You generalized on the people against war as if it were a monolithic group. You tried to put a partisan spin on it. I clarified that the majority of war protesters (ergo, the ones that count) weren't against the war in Afghanistan. You were called on your rhetorical stupidity.
And what do you do in response? Plaster a bunch of anti-war links, easily obtained by googling "anti war afghanistan". There, give yourself a pat in the back with your illustrious demonstration of 7th grade argumentative skills.
Quoting a bunch of links a valid point does not make. A little bit more of education and non-partisan honesty, and a little less of koolaid will help you see the difference.
Where are those people who oppose the war now? We're still at war in Afghanistan, and yet those people have all but disappeared. Oh because it is THEIR guy running the war it must be okay.
Obama lied, and people died!
We're still at war, where are the war protesters?
They weren't protesting the war, they were protesting the president under the guise of protesting the war. Now that their guy is in office, code pink is all but gone and where is Cyndi Sheehan? How come she isn't camping out in front of Obama's vacation houses?
There's enough hypocrisy to go around, quit pretending it is only one sided.
People were opposed to the Iraq war (a war without a reason), not against the war in Afghanistan (a war justified by the events of 9/11.) People were opposed to the Iraq war because it prevented the US from completing the mission in Afghanistan. Had the Iraq war never started, chances are we would have been out of Afghanistan quite a while ago.
For someone who complain about the war opponents, you don't seem to have much of a grasp of the events they were opposing, do you?
If I give someone one file containing random data and another containing data encrypted with AES, will he be able to tell which is which?"
The answer is no, sort of. With a properly chosen key, and a sufficiently strong (read "good") encryption algorithm, it should not be possible to distinguish random data from encrypted data. Obviously, there are caveats to this, but in general, it should not be case.
The reason for this is that in a true random (or near random) stream (or block) of data, the following two conditions hold (or should hold):
1. the symbols in the datum have uniform distribution, meaning, they are equally likely to occur at any position in the stream.
2. the probability of a symbol appearing at a position X in the stream is an event independent of all symbol have have occurred prior to X.
That is, a random stream has maximal information capacity (or entropy), according to Shannon's theory of information. It is impossible to predict what value will occur at a given location in the stream by analyzing the values that have occurred before (which is how you search for patterns.)
A properly secured encryption algorithm (with a suitable key and conditions) attempts - via substitution and permutation - reduce the statistics of a plain text down to symbols exhibiting uniform or near uniform distribution. Once you do that, then the statistics characteristics of the plain text (which is what you use for pattern searching) are no longer there. The information is unrecoverable, maximum entropy, maximum information potential.
You would need the original key (and original conditions) to reverse the uniform distribution of the ciphertext symbols
Without the key, then it is impossible to find patterns on the ciphertext without knowing something about the plain text, or a sample ciphertext other than the ciphertext you are trying to attack. There are attack vectors than can be used, but then this is no longer about trying to distinguish patterns in the ciphertext, but reversing (usually by brute force) the encryption process.
The reliability of an encryption algorithm is inversely proportional to the number of potentially recognizable patterns that remain in the ciphertext. With AES, the answer to your question should be no.
Having said that, experiment, play with it. Just don't use it in real-world products, though:)
Most college-level kids don't have experience coding a secure, distributed social networking site from scratch
Wasn't that how Facebook started?
It started like that, but with limited scope (only among students in the same university). Once it got momentum and decided to expand, they raised capital and got a bunch of experienced full-time programmers that *gasp* do that for a living, and on payroll. Diaspora OTH started as a school project (just like Facebook), but aimed at going global right from the start, without capital and without having a full-time, on payroll staff accountable for it.
Don't take that as a jab to Diaspora or projects that are 1) initiated by college kids, and 2) that are not meant to have people on payroll. But the dynamics of development and accountability are different (with their own pros, cons and challenges.) Can't compare one with the other dude.
I don't know if it'll lose him his job but yeah, this isn't even within the realms of MS's PR strategy, this is just some exec talking like an idiot.
... which is typical of Latin America bizness. Really, I grew up there, left and never looked back. I know people here talk crap about corporate America, but if you really want to see idiocy, just look at corporatiana south of the border.
It is also funny how this Brazilian exec talks crap about open source in Brazil as a sign of mediocrity. Brazilian open sourcers and academics have pulled some interesting and useful (and certainly not mediocre) stuff on their own despite the limitations of not being as industrialized as other countries.
