Individual effective dose is below Negligible Individual Dose (NID) if an individual is subjected to fewer that screenings in a year...
Uhh, why in the name of FSM is the data most pertinent to the public redacted? That's the kind of data that isn't "sensitive" unless it makes the program look bad. Basically, in my humble opinion, that's an admission of guild by the DHS that these backscatter devices are probably exceeding the NID within a short period of time.
Never underestimate the stupidity of some people. I've seen some VOBS get royally hosed and take a day or two to go through the version-trees of individual elements to untangle their merge history. This was all due to two things: 1) OzPeter's Point 2) Lazy CM that didn't want to provide simple scripts and lock down a standard method for view/config-spec management.
I think you actually restated the point that Linus made in the original thread. Which was: Don't branch and start new development from an unknown state.
For you, the stable baseline is equal to the trunk. For Linus, the stable baseline is equal the labeled release build node.
We started having peer reviews of the code, and my colleagues and I are the designers of the system, so we would hypothetically need to sign off on it. We went for two hours to get 10 lines into it, no one could explain how it was working but that we should just "trust the compiler".
Unless you're writing assembly code for non-pipeline microprocessors, you're already implicitly 'trusting the compiler' because most modern compilers will re-order instructions to help prevent pipeline stalls, or improve efficiency.
I, for one, do not understand why Apple computers only understand numbers ending in.99, or just how Apple is making it better for the consumer this way.
Two thoughts come to mind:
1) Possibly, it's just for uniformity sake. When all the prices end in the same digits it might appear to Jobs that it looks cleaner in the store app?
2) It could also be to prevent snowballing pricing wars (thus keeping the costs of e-books somewhat buoyant which doesn't help the consumer at all). For example, publisher A lists a book for $1.99; publisher B lists a similar competing book for $1.97; publisher A strikes back pricing their book at $1.89, etc. This behavior is discouraged, if the publisher has to drop the books price by $1.00 when the price is only $1.99.
The camp organizers say it is 'a good social opportunity for some kids who didn't fit into other programs.'
Back in High School we had a really cool teacher that let us setup a LAN with 5 computers in his classroom; We mostly played Quake and Warcraft II. It even expanded to the point that we had one guy running a D&D campaign, others would bring their MTG cards, and one guy was messing around with building robots. Point being, a good bulk of the guys that showed up were guys that weren't getting any meaningful peer interaction otherwise, because the other clubs and activities weren't up their alley . Gaming would happen, yes, but since there were only 5 computers a lot of socialization happened as well.
I don't carry most of those with me *because I don't want to lose them*. In addition to it not being a cops business to anything other than my first and last name, if I'm not being charged with a crime- First, and Last. That's all you get.
There are apparently some Federal guidelines that list what is acceptable proof, and they invoke these in the law. It's why supporters make the argument, "we're only doing what the Federal Government has mandated".
Here's the rub, the phone was disguised as an iPhone 3gs, and by the 'finders' admission looked exactly like one. That means for all intents and purposes the phone wasn't a 'pre-release device', and was Grey Powell's property as far as the 'finder' was concerned, and no good faith effort was launched (i.e., didn't leave it with the bar, didn't leave his name/number with the bar, etc). It wasn't until the 'finder' woke up the next morning and decided to tinker with it did he uncover the truth of the 4g.
Then under the same law, you'll be arrested and charged with not having proper documentation of being a legal U.S. citizen. It sounds crazy, but it's true!
(Note this isn't the same as detaining someone who just wants to give their true first/last name as specified in the "stop and identify" statute).
OH, so Apple gave (or sold) him the phone, it's Gray's property?
Here's where we aren't meeting eye-to-eye; I would 100% agree with the argument that the guy made a good faith effort to return it to the 'owner' IF there was a "Property of Apple Inc" sticker on it. However, At the moment the phone was found, it was disguised as an iPhone 3gs (no hint that it was anything more), and to any logical person the property of Gray Powell. By the 'finders' own admission (excerpt from the original gizmodo article, emphasis mine):
The person who ended up with the iPhone asked around, but nobody claimed it. He thought about that young guy sitting next to him, so he and his friend stayed there for some time, waiting. Powell never came back.
