Many places haven't made the relationship that it takes a fresh face twice as long (or longer) to do the job of an experienced person.
Plus, having a new team of young people mucking around with your code every few years will result in a mish-mash of code that nobody will understand. There will be the bits that remain from "team #1" (who originally wrote it), bits from "team #4" and the recently added segments of "team #9." Why does it crash during conditions X, Y, and Z? Who knows. To find out, you'll need to wade through revision after revision with nobody on staff who remembers just WHY some pieces of code were written some ways.
Bringing a young new hire on staff to inject new ideas into a situation can be a good thing. But "Logan's Run"-ing your staff just for the sake of keeping your workers under an artificial maximum age is idiotic.
The author acknowledges that the Internet has many good things about it but says we need to get rid of it because of some bad things that come with it? Here's a tip: Every piece of technology can be used for good or bad. You can use the Internet to research in minutes what might have taken days or to connect to people who share your interests but live half a world away. Or you can use it to attack people, steal their information, and cause chaos. You can use an airplane to visit exotic locales or far away family members. Or you can use it to drop bombs on people (or even turn IT into a giant bomb). You can use roads to go from place to place quickly and easily or you can use them to escape from the law. You can use a hammer to hit a nail or bash in a skull. You can use nuclear power to generate electricity or as a stepping stone towards creating a nuclear bomb. You can use microbe research into finding a cure/vaccine for diseases or for breeding powerful germs for biological warfare.
If you want to repeal every piece of technology that can be used for any evil purpose whatsoever, ALL technology would be repealed. (Yes, even his vaunted newspapers: You can spread news or smear the reputation of a person or technology.) We would be back to living in caves. Don't light a fire to keep warm, though, because you might use it to burn your enemies and that would be bad.
Here in NY, we have tons of Pearson-administered tests. Teachers aren't allowed to see the tests before giving them to the kids, but their jobs ride on the kids doing well. (Even if the teachers happen to have special needs students who might not test well.) The tests are high pressure affairs since they've raised the number of questions, difficulty of the questions, and dropped how much time the kids have. Pearson grades the tests and then destroys the originals. Want to contest a grade? Too bad. (Imagine if we counted votes like this. "The winner is Candidate A by a landslide! Candidate B wants to contest, but we've already burned all records of the votes.")
In addition, some questions can be very misleading. Remember how I said teachers can't look? I know of 4 teachers who glanced at a test and answered one of the questions themselves. It was a multiple choice test with four answers. They each got a different answer. If teachers (with masters degrees) can't answer a question, how are elementary school kids going to fare?
Of course, Pearson WANTS the kids to fail. They sell text books that might help kids do better on the tests. (In fact, passages from Pearson books appear on the tests so your kids will do better on Pearson tests if they use Pearson books. Leveraging monopoly much?) They sell courses for teachers/administrators to take to show them how to teach to the test better. They sell courses for students to help them out. If students flunk out of high school, they can get their GED by taking a Pearson test. At every turn, Pearson makes money at the expense of kids and teachers.
I for one want the government out of marriage. Let the churches deal with "marriage"
Some questions:
- Would atheists be allowed to be married? Or would they have to fake a belief in God to call themselves married? - Would it only be churches that could convey marriage? What about temples? Mosques? - Would the religion have to be officially recognized by someone (e.g. some government agency)? Or could I form The Church Of Marriage Equality, appoint myself as Head Priest, and marry whomever I want?
Really? So I guess those ancient Israelites weren't getting married at all. They'd just shack up and bear children outside of marriage. And all of those other cultures that existed outside of Christianity's circle had no concept of marriage before the enlightened Christians taught them about it?
In truth, marriage is a widespread concept but one that has evolved over the centuries from a pre-arranged "property rights" issue (the woman would be assigned a mate by her parents - or other people - and she would become his property) to a matter of love (a woman is asked for her hand in marriage, can refuse, and is the man's partner, not property). Those who claim that marriage has always existed the way it is today without ever changing (and thus it can never change from its current form) have no sense of history.
Whenever you try to call relationship of gays, lesbians or polyamoric peeps a marriage, the bible alert goes off: "bible says marriage is 1man+1woman! error! error!"
Except in the case of Jacob where marriage is 1 man + 1 woman + her sister + the woman's handmaiden + the sister's handmaiden. Or were the handmaiden's not Jacob's wives and he just slept with them (and had kids with them) out of wedlock? I can't remember the details but either way this doesn't fit with the "Bible Says One Man One Woman" folks.