And that makes what this exec says even more disgusting.
I'm not criticising this move. It's the start of the right thing to do. But lets not forget that although the price will be zeroed, the NGO's will still not be able to see what the software is doing, will still not be able to change the software.
Science may lead to facts, but it's not an automated process. Believe it or not, human emotions and intuition are involved with every scientific discovery!
Perhaps so, but human emotions and intuitions behind great discoveries or at least serious attempts at scientific discoveries are based on evidence that suggest the belief is in the right track.
When it comes to your belief that a proof of NP != P should be simple, what do you base it on? You would have done a much better service to your hypothesis by giving concrete examples of this instead of mentioning the existence of beliefs and emotions in the scientific process and thus feel scientific by proxy.
Many of the fundamental proofs in this area aren't so difficult to understand. Certainly in computing theory classes, proofs were generally a page or two and didn't involve (much) advanced math.
Maybe it's just me, but it "feels" like there should be a simpler way to go about showing that P != NP.
You "feel"? If there has even been a most unsubstantiated and unscientific subjective expression of feelings over fact, this is it.
A little more about traveling to North Korea. I'm living in Asia currently and as it's close to me, I plan to take a trip there this winter. During my life living in many countries I've learnt that prejudices are just those - prejudices. People always give a shittier picture about something, and when you see it yourself it's just different. That's why it's like sitting on your computer all day long and commenting on things you have absolutely no idea about - most news are onesided, and most people tell you onesided stories with extra things that might not even be true. That's why you have to see and do it yourself to actually know anything.
How wonderful, will you get a chance to take pictures of their concentration ("reeducation") camps where tens of thousands of people (including their families for fuck's sake). If you do, please put them in facebook (and if you don't a facebook account, create one just for this occasion.)
Oh, I almost forgot, ask your Government/Military pre-approved tourist guide to take you North Korean farmers picking up grass to make soup because they literally have nothing else. Nothing makes a better souvenir than a picture of a emaciated person eating grass.
Hopefully, when we invent time travel, you might get a chance for a one-in-a-lifetime vacation: a trip back to Auschwitz-Birkenau and Sobibor. Who knows, you might get lucky and the administrators will time their gassing schedule to your arrival so that you can take a picture. Trip to the Bahamas or Hokkaido? Screw that!
ps. yeah, I went there and broke Godwin's Law, get over it.
No? They have a lot of diplomacy and trade with China and Russia.
Russia and China, wow, what a global diversity.
There's more to the world than just US, you know.
Yes, there is Japan, and South Korea, two flourishing democracies right next to them with whom North Korea has had wonderful relations because of its diplomatic acumen and respect for their border... or wait, scratch those two.
Still the world is more than just the US, like Canada, UK, India, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, and many others with whom the North Korea has had wonderful relations since they are so open and because its "Army First" policy, brandishing of nuclear weapons, kidnapping of Japanese citizens and shooting of rockets on Japanese and South Korean waters is so amenable and sounds like Kumbaya... or wait, scratch that.
So what was your point again? Or were you just implying the problem is 100% solely a US machination, with the North Korean government having no legal, diplomatic and moral responsibility at all? Please enlighten me with your deep insight in International Relations.
A little more about traveling to North Korea. I'm living in Asia currently and as it's close to me, I plan to take a trip there this winter. During my life living in many countries I've learnt that prejudices are just those - prejudices. People always give a shittier picture about something, and when you see it yourself it's just different. That's why it's like sitting on your computer all day long and commenting on things you have absolutely no idea about - most news are onesided, and most people tell you onesided stories with extra things that might not even be true. That's why you have to see and do it yourself to actually know anything.
In that little trip of yours, are you going to see the concentration camps they have up North?
Isn't there a 3 year minimum period of experience required before you will even be considered for an MBA program? Perhaps 3 years isn't enough? Maybe MBAs should be limited to Engineers or a technical field.
Good MBA programs (weekend, part-time and executive) have work requirements (whether you are a nurse, teacher or engineer). And by "work requirements", it is usually meant "x years of work in some form of management or team lead position." I would suspect these are aligned to the original spirit of what the MBA program was supposed to be. The best MBA holders have had 5+ years of experience in engineering management (on top of God knows how many other years of engineering.)
"What's wrong with stored procedures?
