But a secure certificate isn't the service he's after. He just wants to transfer some money or check his balance or something. This would be closer to getting the sausage biscuit you wanted but in a sausage McGriddle wrapper.
Certainly, if this was a multi-billion dollar organisation, it would be worth setting up all sorts of hacks, but this can only be used against people with standard credit card limits. How would you exploit a flaw such as this? You'd presumably need some sort of automation because you'd be stealing small amounts from thousands of people but my knowledge of certificates and the nature of the security they provide is sparse.
Common sense would suggest it wouldn't be in a big popup dialog labeled "WARNING" if it wasn't.
But we've been trained out of this thought process. "WARNING! Could not connect to server", "WARNING! deleting files will delete files", "WARNING, incomprehensible error that goes away when you click 'Ignore'".
Warning dialogs are so overused that they've become an irritation, and rarely seem to be a problem. Really, certificate failures should probably make the warning a lot more scary.
I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have people spreading atheism and false religions, and criticising our democratically elected government.
Seriously, this one is grasping at straws. Cats kill millions of birds every year. Okay, cats tend to be more discriminatory, but power transmission lines kill a few million too. So do cars.
The thing that's always bugged me about those Apple ads is the suggestion that because you have a Mac you'll suddenly be creative, and because you have a PC you'll have boring work to do.
I don't know about everyone else, but I like my computer because it does those boring jobs for me. I want a tool to do spreadsheets. It means I spend less time doing that and can be off doing my own thing. Mac doesn't. Mac comes across as a layabout rockstar wannabe. Some of us have to work and pay the bills.
But such cars have been produced before. You end up with a not so good plane, and a pretty hopeless car. It is by all accounts not cheap, so why is it better than just calling a cab when you get to the airport and paying plane parking fees?
I'm sure there are a few people who fly to a lot of different regional airports that don't have a good taxi service nearby, or people who are just control freaks who insist on driving, but it seems a remarkable small market.
In UK law, like most other legal systems there's a concept of intent. Some crimes are defined as strict liability crimes (things like speeding, for example) where you are guilty if you commit the offence, but generally if you violate the letter of the law without meaning to, then you're not guilty.
Okay, let's assume they are. Still seems a little naive to think that there would have been enough armed civilians to effectively stop them.
Now, I'm sure that if gun ownership was mandatory, or at least actively encouraged, it would have had an effect, but the level of gun ownership is not sufficiently high for that to be an argument for keeping the status quo.
There doesn't seem to be any evidence that public ownership of guns will in any way affect the tactics or effectiveness of terror attacks.
Hell, even shooting rampages have been rarely need ended because of an armed populace. A quick search on Google and all of them seem to have been ended by suicide or police action.
Cars (and other vehicles) are potentially very expensive so they're a bit different, and have much longer expectation of life. Electrical goods have a manufacturers warranty anyway. After that expires, the extended warranty will cover a decent portion of the replacement cost, and that's in the unlikely event that it does go wrong. If you own more than a couple of pieces of expensive electronics it makes more sense to put he warranty money into a jar and buy a replacement if any of them break. Typically the exteneded warranty is about a third of the cost of the device. The odds of the device breaking after 1 year but before 4 years are much lower than 1 in 3.
However in response to "There haven't been many terror attacks with guns" has he really forgotten about the 2008 mumbai terrorist attacks, or all of the "insurgent" attacks, and similar?
Okay. That's "one", as opposed to "many". New York they used planes, London underground, they used bombs, Madrid train bombings was bombs. Israel, where guns can be acquired cheaply, typically terror attacks use bombs. Mumbai - bombs as well as firearms. The IRA had access to guns but typically used bombs. There was the Ma'alot massacre. That was in 1974, in Israel, where one would have expected the gunmen to have failed because of Israel's high level of gun ownership.
Insurgents tend to aim at specific targets rather than maximum disruption, so of course they use guns.
Guns are essential, necessary, and a damn sight more useful than "kill fucking everyone in a huge radius" bombs.
That depends on your aim. If you just want to kill a lot of people then bombs are more effective.
Why? A sniper could do a lot of damage before being stopped even if everyone was armed. There haven't been many terror attacks with guns even in countries with extremely low gun ownership.
I spotted a bug in our software that would have prevented it from ever being released.
Someone else would have spotted it if I hadn't, so they would have saved the company millions of dollars, but perhaps "Josh" is better at self promotion.
Startups are slightly different. You need to get the product out and generating revenue at high speed.
I still think you want to avoid the primadonnas but you can be a lot more tolerant of bad behaviour. The net result will be that you need to completely restart everything after your launch, but you can do that. At that point you actually have revenue.
I guess you'd have to promote the genius to "management" or something so he's still around for maintenance and let the developers refactor as they go.
