses have to be recovered by the additional workforce at your disposal. So whatever you pay a worker has to be less than what he nets you, or you'd be better off not hiring him.
So please, the myth of the "job creating entrepreneur" doesn't sit well with me. If anything, that job is created if I as a customer go and want to buy something from said entrepreneur and he can't do it alone, or doesn't already have the manpower to fulfill it. If you want to look for job creators, look at the demand side. This is, by the way, why we're currently in the economic situation we are now, without full order books, people get laid off.
I heard of them. But I never heard of the times when the ACLU, EFF or whatever other organization stormed some place with blazing guns (that they had thanks to the second) and shot up the place to defend their other rights. What I see instead is complacent Americans who watch as their governments take away one right after another (4th and 5th are already toothless and hollow thanks to the war on terror, the 1st is basically gone thanks to the war on huwt widdle feelings and I wouldn't rely on 6th to 8th to stand the test of time much longer).
What's left? The 3rd because it doesn't really bother anyone (it's cheap to build barracks), the 9th and 10th because we didn't get that far yet (but don't rely on you or your state retaining certain rights forever) and the 2nd because ... well, because that would really piss people off it seems.
I'm told time and again that the 2nd is supposed to be the defender of the rest of the constitution, that its reason to exist is so that people can take up arms against an oppressive regime and defend their rights. If that was its reason to exist, it failed miserably. Because it failed to see that just because people CAN do something, it doesn't mean that they HAVE TO. And I'm not talking about Trump, if anything the past 20ish years showed then that it doesn't mean jack shit whether this side or the other side of The Party rule over you, they BOTH exist to dick you over and cheat you blind. And they both did their best to take away rights right underneath you without you even looking.
And it seems they're right in their assumption that they can do whatever they want to you as long as they don't touch your all holy guns. Guns that won't be able to defend you in any way considering that you'd stand against the biggest and most modern army of the current world. They'd literally just gun you down like rabbits.
You have seen the US army fight on this planet. Against real armies that have real money invested in real war gear. Not some rifles and maybe, if you're rich and what's considered a "gun nut" maybe assault rifles, but tanks, jets, artillery and rockets. And they wiped the floor with them after days. Do you think those BB-guns you can field against this military can stop them for 10 seconds?
And now tell me again what that second amendment of yours protects or what purpose it serves.
If that was its job, it failed miserably.
It's possible to be right but still annoying.