During that time, he played with it. It seemed like a normal iPhone. "I thought it was just an iPhone 3GS," he told me in a telephone interview. "It just looked like one. I tried the camera, but it crashed three times." The iPhone didn't seem to have any special features
So while we know now that the phone wasn't a iPhone 3gs, HE didn't, and thus the phone at that point in time was a normal phone with Grey Powell as the owner, and a good effort wasn't made to return it to the known owner; (i.e., he didn't leave it with the bar nor did he leave his name/number for Grey to contact him, nor did he drop it off with an officer of the law).
(Again from Gizmodo's article)
Thinking about returning the phone the next day, he left. When he woke up after the hazy night, the phone was dead. Bricked remotely, through MobileMe, the service Apple provides to track and wipe out lost iPhones. It was only then that he realized that there was something strange that iPhone. The exterior didn't feel right and there was a camera on the front. After tinkering with it, he managed to open the fake 3GS.
So up to this point, the 'finder' still thinks that it's a normal iPhone 3gs with some guy (Grey Powell) as the owner, but there is something 'weird' about the phone. Who cares?! It's not his phone! He shouldn't be trying to open it (yeah, i know we're all curious here, but still, not yours no touchy - don't void my warranty if you plan on returning it to me). The only thing on the 'finders' mind should be returning it to the guy that left it at the bar the previous night because Grey Powell for all intents and purposes is the owner of the phone.
-- Speculation Time --
My speculation is that the guy that 'found' it never intended to return it to the owner because he now has a new iPhone 3gs that he can remove the sim-card from and sell; but as he went to remove the sim card it turned into something much, much more.
It was disguised as a normal iPhone 3gs, and had a drop-protection skin around it. To the casual observer (which the guy that 'found' it claimed to be), it wasn't a test-unit.
However it's also obvious that the finder in this case at some point realized what it really was, and moreover, he claims he had no way of contacting the tester. Under those circumstances, trying to return it to Apple actually seems very reasonable to me.
Yeah, I agree with you on this point. I'm just coming from a perspective of a rational actor, and that while legally it belongs to Apple - how long did it take the guy to realize it? I guess I'll have to wait to hear all the facts in the (now obviously upcoming) court hearings. I just can't believe that the guy didn't leave his name and number with the bar so that the test engineer could contact him.
There are more attack vectors than just web traffic.
They'll need decent e-mail spam/virus filters, and physically disconnect USB drive access to their machines (people plugging in their dirty USB sticks).
I still have to respectfully disagree here. Even if it was a pre-release unit. As far as the guy who 'found' the phone should be concerned, it was property of the engineer that 'lost' it. As I've mentioned in some other posts, if you lose a HTC phone or Nokia phone, do you expect someone to call those companies directly to return your phone to you?
He was only selling lost property. Nothing more, nothing less. People do this all the time. Why the hell do so many people think he did something evil?
1) He obviously knew it wasn't a normal phone because instead of leaving his information with the Pub to have the owner contact him, he 'tried to contact apple support' (Seriously, wtf? So if I lose a HTC phone someone is going to call HTC to return it to me? Really?)
2) He turned around and sold it within a few days of "finding" it. Typical protocol for ethical people is to write down the serial number, and then hand it over to the police.
He tried returning it to Apple, but it is not Apples phone anyway, it's Gray Powell's phone.
So much this. A *lot* of people aren't getting this fact through their skulls.
If people found a Nokia cell-phone on the bar counter-top where the a guy was just drinking, would they call up Nokia to try and return it? This is what's absurd about the whole, "Oh he tried to return it to Apple" argument. It just doesn't hold water.
I want to agree with you based on the fact that I have to believe that Europeans are better educated in things Technological. However, given enough money thrown at the problem with enough motivated entities it becomes an inevitability even in such an environment.
I wish I had mod-points for you because this truly is insightful, informative, AND hitting the nail on the head for physical devices.
If I remember correctly there was a case where companies would mail out books or catalogs to people, then send them a bill if the people didn't return the books after a certain period of time. Some guy ended up suing them to claim storage fees (I wish my Google-Fu was better so I could find the citations).
- "We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games." Kotick later stated he tries to promote an atmosphere of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear" in his company and, "We are very good at keeping people focused on the deep depression."