The article was about someone who can do an incredible amount of coding in a very short time. Indeed, more coding in less time than most anyone else.
Because all he was doing was writing code. He took an hour to solve a problem that took the team 2 days. "The team" must have been at least 3 people. So that's occupying 6 programmer days. 40-45 hours. It would have taken him less than an hour to document or explain what the solution was. Is he really worth 40-45 times as much as the other programmers?
If the guy produces a lot of unmaintainable code then he's costing almost as much as he's making for the company. His personality problems will increase staff turnover, and he will eventually leave. Nobody lasts forever. When he leaves everything that he wrote will have to be documented or replaced at considerable cost.
Most programmers will be able to do most tasks. There are some highly specialised tasks that will require an expert in that area, but you can always find the appropriate expert. Anything else can be learned. You'll lose a developer for a few days while he learns but you'll gain a developer with extra knowledge, and the half decent ones will be happy to stick with a company that allows them to develop.
This guy's only important skill is that he understands how his own code works. That's all. You can hire smart specialists in any other field that he's good at. Maybe they'll be a little more specialised, but they'll be able to help the rest of the team develop and they'll be replacable.
Aside from that he creates code that only he understands, making the company more dependent on him.
The main problem is that by giving him more work, you end up becoming more dependent on him because he produces more code that only he understands. The other problem is that you can't easily get rid of him. The only thing to do is give him a nominally impossible make-work project, while other people work to clean up and rewrite his unreadable code. Then make him expendible enough that you can discipline him without repercussions.
Really? The little fact that the bridge goes between two parts of a private facility wouldn't be an issue?
Presumably this is the most common journey taken by drivers in the area. This is the natural result of Microsoft being such a large company. The employees are using government built roads to get from one location to the other as it is. Yes, this will benefit those employees the most, but I expect if you look at it completely dispassionately, this would be the most effective use of tax dollars in terms of journey reduction time per dollar spent.
And as you say, the non Microsoft taxpayers will also benefit through the reduced congestion on existing infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps it might have been a good idea not to read the comments about a show when you're a year behind.
But a secure certificate isn't the service he's after. He just wants to transfer some money or check his balance or something. This would be closer to getting the sausage biscuit you wanted but in a sausage McGriddle wrapper.
Certainly, if this was a multi-billion dollar organisation, it would be worth setting up all sorts of hacks, but this can only be used against people with standard credit card limits. How would you exploit a flaw such as this? You'd presumably need some sort of automation because you'd be stealing small amounts from thousands of people but my knowledge of certificates and the nature of the security they provide is sparse.
Common sense would suggest it wouldn't be in a big popup dialog labeled "WARNING" if it wasn't.
But we've been trained out of this thought process. "WARNING! Could not connect to server", "WARNING! deleting files will delete files", "WARNING, incomprehensible error that goes away when you click 'Ignore'".
Warning dialogs are so overused that they've become an irritation, and rarely seem to be a problem. Really, certificate failures should probably make the warning a lot more scary.
I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have people spreading atheism and false religions, and criticising our democratically elected government.
Wind turbines kill birds.
Seriously, this one is grasping at straws. Cats kill millions of birds every year. Okay, cats tend to be more discriminatory, but power transmission lines kill a few million too. So do cars.
The thing that's always bugged me about those Apple ads is the suggestion that because you have a Mac you'll suddenly be creative, and because you have a PC you'll have boring work to do.
I don't know about everyone else, but I like my computer because it does those boring jobs for me. I want a tool to do spreadsheets. It means I spend less time doing that and can be off doing my own thing. Mac doesn't. Mac comes across as a layabout rockstar wannabe. Some of us have to work and pay the bills.
But such cars have been produced before. You end up with a not so good plane, and a pretty hopeless car. It is by all accounts not cheap, so why is it better than just calling a cab when you get to the airport and paying plane parking fees?
I'm sure there are a few people who fly to a lot of different regional airports that don't have a good taxi service nearby, or people who are just control freaks who insist on driving, but it seems a remarkable small market.
In UK law, like most other legal systems there's a concept of intent. Some crimes are defined as strict liability crimes (things like speeding, for example) where you are guilty if you commit the offence, but generally if you violate the letter of the law without meaning to, then you're not guilty.
Okay, let's assume they are. Still seems a little naive to think that there would have been enough armed civilians to effectively stop them.
Now, I'm sure that if gun ownership was mandatory, or at least actively encouraged, it would have had an effect, but the level of gun ownership is not sufficiently high for that to be an argument for keeping the status quo.
Which part went wrong? How much would it have cost to replace that part?
I didn't see any mention of the terror attacks in Africa, which are primarily guns.
11 terror attacks - 10 were bombings, one was a shooting.
Also, bombs don't stop people who bomb, guns do.