1) It means we need to support two languages instead of one, with all that that entails (a proper debugger, expert knowledge, etc)"
Wrong! *you*, not we. Repeat again: data is company's property, not the application's. You can bet your company data *will* be accessed by more than one application at more than one age if it's of any use (if it isn't the app shouldn't be programmed to start with). It will be the applications' side the one that will add supporting needs for more than one language, debugging, expert knowledge while the data will still use the same SQL language, the same tools and the same domain experts.
"2) Stored procedures cannot do ALL business logic"
True. Neither it's expected to do so. Data-bounded logic should be retained at the data engine level if only to be sure every accessor will comply to it. Your specific app logic can and should be developed within the application. Sometimes it takes some cleverness to find the boundaries, usually not.
"3) Because you don't want to have to deal with Oracle's horrid error messages anymore than absolutely necessary"
This is an argument *against* your position, not supporting it. The way you are free from Oracle's whatever is insuring that data managing functionality is as bound as possible to the data management engine (encapsulation, you know the concept). This way it will be the DBA's problem not yours.
Atta boy, you built a strawman that was completely unrelated to the parent post. Also, the strawman was built like a dead horse, then you grabbed your rhetorical e-dick and beat it to death with it. Pat yourself in the back and have a cigar, for it is misshum' accomplished.
Eh, isn't that the basic difference between a programmer and an engineer?
A good programmer is a good engineer. A bad programmer is not. The false dichotomy between programming and engineering is nothing more than a clutch and a sorry excuse for having incompetent programmers around.
i mean if you can trust the professor without testing the student, why not trust the student directly? why make the student get out of their car?
Given that most students only show up to school to get a degree to fill a job requirement line item, and will neither use the knowledge they allegedly collected nor attempt to apply it, what's wrong with drive through degrees?
Most jobs out there really need vocational training, but in the US that's tantamount to telling your child to go be a ditch digger (even if Med school and Law school are really just post-graduate vocational training). Instead we send them to Universities and tell our friends which University our child attends, where they drink, fuck and dig themselves in to debt for 3-4 years. Then, with their BA or BS, they march forth into the working world, expecting to learn everything important on the job.
I really have nothing else to add other than bolding out this statement of truth. The country has too many college graduates and too few trained technicians. As a country, we are too fucking stupid to realized skilled force != masses of BA/BS degrees. It is a costly mistake that we will pay dearly at some point or another in the future.
He prefers leaving his family for 6 months than losing his job. That's not "unfeasible", that's just "what he chose".
Hmmm, yeah he had the choice of keeping the job and make sure he puts food and shit like that on the table for his family, or lose the job in this particular difficult time of the economy. Yeah some choice. Your teenagerish bravado logic is infallible.
I had a different thought: every now and then, there's debate whether or not "lol", "l33t", and so on should become part of the formal vocabulary since they are already part of the informal vocabulary -- taking this a step further, maybe it's time the Chinese should reconsider their use of that obviously very complicated glyph system, and maybe switch to something simpler (say, romulan)? I've got nothing personal against the chinese, but TFA was about their type of writing specifically. We've been optimising the hell out of everything else, so why not writing systems as well?
Just because something is simpler, it doesn't mean it is optimized. Alphabets are optimized for almost one-to-one correspondence with phonemes; syllabaries and abugidas to syllables; and logograms to morphemes. With the later, the price of memorization is counterbalanced with the efficiency in coding semantic meaning.
Plus the advantage of switching to a different writing system is dubious compared to the cost of replacing the social artifacts and benefits derived from the existing writing system.
One great problem with replacing standardized Chinese writing into something else (say, Latin) it will completely break the ability to communicate between different (not mutually intelligible) Chinese dialects. A Hakka speaker can read the writings of a Cantonese or Mandarin speaker and vice versa. In a nation like China, that would make the adoption of an alphabet or syllabary unpractical.
I have a similar problem with writing anything with pen and paper. My handwriting was never very pretty, but now not only is it ugly, I also feel very awkward and uncomfortable whenever I have to actually write anything.
You beat me to it. In the country I come from (like many other countries) we had daily calligraphy sessions for the duration of elementary and part of middle school. My calligraphy was decent and was already a trained typist (when we used to train people to use mechanical type writers).