Well firing your top two devs will certainly help you with that goal. Imagine anyone's review, "You think you're *that* special? Shit son, we just fired our top two guys, now work 90 hours a week without over-time or you're out the door too!"
Sadly, since this is the gaming industry, this cheese wad Kotick will not only get away with this abusive behavior, but he'll be rewarded (like you said, it brings in money). In most other industries, when a CEO tries to create a similar culture, the good people jump ship right away (go to the competition, or start their own company), and the average people jump ship as soon as the economy improves, and this works to punish the company by losing a lot of brain power. However, in the gaming industry, all you have to do is license an engine, hire and teach someone from the endless supply of sucker.. er.. talented prospects, and you're right back on track - abusing the new employee.
Well, when you are in such a situation, you don’t really think about going to Facebook, but it happens that I have a Facebook widget on my Android home screen that regularly displays status updates from my friends.
He was saying that due to the ability for Android phones to customize their L&F unlike other popular phones, he noticed his friend's update much sooner due to the widget automatically updating on his phones homepage.
The widget updating itself on the homepage gave him immediate data and insight since Facebook wasn't an obvious choice to look for SOS from survivors. Other smart phones, people would have had to check their Facebook newsfeed which they only do every so often... (unless they're a 13 year old.
This lead him to a further realization that maybe other survivors were using Facebook to do a canvasing approach to letting people know they're still alive and need help because they didn't know what else to do in the situation.
FTA:
So, I started scouring Facebook to retrieve all those SOS messages, telling people on mailing lists and on Facebook to forward all SOS messages to me.
The idea is not only that automated testing is good, but that testable code is fundamentally better because it needs to be loosely coupled.
I'd add to this that testable code often, not always but often, is well planned, well defined, and/or well managed code and this is what makes it fundamentally better. One might say that testable code is well engineered code.
(Disclaimer: Haven't read that book yet, this is just an off the cuff remark from experiencing some of the best and some of the worst levels of unit testing and beyond)
Slashdot Mirror
Individual effective dose is below Negligible Individual Dose (NID) if an individual is subjected to fewer than [redacted] screenings in a year...
Need some more caffeine to aid my proof-reading.
Individual effective dose is below Negligible Individual Dose (NID) if an individual is subjected to fewer that screenings in a year...
Uhh, why in the name of FSM is the data most pertinent to the public redacted? That's the kind of data that isn't "sensitive" unless it makes the program look bad. Basically, in my humble opinion, that's an admission of guild by the DHS that these backscatter devices are probably exceeding the NID within a short period of time.
Never underestimate the stupidity of some people. I've seen some VOBS get royally hosed and take a day or two to go through the version-trees of individual elements to untangle their merge history. This was all due to two things: 1) OzPeter's Point 2) Lazy CM that didn't want to provide simple scripts and lock down a standard method for view/config-spec management.
I think you actually restated the point that Linus made in the original thread. Which was: Don't branch and start new development from an unknown state.
For you, the stable baseline is equal to the trunk. For Linus, the stable baseline is equal the labeled release build node.
It's my alcohol without the hang-over the next morning.
We started having peer reviews of the code, and my colleagues and I are the designers of the system, so we would hypothetically need to sign off on it. We went for two hours to get 10 lines into it, no one could explain how it was working but that we should just "trust the compiler".
Unless you're writing assembly code for non-pipeline microprocessors, you're already implicitly 'trusting the compiler' because most modern compilers will re-order instructions to help prevent pipeline stalls, or improve efficiency.
I, for one, do not understand why Apple computers only understand numbers ending in .99, or just how Apple is making it better for the consumer this way.
Two thoughts come to mind:
1) Possibly, it's just for uniformity sake. When all the prices end in the same digits it might appear to Jobs that it looks cleaner in the store app?
2) It could also be to prevent snowballing pricing wars (thus keeping the costs of e-books somewhat buoyant which doesn't help the consumer at all). For example, publisher A lists a book for $1.99; publisher B lists a similar competing book for $1.97; publisher A strikes back pricing their book at $1.89, etc. This behavior is discouraged, if the publisher has to drop the books price by $1.00 when the price is only $1.99.
The camp organizers say it is 'a good social opportunity for some kids who didn't fit into other programs.'
