In my experience, crashes on customer sites are good...
let me explain: product crashes on site, customer rings up and complains, we say "oh, there will be a dump file in directory x, can you send it to us please", customer sends it, we look in it, find the error location, then ring the customer and say "we've located the bug with your help, thanks, it'll be in the next update", customer beams happily and thinks we're the shizzle.
Its amazing, we screw up and they think we're great! Its all about managing that customer and their expectations, and they have been conditioned to love software updates, thanks Microsoft!
Sure, but his point isn't that the language allows you to make mistakes - they *all* do that, the problem is that the developers are too overwhelmed with frameworks, libraries, architectures and having to use many different languages all the time that they will make mistakes.
I used to code C++ and I was good at it, the number of errors I put in was minimal. But that was the days when it was the only language I used.
Today I'm using C++ and C# and javascript with a dose of scripting and loads of different ways to do the same thing, and every time I think of dong something I realise I don;t have the same level of expertise I used ot have before - not because I'm no longer good at my job, but because there is so much stuff to remember and apply that I will forget the odd bit here and there, and that is where mistakes creep in.
Once you've seen the kind of serious PCI compliance checking tools that tell you your perfectly-working code is unacceptable because of things you didn't consider, then you get a handle on why the language is not the problem at all.
the only safe way to write code today is to keep it modular, and then to keep things separated. Too bad that all the frameworks you code with try to make everything into a single monolithic lump "for ease of coding" so the noobs can find it accessible.
If you had only experienced programmers coding, in a few languages and systems, they'd be able to do all the stuff we have today, but faster and better. As it is, we try so hard to get as many people coding as possible, and have so many different systems to code in, that the whole industry is a massive chaotic mess.
once all I needed to code was a knowledge of C and the IBM big book of library calls (which told me everything their API did). Today, we need google and stackoverflow and looking up stuff hourly, and even then I'm having to filter results on the version of the library I'm working with so even the results for the documentation is often wrong. How does anyone expect our systems to work properly without massive amounts of effort.
You'd be the first to cry foul if they could do this - because they'd get a warrant to snoop on everyone's internet activity "who might" commit some crime.
Fortunately they have to show a bit more evidence than they think you might be committing a crime.
a regime like that... damn right I'd want to get out.
But then I'm a grown up adult with a sense of responsibility to the wider world and humanity. This is also why I'm dead set against the "liberals" with their sights set on their totalitarian fascist desire to tell everyone else what to do while profiting from it.
You want to put them out of business, write to them and say that they no longer have your permission to access your accounts or data held about you.
Now it isn't nearly as good as telling your bank this, but iof you tell your bank they'll restrict access to all credit reference agencies (you may like this idea better BTW).
When I worked at one, we had issues with some, usually older, accounts where the owner had not checked the little "we can use your data for marketing and other purposes" box and so the data was not legally allowable to be included in the dumps they send the credit reference agencies.
so its possible get your data away from these places,just tell your bank and anyone else that shows up on your credit report that they do not have your permission to share it.
There is, much as we ego-centric people dislike it. If nobody died, the planet would be even more overrun with us than currently. Imagine the population crisis then!
reduction in population doesn't mean what you imply - it means stopping immigration and sending home those who are undesirable to the state - ie foreign nationals who are unemployed, or have criminal convictions.
So yes, me first - I've gone right back to my country of birth. It wasn't a long trip, I admit.
It was Blair who signed the treaties that opened up the borders to EU migration from the new eastern countries. That's the point where migration really took off - policy that encouraged it, not just from Europe but everywhere else too.
Take a look at the population graph of the UK, it was 58 million and quite stable until around the year 2000 when it started to increase by quite a lot.
Not quite - ZHC came about because there were so many workers businesses could suddenly get away with them. If there was a constraint on supply of workers, nobody would be doing a ZHC, they'd go get a different job.
This is the bigger picture view, immigration has given rise to these bad practices, partly due to a massive increase in supply, but also of workers prepared to work for very low wages. An interview with a lady working in hospitality and earning £10k a year said that she was happy because both her parents earned less than that between them.
ZHC are a way for business to take advantage of these facts, and pay less than minimum wage by various means.
King pressed the case to open the labour market without transition on the grounds that it would help lower wage growth and inflation
We know that a much increased supply of workers mean employee benefits reduce or disappear because businesses do not have to compete to attract the best workers - in many cases this doesn't just mean wages, but things like training disappear. IIRC McDonalds used to offer remedial education classes to attract workers - by 2005 those programmes were gone, cheaper to just employ a migrant (and thus those who didn't do well at school saw one route to some sort of productive life closed)
As an example, a TV prog I saw about minimum wage jobs had a Polish immigrant recount that she had worked at a place for nearly a decade and asked her boss for a pay rise or career progression - and his response was "no, and if you don;t like it, you can quit. There is a queue of people out there willing to do your job, I'd have you replaced by the afternoon".
So I don't know about Brexit, but the idea that Brexit means we can control our immigration and population issues is a strong reason for it. Whether the stupid politicians will do anything is another matter, one for another day after Brexit happens.
It was crushed by globalism. Why mine coal in the North of England these days when you can get it shipped over from places where mine workers are paid the rough equivalent of nothing?