But things have been going down the hill for the last 13 years (started avidly using/working with computers since 1992). My calligraphy has gone down hill, and what is more stressing, when I write by hand I'm starting to write letters out of order. Say I want to hand write "literacy", I end up writing "ilterayc" or something like that. My hand-written notes are full of black outs and corrections because of this. This has never happened before, at least as far as I can remember from my pre-computer times (I was already an adult writing by hands for years before my "dark" path into the computer world.)
I doesn't stress me out, but it does makes me wonder. And this news from China and Japan makes me even the more curious about this and the effect of computers in daily hand writing. Be it kanji or latin, heavy computer usage certainly seems to have a negative effect in basic writing skills.
uh... you always assume Oscar can see your signal
on
UVB-76 Explained
·
· Score: 1
This is just silly. The premise of tempest is on the detection of compromising signals. Just because it is in the air, it doesn't mean it is easily compromised. You still have to mount an effort in cryptanalysis to find the key (or keys)... and this assuming you are able to determine what an analyzable piece of cyphertext is like (let alone a known plaintext).
Side channel attacks are applicable to any form of communication, either on the airwaves or by hacking into a system and get timing information from CPU spikes (assuming you can tap into the encrypting hardware). Cryptanalysis is cryptanalysis no matter the medium, and it won't do you any good to just stare or sample the signal (not unless the signal is using a poorly chosen cipher). You need a few more pieces to get the cracking going.
Yes, communication is secure the most when it does not take place. But that's an oxymoron statement of security. When you have (and you must at some point), it won't deter you just because of the possibility Oscar is listening, will it?
You always assume the attacker knows the encryption/decryption algorithms; you always assume the channel can be tapped; and you always assume the attacker can get a piece of plain text and its matching cipher text. Always. You never rely on the physical isolation of the channel.
You rely on the key. You will a good cipher resistant to plain text and cipher text attacks (according to your security needs); you will use a *good* key, and you will secure it (security is always in the key).
If the safety of your encrypted channel depends fundamentally on the insulation of your signal, there is something wrong with your security mechanism.
scramble it for f* sake!
on
UVB-76 Explained
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...don't broadcast it. "Secrets on the shortwave band" just seems like an oxymoron.
Ever heard of something called a cipher? Or stenography? A combination of both?
What about teaching students to hack into computer systems? That's fairly common and fairly well accepted...and in those exercises it's not just a 'think of a way to do this', it's a 'here is a server, here is a PC, go do it'.
Agreed that you have to teach on the subject of questionable practices to understand the perpetrators, but there is a caveat of who you are teaching what and in what kind of social context. You don't teach kids in a social vacuum, and the teacher could have achieved what he wanted to achieve by assigning a different subject (explore how "the other" people see us and why, or study of the root causes of modern terrorism, international politics and such.)
All in all, there are few HS teachers that do what Mr. Marino tried to do. But of those who do, the overwhelming majority of them achieve their goals without resorting to this kind of homework. Yes, yes, it might be legal if we want to go down that route, but was it the appropriate, most effective thing to do? Some common sense and trade-offs need to be applied every once in a while.
Yeah, that will really solve the problem of time bombs and dead man's switches...
How about not disgruntling the employee in the first place?
Oh, grow the hell up and welcome the nature of life.
Though there are work places that indeed are festering, pedantic shit holes, my experience has been that people who are disgruntled enough to commit a stupidity don't necessarily work in a place causing them to be so disgruntled in the first place. They are simply stupid assholes who either have a sense of victim-hood or are too arrogant and socially incompetent so as to pop a vein at the slightest work-related discomfort.
Work is work, it's not supposed to be pleasant all the time. We get paid to do work that has a certain level of difficulty, both technological and sociological. It has always been so, it will always be so. Half of the time the fault of being disgruntled is in you. How you handle that shit is ultimately one's responsibility.
If you are a mature person with a sense of, oh I dunno, fucking professionalism, you will never get *that* disgruntled no matter the working conditions. If you are not a mature professional and you cannot tell professionalism from shit flinging monkey riding a banana-shaped tricycle, then you'll inevitably construe any slightest difficulty into an affront, building each one of this up, turning you into an arrogant, festering boil of disgruntled human suckage and social incompetence.
And for those who truly voted that post as insightful, man, grow up, really.
We only have one more in our own, and we're killing the earth,
What the hell does this has to do with what is being discussed?
our planet don't even contain half of the ressources it took billions of year to produce.
Source or citation for this please? And whoever voted this post as insightful, please go back to school and learn some analytical thinking (or to middle school if you have to.)
