I don't think it's the short release cycle that is the problem (it works well for the Linux kernel), so much as it is that cycle in a commercial, proprietary environment. The latter puts a focus on getting out a certain amount of new and shiny, which can result in lower quality releases.
The kind of liabilities governments and businesses have are different. The biggest threat is when the government and businesses are working together, as the buck can be passed to nowhere. So, for example, Lockheed Martin has basically zero public accountability, because they are a private entity heavily funded by government contracts.
Dev and QA actually have a synergistic relationship, the problem is a PHB wanting to lower the head count, so they can get that money as a bonus. QA doesn't make any money, so they make sense as a place to cut costs.
External testing is necessary to avoid a number of cognitive biases. Developers should do some degree of testing new builds, especially if the tests can be automated, but at the very least, you at least need roughly the software equivalent of a proofreader. Proofreaders are needed, not because a writer lacks the ability to understand basic grammar and spelling rules, but because the brain suffers from the opposite of NIH syndrome.
Does that necessarily have to take the form of a QA department? No, but this mostly sounds like trying to cut manpower or get around addressing flaws in the testing process. Another PHB trying to preserve his existence by pulling out pieces of a machine they don't understand.
Russia is not an "adversary nation." Not a serious one, anyway. To quote Obama, "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back."
But let's forget that, and assume for a second that Russia is indeed the greatest threat to America. What are their alleged goals? To undermine faith in our elections and democracy. You know the best way to accomplish that? To actually drain the swamp, and get politicians that represent the interests of the people. For example, had Sanders been nominated, he would have mopped the goddamn floor with Trump, and the Podesta leaks would actually HELP him.
Bam, I just outsmarted the Russians, because I'm not prohibited from using effective methods out of fear of no longer getting bribes.
Because Russian interference was, at most, the straw that broke the camel's back. The best defense against Russia is American politicians getting their shit together, and whether they do or not will have a greater effect than any Russian campaign. Ironically, that means that to "stop the Russians," we have to stop the people who use Russia to deflect from more serious issues.
I don't believe anything of a significant size has been recovered from a single random wipe (even then, requiring an electron microscope), and three passes is more than enough.
Clinton lost to a fucking game show host. The problem isn't Russian hackers, it's the power structure in major western nations is isolated from reality, and thus they get their asses kicked by populists. Populist left easily beats populist right, but populist right beats establishment left. Establishment left sabotages populist left, and gets beaten by populist right. The Clintons and the Blairs are responsible for votes being close enough that foreign interference could even possibly affect results. The Dems could have nominated a ham sandwich and received 300 electoral votes against Trump.
No, what he's saying is that it's more likely that there was internal corruption than external hacking. The voting machines have been insecure for over a decade, if not more, and politicians have been corrupt longer than we have history. The Russia hysteria is to cover the DNC's bad behavior and to explain away how Clinton lost to the worst candidate ever. The answer was that she was the worst candidate that the Dems have produced, and she was running on the status quo with an electorate more pro-change than the one that elected Obama.
Trump didn't win. Hillary lost. The Clinton wing needs to die off, and the Bernie wing needs to take over. Until that happens, the Dems put themselves at a disadvantage despite demographics and policy opinion actually being considerably left of them.
Why would everyone need to be gay for being gay to be okay? Sexuality appears to have a bimodal distribution on the Kinsey scale. There may be sociological factors involved in those numbers as well, but it's pretty well tuned for a relatively stable population.
Also, you can't apply categorical imperative that broadly. Humanity would die out faster if everyone belonged to any one particular occupation, because our current carrying levels depend upon extensive separation of labor. However, working any particular job, such as doctor, farmer, or scientist, is obviously not immoral or impractical in and of itself.
Why would you think it wouldn't be heritable? TFA confirms that the method was applied to embryos, so presumably most, if not all, of their cells would contain the modified gene.