Knowing my information is available doesn't make me act better online because 1) my WHOIS contact information points to a PO Box that isn't even in the same town I live in and 2) the only people who seem to use my WHOIS information are those "domain renewal" firms that send me such helpful letters as "your domain is going to expire so 'renew' with us... [fine print]by renew, we mean switch your domain to us and pay much more than you currently pay[/fine print]".
I wouldn't mind if there was some sort of check against abusing WHOIS information like these domain renewal firms do. Of course, I'd want to still be able to look up information without paying exorbitant fees. For example, if I find out that some content scraper posted my writings as their own (which has happened to me and my wife multiple times), the WHOIS information can give me someone to send a DMCA notice to. Perhaps looking up small amounts (one or two at a time) of website information would be free but looking up larger numbers (like the domain renewal companies do) would require payment.
I can't wait to support the wonderful features in IE11. Going by my site stats for IE over the 2 past years and W3Counter's graphs (http://www.w3counter.com/trends), I look forward to 10% of my IE users (themselves only 15% of my visitors) using it in 2 or 3 years. (Or, I can support wonderful new features in Chrome, FireFox, and Safari and cover over 75% of my users.)
Let's hope the NSA never says "This statement is a lie." If the statement is true, then it's a lie and so it's false. If it's false, then it's not a lie and so it must be true. The resulting paradox will rip the Universe apart.
No, it's a problem that Adecco created for him by using his idea (from the name and concept down to having an actor who looks and acts like him). He's had to put a lot of time and energy (probably money also) into defending against this. And this doesn't go away in "a couple of days." This will likely linger for months.
He's probably also worried that Adecco will sue HIM in an attempt to get control of his site. (After all, they own the trademark even though he was using it long before they even applied.) If they do so, he might not have the funds to defend against them. These days, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, just how much money you have to defend yourself. They might be completely in the wrong, but they also likely have the money to wage lawsuit war on him until he's bankrupt. Even if they lose, he might wind up with so many legal bills that he can't continue his venture.
All of this adds tons of stress to his life, saps his time and energy, and generally makes writing a difficult endeavor.
Looks like it was just that (minus the snickers bar).
From his open letter to Adecco:
"You spent 4 weeks stringing me along, making and rescinding offers, then sent me a contract that gave you everything and me nothing. So I decided to leave Thailand and fly to New York to get advice from friends and be on a more level playing field. Only then did you take me seriously. When I reached New York, you offered to compensate me, but not for my work or for the use of my brand. In my eyes, your offer amounted to paying me to stay silent, rather than paying me for my hard work. That, and it was too little too late."
In other words, they assumed he was just some "blogger" that they could just blow off or bowl over with a lopsided contract. When he actually began to look like an actual "PR threat" to their campaign, though, they offered to pay him (likely some token amount) to keep him quiet. When that didn't work, they went into spin mode saying that they "immediately engaged him" (non-spin version: "we strung him along for weeks because we assumed all bloggers are nobodies") and that they tried "to make things right" and that they've "been unable to find common ground so far." (Non-spin version: "We're baffled as to why he hasn't accepted our lopsided offers.")
Sadly, I've seen this story many, many times. Big Company takes someone's photo/video/brand name and uses it for their own ends. When confronted they either "apologize for their mistake" or deny any wrongdoing or sometimes even aggressively fight for their right to do this. It's amazing how Intellectual Property is so important to Big Companies when it's their own, but if it belongs to some "small fry" then IP is just "free stuff we can steal with no penalty."
Thankfully, not all companies are like this. My wife was once contacted by an ad agency that wanted to use one of our pictures for an ad campaign. They offered us a fair amount, we sent them a good copy, and they used it as the contract stated (in an ad for Western Digital hard drives). It was all done completely honestly versus stealing the photo from our website, using it, and only offering us payment once they were caught.
Or maybe we're in a "circles within circles" period again like we were for the orbiting of the planets. Long ago, it was believed that everything orbited the Earth in perfect circles. When the data didn't line up, additional circles were added to the orbits to make the theory fit the data. It worked to a point, but it was a hideous mess. Making the Sun the center of the solar system and ditching the perfect circles cleaned up the theory a lot. Perhaps one day we'll come up with a theory of the Universe that will make our current theories look like the "circles within circles" idea. That theory might allow FTL travel in a manner that seems simple to future humanity but is as understandable to us as computers would be to an ancient Roman.