Back in High School we had a really cool teacher that let us setup a LAN with 5 computers in his classroom; We mostly played Quake and Warcraft II. It even expanded to the point that we had one guy running a D&D campaign, others would bring their MTG cards, and one guy was messing around with building robots. Point being, a good bulk of the guys that showed up were guys that weren't getting any meaningful peer interaction otherwise, because the other clubs and activities weren't up their alley . Gaming would happen, yes, but since there were only 5 computers a lot of socialization happened as well.
she swallowed a fly; Perhaps she'll die.
I don't carry most of those with me *because I don't want to lose them*. In addition to it not being a cops business to anything other than my first and last name, if I'm not being charged with a crime- First, and Last. That's all you get.
There are apparently some Federal guidelines that list what is acceptable proof, and they invoke these in the law. It's why supporters make the argument, "we're only doing what the Federal Government has mandated".
Here's the rub, the phone was disguised as an iPhone 3gs, and by the 'finders' admission looked exactly like one. That means for all intents and purposes the phone wasn't a 'pre-release device', and was Grey Powell's property as far as the 'finder' was concerned, and no good faith effort was launched (i.e., didn't leave it with the bar, didn't leave his name/number with the bar, etc). It wasn't until the 'finder' woke up the next morning and decided to tinker with it did he uncover the truth of the 4g.
Then under the same law, you'll be arrested and charged with not having proper documentation of being a legal U.S. citizen. It sounds crazy, but it's true! (Note this isn't the same as detaining someone who just wants to give their true first/last name as specified in the "stop and identify" statute).
I agree with everything you're saying, however...
OH, so Apple gave (or sold) him the phone, it's Gray's property?
Here's where we aren't meeting eye-to-eye; I would 100% agree with the argument that the guy made a good faith effort to return it to the 'owner' IF there was a "Property of Apple Inc" sticker on it. However, At the moment the phone was found, it was disguised as an iPhone 3gs (no hint that it was anything more), and to any logical person the property of Gray Powell. By the 'finders' own admission (excerpt from the original gizmodo article, emphasis mine):
The person who ended up with the iPhone asked around, but nobody claimed it. He thought about that young guy sitting next to him, so he and his friend stayed there for some time, waiting. Powell never came back. During that time, he played with it. It seemed like a normal iPhone. "I thought it was just an iPhone 3GS," he told me in a telephone interview. "It just looked like one. I tried the camera, but it crashed three times." The iPhone didn't seem to have any special features
So while we know now that the phone wasn't a iPhone 3gs, HE didn't, and thus the phone at that point in time was a normal phone with Grey Powell as the owner, and a good effort wasn't made to return it to the known owner; (i.e., he didn't leave it with the bar nor did he leave his name/number for Grey to contact him, nor did he drop it off with an officer of the law).
(Again from Gizmodo's article)
Thinking about returning the phone the next day, he left. When he woke up after the hazy night, the phone was dead. Bricked remotely, through MobileMe, the service Apple provides to track and wipe out lost iPhones. It was only then that he realized that there was something strange that iPhone. The exterior didn't feel right and there was a camera on the front. After tinkering with it, he managed to open the fake 3GS.
So up to this point, the 'finder' still thinks that it's a normal iPhone 3gs with some guy (Grey Powell) as the owner, but there is something 'weird' about the phone. Who cares?! It's not his phone! He shouldn't be trying to open it (yeah, i know we're all curious here, but still, not yours no touchy - don't void my warranty if you plan on returning it to me). The only thing on the 'finders' mind should be returning it to the guy that left it at the bar the previous night because Grey Powell for all intents and purposes is the owner of the phone.
-- Speculation Time --
My speculation is that the guy that 'found' it never intended to return it to the owner because he now has a new iPhone 3gs that he can remove the sim-card from and sell; but as he went to remove the sim card it turned into something much, much more.
It was disguised as a normal iPhone 3gs, and had a drop-protection skin around it. To the casual observer (which the guy that 'found' it claimed to be), it wasn't a test-unit.
However it's also obvious that the finder in this case at some point realized what it really was, and moreover, he claims he had no way of contacting the tester. Under those circumstances, trying to return it to Apple actually seems very reasonable to me.
