You have described a gold mine for the taking. So why are you debating this point on Slashdot instead of starting a software concern to cash in on all this?
Similarly, I suspect most non-geeks have little idea how much damage might be caused by some of these security and privacy failures, and are often harmed without even realising it. To pick a familiar analogy again, consider this: do you know what proportion of your car insurance premium is only there because of insurance fraud? I don't; I have no data to determine a precise figure. But certainly insurance fraud appears to be a significant problem, because from time to time insurance companies mention figures like 5% or 10% changes in premiums just in response to specific trends in fraudulent claims. Now extend that principle to every software system you depend on, knowingly or unknowingly.
And yet, the insurance industry is willing to endure the cost of those fraudulent claims rather then incur the expense of stamping them out. The same principle applies here.
the underlying assumption is that working more carefully and so reducing failures in the longer term will be significantly more expensive. I don't see much evidence anywhere in this discussion to support that assumption, though
Once again you put the burden of proof in the wrong place. You have to prove that reducing failures through your proposed methods *won't* be significantly more expensive. Until you do, nothing will happen.
This is correct. In the UK, you have to be 18 to sign the credit agreement required by a normal credit card, but a prepaid card is not in fact extending you any credit and thus doesn't require a credit agreement. You can get a prepaid card before you're 18.
I don't think we want to legally allow Trump mess with gravity, he might try.
I'd love to see Trump try to defy gravity, as long as he attempts it personally, say, by stepping off the roof of a 40-story building. In fact, I think I'd pay money for that.
Most people have literally no idea what it would actually cost to prevent security issues and other bugs using formal methods. The average developer probably hasn't even heard of them, and I'd guess less than 5% of professionals have any substantial knowledge of the relevant tools and techniques or have ever actually used anything much beyond a type system for this purpose.
It may well be that organisations assume that the cost of prevention will be higher, but their ignorance is not an argument. (Neither is calling me names, by the way.)
That means the first cost will be training a generation of developers in how to do it. Aside from assumptions, that will not be cheap.
And actually, their ignorance is an argument. Corporations are very allergic to costs they can't estimate in advance. It's up to the advocates to demonstrate that it'll be cheap, not to the skeptics to demonstrate that it'll be expensive. That's the way the world works.
Yes. Formal verification of most production programs will not happen in my lifetime or yours, or possibly ever, because it's expensive and nobody's paying for it.
The simple fact is that there's a hue and cry about security but nobody really cares about it, because nobody's willing and able to pay what it would take to fix it.
Sure. "Unviable" is when the costs of maintaining a community can't be covered by the revenue it generates.
A few on the lakes of Hudson's Bay where the only way in or out is by rail link(no flying). But even then those unviable communities have a purpose, like research, early warning in case of military attack and so on
"Hard to get to" doesn't necessarily equal "unviable". If a community has a purpose, is someone willing to cover the costs to pursue that purpose? If so, it's viable. If not, it's not.
There are a number of reading aids that step you through the words at a steady, adjustable pace; these can be good aids for this. Amazon Kindle has such a feature.
"The majority of humans read silently by rendering a simulation of the printed words as if they were being spoken".
Actually, only people who read poorly do that. People who read well decode printed words directly into mental concepts, rather than sounding them all out, only sounding out a word when it is unfamiliar in print. (see jokes about people whose lips move when they read)
Slashdot Mirror
Too much coffee, Tom?
Because other OSes never go out of support. How's using XP going for you?
In orther words, you got a whole lotta nothin', but you just *know* there had to be something going on.
Maybe they're films about rare aircraft, rather than rare films about aircraft.
I know that the "lie is true" even though there's no evidence for it, 'cause I'm psychic!
Well, of course; he was demoted to Aku's number three assassin, after all.
the developer said, "Don't talk back."
Because then you'll have Siri. Upgrade to a better class of spyware!
You have described a gold mine for the taking. So why are you debating this point on Slashdot instead of starting a software concern to cash in on all this?
And yet, the insurance industry is willing to endure the cost of those fraudulent claims rather then incur the expense of stamping them out. The same principle applies here.
Once again you put the burden of proof in the wrong place. You have to prove that reducing failures through your proposed methods *won't* be significantly more expensive. Until you do, nothing will happen.
Or "If I told you, you'd refuse to believe me and then fire me for being insubordinate."
This is correct. In the UK, you have to be 18 to sign the credit agreement required by a normal credit card, but a prepaid card is not in fact extending you any credit and thus doesn't require a credit agreement. You can get a prepaid card before you're 18.
With a name like "Fagioli", I'd suspect him of trying to get more spaghettis.
I suspect "msmash" isn't "Ms Mash", but rather "Microsoft mash (smash?)".
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.
I'd love to see Trump try to defy gravity, as long as he attempts it personally, say, by stepping off the roof of a 40-story building. In fact, I think I'd pay money for that.
That means the first cost will be training a generation of developers in how to do it. Aside from assumptions, that will not be cheap.
And actually, their ignorance is an argument. Corporations are very allergic to costs they can't estimate in advance. It's up to the advocates to demonstrate that it'll be cheap, not to the skeptics to demonstrate that it'll be expensive. That's the way the world works.
Yes. Formal verification of most production programs will not happen in my lifetime or yours, or possibly ever, because it's expensive and nobody's paying for it.
The simple fact is that there's a hue and cry about security but nobody really cares about it, because nobody's willing and able to pay what it would take to fix it.
Sure. "Unviable" is when the costs of maintaining a community can't be covered by the revenue it generates.
"Hard to get to" doesn't necessarily equal "unviable". If a community has a purpose, is someone willing to cover the costs to pursue that purpose? If so, it's viable. If not, it's not.
That's the modern resurgence of anti-vaccine hysteria. Really, it's been around as long as vaccines have.
They're going to store Gattaca
How about making AIs snarky homicidal killers?
There are a number of reading aids that step you through the words at a steady, adjustable pace; these can be good aids for this. Amazon Kindle has such a feature.
"The majority of humans read silently by rendering a simulation of the printed words as if they were being spoken".
Actually, only people who read poorly do that. People who read well decode printed words directly into mental concepts, rather than sounding them all out, only sounding out a word when it is unfamiliar in print. (see jokes about people whose lips move when they read)