I'm not sure I believe the GP post's "virtual particles" theory, but - if I understand it correctly - the virtual particles would act as a sort of friction, keeping things from going too fast.
My main problem is with the earlier claim of "light speed is just an average speed." If that were true, we should measure light moving a little faster than c and a little slower than c, all averaging out to c. Instead, every measurement we take says that light in a vacuum travels at 299,792,458 m/s.
Even though they're "in charge," they might not set the rules due to a lack of political will (standing up to someone who wants to do something "to fight terrorists" or "in the name of national security" for fear of being portrayed as weak next election cycle) or due to money flow from lobbyists telling them what laws to write ("we're not bribing you, we're just giving you this expensive trip and a cushy position when you retire if you get this bill we wrote passed"). Having the authority to be in charge and actually being in charge are two very different things.
If marriage = indentured servitude then I'd much rather be the indentured servant of my wife than the indentured servant of my boss. (Celebrating 12 years of marriage today.)
An 80 hour week sounds a bit extreme, but what if he worked 40 hours and spent his off time with his family? Or works on a non-programming hobby? Do we need to leave our day jobs and immediately lock ourselves in a room with a computer to contribute to open source code to keep a high online-programming-profile just in case some future employer looks for it? Is family time and non-computer related hobbies only for people who don't want to be hired by the next potential employer?
If you report or publicly mention a bug in my software, then you are trying to scare people into not using my software. Thus, you are a terrorist.
If you give a movie or product a bad review, you might scare them into not seeing said movie or buying said product. Thus, you are a terrorist.
If you ever complain about anything, your negativity might badly affect other people. Thus, you are a terrorist.
Everyone, just walk around with a smile at all times and keep saying that everything is fine. The first person who grumbles gets sent off to Gitmo. (And the second... and the third...)
I don't know about you, but I feel happier already. See? *extremely big (slightly nervous looking) smile*
Male lions sleep almost all day and let their groups of females go out and hunt for them. So a guy saying he wants to live like a lion isn't really going to get an action-filled life.
I think a distinction needs to be made between the web developers who know how to program a web application and have an appreciation of security risks and the "web developer" who knows how to operate FrontPage, can "install" WordPress and put up one of the free themes with no modifications, or clicks on a web form to "create" a web page.
Both groups can wind up with security holes. The former will likely try to avoid them but might wind up with them due to untested cases or mistakes (it happens to all of us) or due to higher-ups who push for features over security. Yes, the web developer is to blame in this case also, but it is an important distinction to note. And before anyone responds "they should just quit", not everyone has that financial luxury.
The latter group will wind up with security holes because they don't understand how web technologies work and how they can be abused. They call themselves "web developers" but they are just "point and click" developers at best. They know just enough to be dangerous, not enough to protect themselves or their users from said danger, and ruin the reputation of the rest of us.
Of course, there are many security-related plugins for WordPress so I'd love to see a "SQL Injection Attack Detector" plugin that would scan other plugins and report to the admin/webmaster/whoever when it finds something. (Whoever wants to develop this, you can use my idea for just a lifetime license to your plugin.)
Replying to my own comment, but after writing that, I did a quick search and found this plugin: BulletProof Security
http://wordpress.org/plugins/bulletproof-security/ It claims to protect against SQL Injection attacks. I can't vouch for it personally, but it did get 448 five star reviews out of 507 reviews. That's got to count for something. In any event, it goes to show that, while some plugins can cause trouble (via SQL injection openings and other bad coding), there are other plugins on the market designed to protect your WordPress website. No WordPress site should be set up without appropriate protections (the same as any non-WordPress site). In this case, "appropriate protections" might include some security plugins.
People complain about IE6 or Flash or Java, but every web developer I know ABHORS WordPress.
Hi there. I'm a web developer. Nice to meet you. There, now you know a web developer who likes (and extensively uses) WordPress
The moment a company decides to use Wordpress as their underlying site "technology", its game over. This was supposed to be a product that allowed people at home to set up a content site quickly, not an enterprise level technology.
WordPress was originally designed as a blogging platform for people to set up blogs easily, but has grown over the years to be a major CMS tool.