Yeah, I agree with you on this point. I'm just coming from a perspective of a rational actor, and that while legally it belongs to Apple - how long did it take the guy to realize it? I guess I'll have to wait to hear all the facts in the (now obviously upcoming) court hearings. I just can't believe that the guy didn't leave his name and number with the bar so that the test engineer could contact him.
There are more attack vectors than just web traffic.
They'll need decent e-mail spam/virus filters, and physically disconnect USB drive access to their machines (people plugging in their dirty USB sticks).
I still have to respectfully disagree here. Even if it was a pre-release unit. As far as the guy who 'found' the phone should be concerned, it was property of the engineer that 'lost' it. As I've mentioned in some other posts, if you lose a HTC phone or Nokia phone, do you expect someone to call those companies directly to return your phone to you?
He was only selling lost property. Nothing more, nothing less. People do this all the time. Why the hell do so many people think he did something evil?
1) He obviously knew it wasn't a normal phone because instead of leaving his information with the Pub to have the owner contact him, he 'tried to contact apple support' (Seriously, wtf? So if I lose a HTC phone someone is going to call HTC to return it to me? Really?) 2) He turned around and sold it within a few days of "finding" it. Typical protocol for ethical people is to write down the serial number, and then hand it over to the police.
He tried returning it to Apple, but it is not Apples phone anyway, it's Gray Powell's phone.
So much this. A *lot* of people aren't getting this fact through their skulls.
If people found a Nokia cell-phone on the bar counter-top where the a guy was just drinking, would they call up Nokia to try and return it? This is what's absurd about the whole, "Oh he tried to return it to Apple" argument. It just doesn't hold water.
I want to agree with you based on the fact that I have to believe that Europeans are better educated in things Technological. However, given enough money thrown at the problem with enough motivated entities it becomes an inevitability even in such an environment.
I wish I had mod-points for you because this truly is insightful, informative, AND hitting the nail on the head for physical devices.
If I remember correctly there was a case where companies would mail out books or catalogs to people, then send them a bill if the people didn't return the books after a certain period of time. Some guy ended up suing them to claim storage fees (I wish my Google-Fu was better so I could find the citations).
- "We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games." Kotick later stated he tries to promote an atmosphere of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear" in his company and, "We are very good at keeping people focused on the deep depression."
Well firing your top two devs will certainly help you with that goal. Imagine anyone's review, "You think you're *that* special? Shit son, we just fired our top two guys, now work 90 hours a week without over-time or you're out the door too!"
Sadly, since this is the gaming industry, this cheese wad Kotick will not only get away with this abusive behavior, but he'll be rewarded (like you said, it brings in money). In most other industries, when a CEO tries to create a similar culture, the good people jump ship right away (go to the competition, or start their own company), and the average people jump ship as soon as the economy improves, and this works to punish the company by losing a lot of brain power. However, in the gaming industry, all you have to do is license an engine, hire and teach someone from the endless supply of sucker.. er.. talented prospects, and you're right back on track - abusing the new employee.
Exactly.
FTA (emphasis mine):
Well, when you are in such a situation, you don’t really think about going to Facebook, but it happens that I have a Facebook widget on my Android home screen that regularly displays status updates from my friends.
He was saying that due to the ability for Android phones to customize their L&F unlike other popular phones, he noticed his friend's update much sooner due to the widget automatically updating on his phones homepage.
The widget updating itself on the homepage gave him immediate data and insight since Facebook wasn't an obvious choice to look for SOS from survivors. Other smart phones, people would have had to check their Facebook newsfeed which they only do every so often... (unless they're a 13 year old.
This lead him to a further realization that maybe other survivors were using Facebook to do a canvasing approach to letting people know they're still alive and need help because they didn't know what else to do in the situation.
FTA:
So, I started scouring Facebook to retrieve all those SOS messages, telling people on mailing lists and on Facebook to forward all SOS messages to me.
The idea is not only that automated testing is good, but that testable code is fundamentally better because it needs to be loosely coupled.
I'd add to this that testable code often, not always but often, is well planned, well defined, and/or well managed code and this is what makes it fundamentally better. One might say that testable code is well engineered code.
(Disclaimer: Haven't read that book yet, this is just an off the cuff remark from experiencing some of the best and some of the worst levels of unit testing and beyond)