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
http://north-west-news.whereilive.com.au/news/story/anti-afghanistan-war-protest/
http://www.studentsforademocraticsociety.org/?q=node/196
You generalized on the people against war as if it were a monolithic group. You tried to put a partisan spin on it. I clarified that the majority of war protesters (ergo, the ones that count) weren't against the war in Afghanistan. You were called on your rhetorical stupidity.
And what do you do in response? Plaster a bunch of anti-war links, easily obtained by googling "anti war afghanistan". There, give yourself a pat in the back with your illustrious demonstration of 7th grade argumentative skills.
Quoting a bunch of links a valid point does not make. A little bit more of education and non-partisan honesty, and a little less of koolaid will help you see the difference.
Where are those people who oppose the war now? We're still at war in Afghanistan, and yet those people have all but disappeared. Oh because it is THEIR guy running the war it must be okay.
Obama lied, and people died!
We're still at war, where are the war protesters?
They weren't protesting the war, they were protesting the president under the guise of protesting the war. Now that their guy is in office, code pink is all but gone and where is Cyndi Sheehan? How come she isn't camping out in front of Obama's vacation houses?
There's enough hypocrisy to go around, quit pretending it is only one sided.
People were opposed to the Iraq war (a war without a reason), not against the war in Afghanistan (a war justified by the events of 9/11.) People were opposed to the Iraq war because it prevented the US from completing the mission in Afghanistan. Had the Iraq war never started, chances are we would have been out of Afghanistan quite a while ago.
For someone who complain about the war opponents, you don't seem to have much of a grasp of the events they were opposing, do you?
If I give someone one file containing random data and another containing data encrypted with AES, will he be able to tell which is which?"
The answer is no, sort of. With a properly chosen key, and a sufficiently strong (read "good") encryption algorithm, it should not be possible to distinguish random data from encrypted data. Obviously, there are caveats to this, but in general, it should not be case.
The reason for this is that in a true random (or near random) stream (or block) of data, the following two conditions hold (or should hold):
1. the symbols in the datum have uniform distribution, meaning, they are equally likely to occur at any position in the stream. 2. the probability of a symbol appearing at a position X in the stream is an event independent of all symbol have have occurred prior to X. That is, a random stream has maximal information capacity (or entropy), according to Shannon's theory of information. It is impossible to predict what value will occur at a given location in the stream by analyzing the values that have occurred before (which is how you search for patterns.)
A properly secured encryption algorithm (with a suitable key and conditions) attempts - via substitution and permutation - reduce the statistics of a plain text down to symbols exhibiting uniform or near uniform distribution. Once you do that, then the statistics characteristics of the plain text (which is what you use for pattern searching) are no longer there. The information is unrecoverable, maximum entropy, maximum information potential.
You would need the original key (and original conditions) to reverse the uniform distribution of the ciphertext symbols
Without the key, then it is impossible to find patterns on the ciphertext without knowing something about the plain text, or a sample ciphertext other than the ciphertext you are trying to attack. There are attack vectors than can be used, but then this is no longer about trying to distinguish patterns in the ciphertext, but reversing (usually by brute force) the encryption process.
The reliability of an encryption algorithm is inversely proportional to the number of potentially recognizable patterns that remain in the ciphertext. With AES, the answer to your question should be no.
Having said that, experiment, play with it. Just don't use it in real-world products, though :)
Most college-level kids don't have experience coding a secure, distributed social networking site from scratch
Wasn't that how Facebook started?
It started like that, but with limited scope (only among students in the same university). Once it got momentum and decided to expand, they raised capital and got a bunch of experienced full-time programmers that *gasp* do that for a living, and on payroll. Diaspora OTH started as a school project (just like Facebook), but aimed at going global right from the start, without capital and without having a full-time, on payroll staff accountable for it.
Don't take that as a jab to Diaspora or projects that are 1) initiated by college kids, and 2) that are not meant to have people on payroll. But the dynamics of development and accountability are different (with their own pros, cons and challenges.) Can't compare one with the other dude.
I don't know if it'll lose him his job but yeah, this isn't even within the realms of MS's PR strategy, this is just some exec talking like an idiot.
... which is typical of Latin America bizness. Really, I grew up there, left and never looked back. I know people here talk crap about corporate America, but if you really want to see idiocy, just look at corporatiana south of the border.