So if this thing is causing significant security issues, it should be placed at the top of the Internet's most hated and avoided like the plague.
To be fair, the article is saying that WordPress PLUGINS were to blame, not WordPress itself. Plugins can come from anyone and aren't audited by Wordpress at for things like SQL Injection attack risk. Whether they should be or not is another conversation. Of course, there are many security-related plugins for WordPress so I'd love to see a "SQL Injection Attack Detector" plugin that would scan other plugins and report to the admin/webmaster/whoever when it finds something. (Whoever wants to develop this, you can use my idea for just a lifetime license to your plugin.)
If you want to blog online, use Facebook or Twitter or any other established social platform,
Facebook and Twitter aren't really blogging platforms. Facebook comes close, but I stay off of it because I don't like many of their privacy (and other) actions. At best, Facebook is an add-on to a blog.
Twitter is micro-blogging, not blogging. You can't post an in-depth article about your favorite subject on Twitter. Not, at least, without breaking it into a hundred consecutive tweets which would just be annoying.
nobody sets up their own blog anymore, that is so early 21st century.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I use WordPress for my blogging activities because I can be guaranteed that my WordPress blog will be around 10 years from now (assuming I want to continue it). I can't guarantee that Facebook won't collapse in a few years or modify things to such a degree that my blog is unusable. Besides, if my blog was hosted by a third party service, they could disappear at any moment and I'd lose everything. My WordPress blog is backed up to my computer every night. If my hosting provider disappeared, I'd be momentarily inconvenienced (as I found a new provider and set everything back up), but I'd lose at most a day's worth of content.
Whenever anyone comes to me looking to set up a site, I always recommend getting a hosting account and setting up their site, not sticking their site on some third party service. (A client of mine recently had one of their staff redesign their site without consulting me. It went from a WordPress site which did need some visual work done to a cookie cutter "webs.com" site with such brilliant ideas as having credit card information submitted on a HTTP form via e-mail. The guy who did it insisted he was a "web developer." Sadly, to him, this means "I can open this account and click where they tell me to click in the template.")
The thing that surprises me is that this person went to Jewish organizations and thought "Hey. Jews trust the KKK, right?" (Helpful tip for other KKK members: We tend not to trust KKK members. They tend to be grouped along with Neo-Nazis and other hate groups.)
the judge had argued that civil servants owed their duty to the government.
When the government properly recognizes that ITS duty is to the people, then I can see this as being true. However, all too often, governments (even democratically elected ones) seem to think that their duty is to themselves/their party and the people are just an inconvenient speed-bump that you need to deal with every few years to gain re-election.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus, having a new team of young people mucking around with your code every few years will result in a mish-mash of code that nobody will understand. There will be the bits that remain from "team #1" (who originally wrote it), bits from "team #4" and the recently added segments of "team #9." Why does it crash during conditions X, Y, and Z? Who knows. To find out, you'll need to wade through revision after revision with nobody on staff who remembers just WHY some pieces of code were written some ways.
Bringing a young new hire on staff to inject new ideas into a situation can be a good thing. But "Logan's Run"-ing your staff just for the sake of keeping your workers under an artificial maximum age is idiotic.
The author acknowledges that the Internet has many good things about it but says we need to get rid of it because of some bad things that come with it? Here's a tip: Every piece of technology can be used for good or bad. You can use the Internet to research in minutes what might have taken days or to connect to people who share your interests but live half a world away. Or you can use it to attack people, steal their information, and cause chaos. You can use an airplane to visit exotic locales or far away family members. Or you can use it to drop bombs on people (or even turn IT into a giant bomb). You can use roads to go from place to place quickly and easily or you can use them to escape from the law. You can use a hammer to hit a nail or bash in a skull. You can use nuclear power to generate electricity or as a stepping stone towards creating a nuclear bomb. You can use microbe research into finding a cure/vaccine for diseases or for breeding powerful germs for biological warfare.
If you want to repeal every piece of technology that can be used for any evil purpose whatsoever, ALL technology would be repealed. (Yes, even his vaunted newspapers: You can spread news or smear the reputation of a person or technology.) We would be back to living in caves. Don't light a fire to keep warm, though, because you might use it to burn your enemies and that would be bad.
Going to be unaccountable? They already are.