Has this ever happened?
There doesn't seem to be any evidence that public ownership of guns will in any way affect the tactics or effectiveness of terror attacks.
Hell, even shooting rampages have been rarely need ended because of an armed populace. A quick search on Google and all of them seem to have been ended by suicide or police action.
Cars (and other vehicles) are potentially very expensive so they're a bit different, and have much longer expectation of life. Electrical goods have a manufacturers warranty anyway. After that expires, the extended warranty will cover a decent portion of the replacement cost, and that's in the unlikely event that it does go wrong. If you own more than a couple of pieces of expensive electronics it makes more sense to put he warranty money into a jar and buy a replacement if any of them break. Typically the exteneded warranty is about a third of the cost of the device. The odds of the device breaking after 1 year but before 4 years are much lower than 1 in 3.
However in response to "There haven't been many terror attacks with guns" has he really forgotten about the 2008 mumbai terrorist attacks, or all of the "insurgent" attacks, and similar?
Okay. That's "one", as opposed to "many". New York they used planes, London underground, they used bombs, Madrid train bombings was bombs. Israel, where guns can be acquired cheaply, typically terror attacks use bombs. Mumbai - bombs as well as firearms. The IRA had access to guns but typically used bombs. There was the Ma'alot massacre. That was in 1974, in Israel, where one would have expected the gunmen to have failed because of Israel's high level of gun ownership.
Insurgents tend to aim at specific targets rather than maximum disruption, so of course they use guns.
Guns are essential, necessary, and a damn sight more useful than "kill fucking everyone in a huge radius" bombs.
That depends on your aim. If you just want to kill a lot of people then bombs are more effective.
What does that have to do with terrorism? This is insurgency. They're specifically targeting the occupying forces
Why? A sniper could do a lot of damage before being stopped even if everyone was armed. There haven't been many terror attacks with guns even in countries with extremely low gun ownership.
Yes. Ultimately, I think I value someone who can churn out clever code quickly less than you.
I mean I'm sure they have their uses, but most companies just aren't so innovative.
I spotted a bug in our software that would have prevented it from ever being released.
Someone else would have spotted it if I hadn't, so they would have saved the company millions of dollars, but perhaps "Josh" is better at self promotion.
Startups are slightly different. You need to get the product out and generating revenue at high speed.
I still think you want to avoid the primadonnas but you can be a lot more tolerant of bad behaviour. The net result will be that you need to completely restart everything after your launch, but you can do that. At that point you actually have revenue.
I guess you'd have to promote the genius to "management" or something so he's still around for maintenance and let the developers refactor as they go.
The article was about someone who can do an incredible amount of coding in a very short time. Indeed, more coding in less time than most anyone else.
Because all he was doing was writing code. He took an hour to solve a problem that took the team 2 days. "The team" must have been at least 3 people. So that's occupying 6 programmer days. 40-45 hours. It would have taken him less than an hour to document or explain what the solution was. Is he really worth 40-45 times as much as the other programmers?
If the guy produces a lot of unmaintainable code then he's costing almost as much as he's making for the company. His personality problems will increase staff turnover, and he will eventually leave. Nobody lasts forever. When he leaves everything that he wrote will have to be documented or replaced at considerable cost.
Most programmers will be able to do most tasks. There are some highly specialised tasks that will require an expert in that area, but you can always find the appropriate expert. Anything else can be learned. You'll lose a developer for a few days while he learns but you'll gain a developer with extra knowledge, and the half decent ones will be happy to stick with a company that allows them to develop.
What job do you have where you can maintain productivity working more than 12 hours without a break?
Hell yeah! He's a liability to the hospital and most of the work is done by his subordinates anyway.
This guy's only important skill is that he understands how his own code works. That's all. You can hire smart specialists in any other field that he's good at. Maybe they'll be a little more specialised, but they'll be able to help the rest of the team develop and they'll be replacable.
Aside from that he creates code that only he understands, making the company more dependent on him.
The main problem is that by giving him more work, you end up becoming more dependent on him because he produces more code that only he understands. The other problem is that you can't easily get rid of him. The only thing to do is give him a nominally impossible make-work project, while other people work to clean up and rewrite his unreadable code. Then make him expendible enough that you can discipline him without repercussions.
Set up a rival ISP with better bandwidth.
Really? The little fact that the bridge goes between two parts of a private facility wouldn't be an issue?
Presumably this is the most common journey taken by drivers in the area. This is the natural result of Microsoft being such a large company. The employees are using government built roads to get from one location to the other as it is. Yes, this will benefit those employees the most, but I expect if you look at it completely dispassionately, this would be the most effective use of tax dollars in terms of journey reduction time per dollar spent.
And as you say, the non Microsoft taxpayers will also benefit through the reduced congestion on existing infrastructure.