It is also funny how this Brazilian exec talks crap about open source in Brazil as a sign of mediocrity. Brazilian open sourcers and academics have pulled some interesting and useful (and certainly not mediocre) stuff on their own despite the limitations of not being as industrialized as other countries.
And that makes what this exec says even more disgusting.
I'm not criticising this move. It's the start of the right thing to do. But lets not forget that although the price will be zeroed, the NGO's will still not be able to see what the software is doing, will still not be able to change the software.
NGO's should use free software.
Your logic is infallible.
And the fact that people actually mod you up as insightful simply shows /. degree of gullibility and penchant for rhetorical nonsense.
Science may lead to facts, but it's not an automated process. Believe it or not, human emotions and intuition are involved with every scientific discovery!
Perhaps so, but human emotions and intuitions behind great discoveries or at least serious attempts at scientific discoveries are based on evidence that suggest the belief is in the right track.
When it comes to your belief that a proof of NP != P should be simple, what do you base it on? You would have done a much better service to your hypothesis by giving concrete examples of this instead of mentioning the existence of beliefs and emotions in the scientific process and thus feel scientific by proxy.
Many of the fundamental proofs in this area aren't so difficult to understand. Certainly in computing theory classes, proofs were generally a page or two and didn't involve (much) advanced math.
Maybe it's just me, but it "feels" like there should be a simpler way to go about showing that P != NP.
You "feel"? If there has even been a most unsubstantiated and unscientific subjective expression of feelings over fact, this is it.
A little more about traveling to North Korea. I'm living in Asia currently and as it's close to me, I plan to take a trip there this winter. During my life living in many countries I've learnt that prejudices are just those - prejudices. People always give a shittier picture about something, and when you see it yourself it's just different. That's why it's like sitting on your computer all day long and commenting on things you have absolutely no idea about - most news are onesided, and most people tell you onesided stories with extra things that might not even be true. That's why you have to see and do it yourself to actually know anything.
How wonderful, will you get a chance to take pictures of their concentration ("reeducation") camps where tens of thousands of people (including their families for fuck's sake). If you do, please put them in facebook (and if you don't a facebook account, create one just for this occasion.)
Oh, I almost forgot, ask your Government/Military pre-approved tourist guide to take you North Korean farmers picking up grass to make soup because they literally have nothing else. Nothing makes a better souvenir than a picture of a emaciated person eating grass.
Hopefully, when we invent time travel, you might get a chance for a one-in-a-lifetime vacation: a trip back to Auschwitz-Birkenau and Sobibor. Who knows, you might get lucky and the administrators will time their gassing schedule to your arrival so that you can take a picture. Trip to the Bahamas or Hokkaido? Screw that!
ps. yeah, I went there and broke Godwin's Law, get over it.
No? They have a lot of diplomacy and trade with China and Russia.
Russia and China, wow, what a global diversity.
There's more to the world than just US, you know.
Yes, there is Japan, and South Korea, two flourishing democracies right next to them with whom North Korea has had wonderful relations because of its diplomatic acumen and respect for their border... or wait, scratch those two.
Still the world is more than just the US, like Canada, UK, India, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, and many others with whom the North Korea has had wonderful relations since they are so open and because its "Army First" policy, brandishing of nuclear weapons, kidnapping of Japanese citizens and shooting of rockets on Japanese and South Korean waters is so amenable and sounds like Kumbaya... or wait, scratch that.
So what was your point again? Or were you just implying the problem is 100% solely a US machination, with the North Korean government having no legal, diplomatic and moral responsibility at all? Please enlighten me with your deep insight in International Relations.
A little more about traveling to North Korea. I'm living in Asia currently and as it's close to me, I plan to take a trip there this winter. During my life living in many countries I've learnt that prejudices are just those - prejudices. People always give a shittier picture about something, and when you see it yourself it's just different. That's why it's like sitting on your computer all day long and commenting on things you have absolutely no idea about - most news are onesided, and most people tell you onesided stories with extra things that might not even be true. That's why you have to see and do it yourself to actually know anything.
In that little trip of yours, are you going to see the concentration camps they have up North?
Isn't there a 3 year minimum period of experience required before you will even be considered for an MBA program? Perhaps 3 years isn't enough? Maybe MBAs should be limited to Engineers or a technical field.