Here in NY, we have tons of Pearson-administered tests. Teachers aren't allowed to see the tests before giving them to the kids, but their jobs ride on the kids doing well. (Even if the teachers happen to have special needs students who might not test well.) The tests are high pressure affairs since they've raised the number of questions, difficulty of the questions, and dropped how much time the kids have. Pearson grades the tests and then destroys the originals. Want to contest a grade? Too bad. (Imagine if we counted votes like this. "The winner is Candidate A by a landslide! Candidate B wants to contest, but we've already burned all records of the votes.")
In addition, some questions can be very misleading. Remember how I said teachers can't look? I know of 4 teachers who glanced at a test and answered one of the questions themselves. It was a multiple choice test with four answers. They each got a different answer. If teachers (with masters degrees) can't answer a question, how are elementary school kids going to fare?
Of course, Pearson WANTS the kids to fail. They sell text books that might help kids do better on the tests. (In fact, passages from Pearson books appear on the tests so your kids will do better on Pearson tests if they use Pearson books. Leveraging monopoly much?) They sell courses for teachers/administrators to take to show them how to teach to the test better. They sell courses for students to help them out. If students flunk out of high school, they can get their GED by taking a Pearson test. At every turn, Pearson makes money at the expense of kids and teachers.
Some questions:
- Would atheists be allowed to be married? Or would they have to fake a belief in God to call themselves married?
- Would it only be churches that could convey marriage? What about temples? Mosques?
- Would the religion have to be officially recognized by someone (e.g. some government agency)? Or could I form The Church Of Marriage Equality, appoint myself as Head Priest, and marry whomever I want?
Forgot one thing in my other reply:
Really? So I guess those ancient Israelites weren't getting married at all. They'd just shack up and bear children outside of marriage. And all of those other cultures that existed outside of Christianity's circle had no concept of marriage before the enlightened Christians taught them about it?
In truth, marriage is a widespread concept but one that has evolved over the centuries from a pre-arranged "property rights" issue (the woman would be assigned a mate by her parents - or other people - and she would become his property) to a matter of love (a woman is asked for her hand in marriage, can refuse, and is the man's partner, not property). Those who claim that marriage has always existed the way it is today without ever changing (and thus it can never change from its current form) have no sense of history.
Except in the case of Jacob where marriage is 1 man + 1 woman + her sister + the woman's handmaiden + the sister's handmaiden. Or were the handmaiden's not Jacob's wives and he just slept with them (and had kids with them) out of wedlock? I can't remember the details but either way this doesn't fit with the "Bible Says One Man One Woman" folks.
Knowing my information is available doesn't make me act better online because 1) my WHOIS contact information points to a PO Box that isn't even in the same town I live in and 2) the only people who seem to use my WHOIS information are those "domain renewal" firms that send me such helpful letters as "your domain is going to expire so 'renew' with us... [fine print]by renew, we mean switch your domain to us and pay much more than you currently pay[/fine print]".
I wouldn't mind if there was some sort of check against abusing WHOIS information like these domain renewal firms do. Of course, I'd want to still be able to look up information without paying exorbitant fees. For example, if I find out that some content scraper posted my writings as their own (which has happened to me and my wife multiple times), the WHOIS information can give me someone to send a DMCA notice to. Perhaps looking up small amounts (one or two at a time) of website information would be free but looking up larger numbers (like the domain renewal companies do) would require payment.
I can't wait to support the wonderful features in IE11. Going by my site stats for IE over the 2 past years and W3Counter's graphs (http://www.w3counter.com/trends), I look forward to 10% of my IE users (themselves only 15% of my visitors) using it in 2 or 3 years. (Or, I can support wonderful new features in Chrome, FireFox, and Safari and cover over 75% of my users.)
Let's hope the NSA never says "This statement is a lie." If the statement is true, then it's a lie and so it's false. If it's false, then it's not a lie and so it must be true. The resulting paradox will rip the Universe apart.
Um... It was a reference (attempt at humor) to "Doctor Who" (Rule One: The Doctor Lies), not an acceptance of what the NSA did.
No, it's a problem that Adecco created for him by using his idea (from the name and concept down to having an actor who looks and acts like him). He's had to put a lot of time and energy (probably money also) into defending against this. And this doesn't go away in "a couple of days." This will likely linger for months.