The real question is what the most effective tactics at combating such efforts are. One of the stated goals of these Russian plots is to undermine America's faith in their democracy and government. Nothing would foil that plan as effectively as actually having an effective democracy with trustworthy elected officials that actually represent the people's interest and respect their rights.
My point was to eliminate the hypocrisy of say, Raytheon, getting tax cuts under a vague "taxation is theft" or "small government" mantra. If taxation is theft, then their profits were built upon theft., and thus, at least partially invalid.
What makes the tax code complicated is not the tax brackets. That's a simple spreadsheet. What makes it complicated is the number of exceptions, which allow Warren Buffet to effectively pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. You can simplify the tax code without going to a flat tax, and a flat tax doesn't inherently mean that the exceptions have been removed.
Or, maybe we can allow a flat tax only under certain eligibility conditions: No government contracts or subsidies, no lobbying, and none of either through proxies for 10 years, and you are eligible for a flat rate with no deductions.
If licensing is the only thing that prevents you from installing random third-party software on mission-critical machines, I think there is a bigger problem than lack of FOSS policy.
Companies do need FOSS-specific policies, but that mostly falls under license compliance. The software used on their public facing servers, FOSS or not, should be well documented.
All AV software should be treated as if compromised by it's country of origin. So, whether or not you should uninstall Kaspersky is who you are worried about.
If the biggest threat to you is ordinary criminal malware? No.
If the biggest threat to you is Russian intelligence? Yes.
If the biggest threat to you is US intelligence? No.
Yeah, and in that century, we didn't have the infrastructure for global shipping and communication. We're talking about ramping up production of a natural resource, whose production and usage is quite bad for the environment, in order to undermine an economic foe. This is clearly not a good long term plan, when a concentrated effort to make that gas worthless forever is also going to be better ecologically.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's the short release cycle that is the problem (it works well for the Linux kernel), so much as it is that cycle in a commercial, proprietary environment. The latter puts a focus on getting out a certain amount of new and shiny, which can result in lower quality releases.
The kind of liabilities governments and businesses have are different. The biggest threat is when the government and businesses are working together, as the buck can be passed to nowhere. So, for example, Lockheed Martin has basically zero public accountability, because they are a private entity heavily funded by government contracts.
I'd say that's what twitter is TRYING to do, but what they are REALLY doing is feeding into the persecution complexes of the alt-right.
Release notes should generally be functional. Save the marketing for a new update for a press release.
50 cubits is an awfully large computer, and why do Americans have to use such archaic units?
Dev and QA actually have a synergistic relationship, the problem is a PHB wanting to lower the head count, so they can get that money as a bonus. QA doesn't make any money, so they make sense as a place to cut costs.
Make something idiot proof, and they'll just invent a better idiot.
External testing is necessary to avoid a number of cognitive biases. Developers should do some degree of testing new builds, especially if the tests can be automated, but at the very least, you at least need roughly the software equivalent of a proofreader. Proofreaders are needed, not because a writer lacks the ability to understand basic grammar and spelling rules, but because the brain suffers from the opposite of NIH syndrome.
Does that necessarily have to take the form of a QA department? No, but this mostly sounds like trying to cut manpower or get around addressing flaws in the testing process. Another PHB trying to preserve his existence by pulling out pieces of a machine they don't understand.
Technically, this is more the Dilbert principle
Russia is not an "adversary nation." Not a serious one, anyway. To quote Obama, "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back."
But let's forget that, and assume for a second that Russia is indeed the greatest threat to America. What are their alleged goals? To undermine faith in our elections and democracy. You know the best way to accomplish that? To actually drain the swamp, and get politicians that represent the interests of the people. For example, had Sanders been nominated, he would have mopped the goddamn floor with Trump, and the Podesta leaks would actually HELP him.
Bam, I just outsmarted the Russians, because I'm not prohibited from using effective methods out of fear of no longer getting bribes.
Both parties picked the only candidate that could possibly lose to the other.