Good MBA programs (weekend, part-time and executive) have work requirements (whether you are a nurse, teacher or engineer). And by "work requirements", it is usually meant "x years of work in some form of management or team lead position." I would suspect these are aligned to the original spirit of what the MBA program was supposed to be. The best MBA holders have had 5+ years of experience in engineering management (on top of God knows how many other years of engineering.)
"What's wrong with stored procedures? 1) It means we need to support two languages instead of one, with all that that entails (a proper debugger, expert knowledge, etc)"
Wrong! *you*, not we. Repeat again: data is company's property, not the application's. You can bet your company data *will* be accessed by more than one application at more than one age if it's of any use (if it isn't the app shouldn't be programmed to start with). It will be the applications' side the one that will add supporting needs for more than one language, debugging, expert knowledge while the data will still use the same SQL language, the same tools and the same domain experts.
"2) Stored procedures cannot do ALL business logic"
True. Neither it's expected to do so. Data-bounded logic should be retained at the data engine level if only to be sure every accessor will comply to it. Your specific app logic can and should be developed within the application. Sometimes it takes some cleverness to find the boundaries, usually not.
"3) Because you don't want to have to deal with Oracle's horrid error messages anymore than absolutely necessary"
This is an argument *against* your position, not supporting it. The way you are free from Oracle's whatever is insuring that data managing functionality is as bound as possible to the data management engine (encapsulation, you know the concept). This way it will be the DBA's problem not yours.
Atta boy, you built a strawman that was completely unrelated to the parent post. Also, the strawman was built like a dead horse, then you grabbed your rhetorical e-dick and beat it to death with it. Pat yourself in the back and have a cigar, for it is misshum' accomplished.
Eh, isn't that the basic difference between a programmer and an engineer?
A good programmer is a good engineer. A bad programmer is not. The false dichotomy between programming and engineering is nothing more than a clutch and a sorry excuse for having incompetent programmers around.
i mean if you can trust the professor without testing the student, why not trust the student directly? why make the student get out of their car?
Given that most students only show up to school to get a degree to fill a job requirement line item, and will neither use the knowledge they allegedly collected nor attempt to apply it, what's wrong with drive through degrees?
Most jobs out there really need vocational training, but in the US that's tantamount to telling your child to go be a ditch digger (even if Med school and Law school are really just post-graduate vocational training). Instead we send them to Universities and tell our friends which University our child attends, where they drink, fuck and dig themselves in to debt for 3-4 years. Then, with their BA or BS, they march forth into the working world, expecting to learn everything important on the job.
I really have nothing else to add other than bolding out this statement of truth. The country has too many college graduates and too few trained technicians. As a country, we are too fucking stupid to realized skilled force != masses of BA/BS degrees. It is a costly mistake that we will pay dearly at some point or another in the future.
I mean, really. Words aren't enough to describe how sad (and pathetic) this is.
He prefers leaving his family for 6 months than losing his job. That's not "unfeasible", that's just "what he chose".
Hmmm, yeah he had the choice of keeping the job and make sure he puts food and shit like that on the table for his family, or lose the job in this particular difficult time of the economy. Yeah some choice. Your teenagerish bravado logic is infallible.
I had a different thought: every now and then, there's debate whether or not "lol", "l33t", and so on should become part of the formal vocabulary since they are already part of the informal vocabulary -- taking this a step further, maybe it's time the Chinese should reconsider their use of that obviously very complicated glyph system, and maybe switch to something simpler (say, romulan)? I've got nothing personal against the chinese, but TFA was about their type of writing specifically. We've been optimising the hell out of everything else, so why not writing systems as well?
Just because something is simpler, it doesn't mean it is optimized. Alphabets are optimized for almost one-to-one correspondence with phonemes; syllabaries and abugidas to syllables; and logograms to morphemes. With the later, the price of memorization is counterbalanced with the efficiency in coding semantic meaning.
Plus the advantage of switching to a different writing system is dubious compared to the cost of replacing the social artifacts and benefits derived from the existing writing system. One great problem with replacing standardized Chinese writing into something else (say, Latin) it will completely break the ability to communicate between different (not mutually intelligible) Chinese dialects. A Hakka speaker can read the writings of a Cantonese or Mandarin speaker and vice versa. In a nation like China, that would make the adoption of an alphabet or syllabary unpractical.
I have a similar problem with writing anything with pen and paper. My handwriting was never very pretty, but now not only is it ugly, I also feel very awkward and uncomfortable whenever I have to actually write anything.