He's probably also worried that Adecco will sue HIM in an attempt to get control of his site. (After all, they own the trademark even though he was using it long before they even applied.) If they do so, he might not have the funds to defend against them. These days, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, just how much money you have to defend yourself. They might be completely in the wrong, but they also likely have the money to wage lawsuit war on him until he's bankrupt. Even if they lose, he might wind up with so many legal bills that he can't continue his venture.
All of this adds tons of stress to his life, saps his time and energy, and generally makes writing a difficult endeavor.
Looks like it was just that (minus the snickers bar).
From his open letter to Adecco:
"You spent 4 weeks stringing me along, making and rescinding offers, then sent me a contract that gave you everything and me nothing. So I decided to leave Thailand and fly to New York to get advice from friends and be on a more level playing field. Only then did you take me seriously. When I reached New York, you offered to compensate me, but not for my work or for the use of my brand. In my eyes, your offer amounted to paying me to stay silent, rather than paying me for my hard work. That, and it was too little too late."
In other words, they assumed he was just some "blogger" that they could just blow off or bowl over with a lopsided contract. When he actually began to look like an actual "PR threat" to their campaign, though, they offered to pay him (likely some token amount) to keep him quiet. When that didn't work, they went into spin mode saying that they "immediately engaged him" (non-spin version: "we strung him along for weeks because we assumed all bloggers are nobodies") and that they tried "to make things right" and that they've "been unable to find common ground so far." (Non-spin version: "We're baffled as to why he hasn't accepted our lopsided offers.")
Sadly, I've seen this story many, many times. Big Company takes someone's photo/video/brand name and uses it for their own ends. When confronted they either "apologize for their mistake" or deny any wrongdoing or sometimes even aggressively fight for their right to do this. It's amazing how Intellectual Property is so important to Big Companies when it's their own, but if it belongs to some "small fry" then IP is just "free stuff we can steal with no penalty."
Thankfully, not all companies are like this. My wife was once contacted by an ad agency that wanted to use one of our pictures for an ad campaign. They offered us a fair amount, we sent them a good copy, and they used it as the contract stated (in an ad for Western Digital hard drives). It was all done completely honestly versus stealing the photo from our website, using it, and only offering us payment once they were caught.
Or maybe we're in a "circles within circles" period again like we were for the orbiting of the planets. Long ago, it was believed that everything orbited the Earth in perfect circles. When the data didn't line up, additional circles were added to the orbits to make the theory fit the data. It worked to a point, but it was a hideous mess. Making the Sun the center of the solar system and ditching the perfect circles cleaned up the theory a lot. Perhaps one day we'll come up with a theory of the Universe that will make our current theories look like the "circles within circles" idea. That theory might allow FTL travel in a manner that seems simple to future humanity but is as understandable to us as computers would be to an ancient Roman.
I'm not sure I believe the GP post's "virtual particles" theory, but - if I understand it correctly - the virtual particles would act as a sort of friction, keeping things from going too fast.
My main problem is with the earlier claim of "light speed is just an average speed." If that were true, we should measure light moving a little faster than c and a little slower than c, all averaging out to c. Instead, every measurement we take says that light in a vacuum travels at 299,792,458 m/s.
Even though they're "in charge," they might not set the rules due to a lack of political will (standing up to someone who wants to do something "to fight terrorists" or "in the name of national security" for fear of being portrayed as weak next election cycle) or due to money flow from lobbyists telling them what laws to write ("we're not bribing you, we're just giving you this expensive trip and a cushy position when you retire if you get this bill we wrote passed"). Having the authority to be in charge and actually being in charge are two very different things.
Rule One: The NSA Lies.
I'll forgive the lies if they also have two hearts, a box that's bigger on the inside, and think bowties and fezes are cool.
If marriage = indentured servitude then I'd much rather be the indentured servant of my wife than the indentured servant of my boss. (Celebrating 12 years of marriage today.)
An 80 hour week sounds a bit extreme, but what if he worked 40 hours and spent his off time with his family? Or works on a non-programming hobby? Do we need to leave our day jobs and immediately lock ourselves in a room with a computer to contribute to open source code to keep a high online-programming-profile just in case some future employer looks for it? Is family time and non-computer related hobbies only for people who don't want to be hired by the next potential employer?
If you report or publicly mention a bug in my software, then you are trying to scare people into not using my software. Thus, you are a terrorist.
If you give a movie or product a bad review, you might scare them into not seeing said movie or buying said product. Thus, you are a terrorist.