Because Russian interference was, at most, the straw that broke the camel's back. The best defense against Russia is American politicians getting their shit together, and whether they do or not will have a greater effect than any Russian campaign. Ironically, that means that to "stop the Russians," we have to stop the people who use Russia to deflect from more serious issues.
I don't believe anything of a significant size has been recovered from a single random wipe (even then, requiring an electron microscope), and three passes is more than enough.
The last time a Democrat won Georgia was under Jimmy Carter, who was born there.
Clinton lost to a fucking game show host. The problem isn't Russian hackers, it's the power structure in major western nations is isolated from reality, and thus they get their asses kicked by populists. Populist left easily beats populist right, but populist right beats establishment left. Establishment left sabotages populist left, and gets beaten by populist right. The Clintons and the Blairs are responsible for votes being close enough that foreign interference could even possibly affect results. The Dems could have nominated a ham sandwich and received 300 electoral votes against Trump.
No, what he's saying is that it's more likely that there was internal corruption than external hacking. The voting machines have been insecure for over a decade, if not more, and politicians have been corrupt longer than we have history. The Russia hysteria is to cover the DNC's bad behavior and to explain away how Clinton lost to the worst candidate ever. The answer was that she was the worst candidate that the Dems have produced, and she was running on the status quo with an electorate more pro-change than the one that elected Obama.
Trump didn't win. Hillary lost. The Clinton wing needs to die off, and the Bernie wing needs to take over. Until that happens, the Dems put themselves at a disadvantage despite demographics and policy opinion actually being considerably left of them.
Why would everyone need to be gay for being gay to be okay? Sexuality appears to have a bimodal distribution on the Kinsey scale. There may be sociological factors involved in those numbers as well, but it's pretty well tuned for a relatively stable population.
Also, you can't apply categorical imperative that broadly. Humanity would die out faster if everyone belonged to any one particular occupation, because our current carrying levels depend upon extensive separation of labor. However, working any particular job, such as doctor, farmer, or scientist, is obviously not immoral or impractical in and of itself.
Why would you think it wouldn't be heritable? TFA confirms that the method was applied to embryos, so presumably most, if not all, of their cells would contain the modified gene.
The real question is what the most effective tactics at combating such efforts are. One of the stated goals of these Russian plots is to undermine America's faith in their democracy and government. Nothing would foil that plan as effectively as actually having an effective democracy with trustworthy elected officials that actually represent the people's interest and respect their rights.
My point was to eliminate the hypocrisy of say, Raytheon, getting tax cuts under a vague "taxation is theft" or "small government" mantra. If taxation is theft, then their profits were built upon theft., and thus, at least partially invalid.
What makes the tax code complicated is not the tax brackets. That's a simple spreadsheet. What makes it complicated is the number of exceptions, which allow Warren Buffet to effectively pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. You can simplify the tax code without going to a flat tax, and a flat tax doesn't inherently mean that the exceptions have been removed.
Or, maybe we can allow a flat tax only under certain eligibility conditions: No government contracts or subsidies, no lobbying, and none of either through proxies for 10 years, and you are eligible for a flat rate with no deductions.
If licensing is the only thing that prevents you from installing random third-party software on mission-critical machines, I think there is a bigger problem than lack of FOSS policy.
Companies do need FOSS-specific policies, but that mostly falls under license compliance. The software used on their public facing servers, FOSS or not, should be well documented.
Both seem to be mostly covered under a policy of "regularly install security updates."
All AV software should be treated as if compromised by it's country of origin. So, whether or not you should uninstall Kaspersky is who you are worried about.
If the biggest threat to you is ordinary criminal malware? No.
If the biggest threat to you is Russian intelligence? Yes.
If the biggest threat to you is US intelligence? No.
Yeah, and in that century, we didn't have the infrastructure for global shipping and communication. We're talking about ramping up production of a natural resource, whose production and usage is quite bad for the environment, in order to undermine an economic foe. This is clearly not a good long term plan, when a concentrated effort to make that gas worthless forever is also going to be better ecologically.