You beat me to it. In the country I come from (like many other countries) we had daily calligraphy sessions for the duration of elementary and part of middle school. My calligraphy was decent and was already a trained typist (when we used to train people to use mechanical type writers).
But things have been going down the hill for the last 13 years (started avidly using/working with computers since 1992). My calligraphy has gone down hill, and what is more stressing, when I write by hand I'm starting to write letters out of order. Say I want to hand write "literacy", I end up writing "ilterayc" or something like that. My hand-written notes are full of black outs and corrections because of this. This has never happened before, at least as far as I can remember from my pre-computer times (I was already an adult writing by hands for years before my "dark" path into the computer world.)
I doesn't stress me out, but it does makes me wonder. And this news from China and Japan makes me even the more curious about this and the effect of computers in daily hand writing. Be it kanji or latin, heavy computer usage certainly seems to have a negative effect in basic writing skills.
Side channel attacks are applicable to any form of communication, either on the airwaves or by hacking into a system and get timing information from CPU spikes (assuming you can tap into the encrypting hardware). Cryptanalysis is cryptanalysis no matter the medium, and it won't do you any good to just stare or sample the signal (not unless the signal is using a poorly chosen cipher). You need a few more pieces to get the cracking going.
Yes, communication is secure the most when it does not take place. But that's an oxymoron statement of security. When you have (and you must at some point), it won't deter you just because of the possibility Oscar is listening, will it?
You always assume the attacker knows the encryption/decryption algorithms; you always assume the channel can be tapped; and you always assume the attacker can get a piece of plain text and its matching cipher text. Always. You never rely on the physical isolation of the channel.
You rely on the key. You will a good cipher resistant to plain text and cipher text attacks (according to your security needs); you will use a *good* key, and you will secure it (security is always in the key).
If the safety of your encrypted channel depends fundamentally on the insulation of your signal, there is something wrong with your security mechanism.
...don't broadcast it. "Secrets on the shortwave band" just seems like an oxymoron.
Ever heard of something called a cipher? Or stenography? A combination of both?
What about teaching students to hack into computer systems? That's fairly common and fairly well accepted...and in those exercises it's not just a 'think of a way to do this', it's a 'here is a server, here is a PC, go do it'.
Agreed that you have to teach on the subject of questionable practices to understand the perpetrators, but there is a caveat of who you are teaching what and in what kind of social context. You don't teach kids in a social vacuum, and the teacher could have achieved what he wanted to achieve by assigning a different subject (explore how "the other" people see us and why, or study of the root causes of modern terrorism, international politics and such.)
All in all, there are few HS teachers that do what Mr. Marino tried to do. But of those who do, the overwhelming majority of them achieve their goals without resorting to this kind of homework. Yes, yes, it might be legal if we want to go down that route, but was it the appropriate, most effective thing to do? Some common sense and trade-offs need to be applied every once in a while.
Yeah, that will really solve the problem of time bombs and dead man's switches...
How about not disgruntling the employee in the first place?
Oh, grow the hell up and welcome the nature of life.
Though there are work places that indeed are festering, pedantic shit holes, my experience has been that people who are disgruntled enough to commit a stupidity don't necessarily work in a place causing them to be so disgruntled in the first place. They are simply stupid assholes who either have a sense of victim-hood or are too arrogant and socially incompetent so as to pop a vein at the slightest work-related discomfort.
Work is work, it's not supposed to be pleasant all the time. We get paid to do work that has a certain level of difficulty, both technological and sociological. It has always been so, it will always be so. Half of the time the fault of being disgruntled is in you. How you handle that shit is ultimately one's responsibility.
If you are a mature person with a sense of, oh I dunno, fucking professionalism, you will never get *that* disgruntled no matter the working conditions. If you are not a mature professional and you cannot tell professionalism from shit flinging monkey riding a banana-shaped tricycle, then you'll inevitably construe any slightest difficulty into an affront, building each one of this up, turning you into an arrogant, festering boil of disgruntled human suckage and social incompetence.
And for those who truly voted that post as insightful, man, grow up, really.
We only have one more in our own, and we're killing the earth,
What the hell does this has to do with what is being discussed?
our planet don't even contain half of the ressources it took billions of year to produce.
Source or citation for this please? And whoever voted this post as insightful, please go back to school and learn some analytical thinking (or to middle school if you have to.)