If you ever complain about anything, your negativity might badly affect other people. Thus, you are a terrorist.
Everyone, just walk around with a smile at all times and keep saying that everything is fine. The first person who grumbles gets sent off to Gitmo. (And the second... and the third...)
I don't know about you, but I feel happier already. See? *extremely big (slightly nervous looking) smile*
Male lions sleep almost all day and let their groups of females go out and hunt for them. So a guy saying he wants to live like a lion isn't really going to get an action-filled life.
I think a distinction needs to be made between the web developers who know how to program a web application and have an appreciation of security risks and the "web developer" who knows how to operate FrontPage, can "install" WordPress and put up one of the free themes with no modifications, or clicks on a web form to "create" a web page.
Both groups can wind up with security holes. The former will likely try to avoid them but might wind up with them due to untested cases or mistakes (it happens to all of us) or due to higher-ups who push for features over security. Yes, the web developer is to blame in this case also, but it is an important distinction to note. And before anyone responds "they should just quit", not everyone has that financial luxury.
The latter group will wind up with security holes because they don't understand how web technologies work and how they can be abused. They call themselves "web developers" but they are just "point and click" developers at best. They know just enough to be dangerous, not enough to protect themselves or their users from said danger, and ruin the reputation of the rest of us.
Replying to my own comment, but after writing that, I did a quick search and found this plugin: BulletProof Security
http://wordpress.org/plugins/bulletproof-security/
It claims to protect against SQL Injection attacks. I can't vouch for it personally, but it did get 448 five star reviews out of 507 reviews. That's got to count for something. In any event, it goes to show that, while some plugins can cause trouble (via SQL injection openings and other bad coding), there are other plugins on the market designed to protect your WordPress website. No WordPress site should be set up without appropriate protections (the same as any non-WordPress site). In this case, "appropriate protections" might include some security plugins.
Hi there. I'm a web developer. Nice to meet you. There, now you know a web developer who likes (and extensively uses) WordPress
WordPress was originally designed as a blogging platform for people to set up blogs easily, but has grown over the years to be a major CMS tool.
To be fair, the article is saying that WordPress PLUGINS were to blame, not WordPress itself. Plugins can come from anyone and aren't audited by Wordpress at for things like SQL Injection attack risk. Whether they should be or not is another conversation. Of course, there are many security-related plugins for WordPress so I'd love to see a "SQL Injection Attack Detector" plugin that would scan other plugins and report to the admin/webmaster/whoever when it finds something. (Whoever wants to develop this, you can use my idea for just a lifetime license to your plugin.)
Facebook and Twitter aren't really blogging platforms. Facebook comes close, but I stay off of it because I don't like many of their privacy (and other) actions. At best, Facebook is an add-on to a blog.
Twitter is micro-blogging, not blogging. You can't post an in-depth article about your favorite subject on Twitter. Not, at least, without breaking it into a hundred consecutive tweets which would just be annoying.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I use WordPress for my blogging activities because I can be guaranteed that my WordPress blog will be around 10 years from now (assuming I want to continue it). I can't guarantee that Facebook won't collapse in a few years or modify things to such a degree that my blog is unusable. Besides, if my blog was hosted by a third party service, they could disappear at any moment and I'd lose everything. My WordPress blog is backed up to my computer every night. If my hosting provider disappeared, I'd be momentarily inconvenienced (as I found a new provider and set everything back up), but I'd lose at most a day's worth of content.
Whenever anyone comes to me looking to set up a site, I always recommend getting a hosting account and setting up their site, not sticking their site on some third party service. (A client of mine recently had one of their staff redesign their site without consulting me. It went from a WordPress site which did need some visual work done to a cookie cutter "webs.com" site with such brilliant ideas as having credit card information submitted on a HTTP form via e-mail. The guy who did it insisted he was a "web developer." Sadly, to him, this means "I can open this account and click where they tell me to click in the template.")
The thing that surprises me is that this person went to Jewish organizations and thought "Hey. Jews trust the KKK, right?" (Helpful tip for other KKK members: We tend not to trust KKK members. They tend to be grouped along with Neo-Nazis and other hate groups.)
When the government properly recognizes that ITS duty is to the people, then I can see this as being true. However, all too often, governments (even democratically elected ones) seem to think that their duty is to themselves/their party and the people are just an inconvenient speed-bump that you need to deal with every few years to gain re-election.