Why employ people to make cloth, when you can get it from abroad where workers are paid next to nothing and shipping costs are insignificant?
Why employ people to make clothings from that, when you can get it from abroad where workers and paid next to nothing too?
so all the old manufacturing industries that made Britain the richest country in the world - all the rag trade, wool trade, mining, heavy industrials, they've all gone elsewhere where workers are cheap. This is a net effect of globalisation.
Now you can say it was destined to happen, and it probably was once the world discovered it could do the same stuff cheaper, but then there was an issue where the replacement work was heavily skewed towards the already-rich, things like financial services, but the powers that be required a large mass of workers to support the rich, and so for some bizarre reason we decided to import large numbers of migrants from these countries so the workers could get even cheaper to support the rich, thus making the underlying problem even worse.
But the rich didn't care - they were rich, were getting richer, and any social problems won't affect them.
The question so what to do about it though really boils down to sustainability, so workers would make things here for large cost (think hipsters in Shoreditch selling organic coffee for £10 a cup, or t-shirts for £20 each) but applied to the rest of the country, and a reduction in population so the ability to do this becomes realistic. Minimum wage would have to rise massively, and benefits reduced massively too. And all that would require firm borders that prevent the $1 t-shirts from coming in, or the welfare migrants, or the economic migrants willing to work for next to nothing too.
And that'll never be allowed to happen, the rich like their workers to be cheap - back when the borders were thrown open in 1997, the cry was that nannies and builders were demanding too much and we needed to make them cheaper so those with too much money got to keep more of it for themselves. And so it'll continue. There's a reason the rich "metropolitan elites" want to remain in the EU so the status quo can continue without impediment.
It would also be more efficient - in the UK each operator puts its own masts up, and you regularly see masts with many different operator antenna in the same place.
If a single operator built the network, they could build it a lot cheaper than having everyone build several.
It as always going to end like this, and I suppose might be a good thing, criminal activity and criminals can be much more easily identified and dealt with.
The problem isn't with this technology as its just an automated mechanism of doing what cops might do if they had the resources to direct at it. Its with the people who get to decide what constitutes criminal activity.
Maybe Monopoly is not the right word, cartel might be a better one. As you can use any one of a number of messaging apps, social media portals, etc, but they're all the same.
Most jobs have huge inefficiencies in their workflow because people who know exactly what steps are simple and repetitive don't have the skills to apply some trivial automation.
sure, but most jobs also have huge inefficiencies because someone decided to automate their workflow using Excel macros.
The problem is one of expertise, coding isn't easy to do right and although I wish there were ways to automate workflows by using some simple and easy to use system (eg a more expressive batch language) the number of systems, and languages, mean that you have to become a semi-professional programmer just to make things work. Otherwise, you're just guessing and throwing together some code you found on the web and ending up with unmaintainable messes that cost more in the end.
Even with programmers, you have to become knowledgeable at algorithms and languages - and there are so many languages trhat you're never good at all of them. And here's Swift, yet another language to add to the ecosystem. No doubt in a few years there'll be another one and everyone will be fighting over an even larger ecosystem.
It doesn't matter how much you're growing if your spare price is 40+ times your revenue. Some companies are valued only according to what the market thinks the share price will be - nothing at all to do with its fundamental financial data.
I mean Uber is valued at something, even though it makes less than no money.
and not just them but the frameworks that everyone uses to build their applications - using.NET core right now and the extra bits that I have to put in to make it secure is remarkable. Meaning, why aren't these features in the framework from the start, or at least as code is auto-generated, why doesn't it come with all the security restrictions you might put in, as if you don't need them its easier to delete the annotations and code than it is to put it in.
and if it wasn't for a lot of browsing stack overflow to find what to put, I'd have no idea of some of it. That's worrying.
Add to that the way the frameworks come in monolithic architectures anyway, where a tiered approach would make it much more securable from the start and you can see why so many programs and apps get hacked.
I viewed the classified report from House Intel relating to the FBI, FISA abuses, the infamous Russian dossier, and so-called "Russian collusion." What I saw is absolutely shocking. -- Mark Meadows 19 Jan.
but it won't be critical of Trump. And that's probably the reason why there is none released to the public. Better to stick to rumours and innuendo to keep the narrative going.
One thing to be very aware of with Google Authenticator is that if you move phone, you have to be very careful or all your auth will remain tied to the old phone. People have complained about this and it can be a very serious problem for you.
Other apps allow you to migrate your registered auth to new devices. Authy is much better, and provides you with a sync option.
Not so, they need to get past a password *and a key file*. Keepass stores it all locally, and (optionally) requires a file to decrypt as well as password.
Can be awkward putting your keyfile somewhere secure and fetching it on mobile (unlike a PC where you can keep it on a USB drive that you remove when not using it) but it can be done if you're paranoid by storing it on the cloud or remote location, or even just obfuscating it by using an ordinary file such as a picture or music mp3 as the keyfile.
If everytime you open your DB you have to select the file (and set it to not remember the history, obviously) then you're as secure as anything, particularly if you use 1 picture out of a folder full of a thousand.
and your comments are expressions of confirmation bias - you want Trump to be useless, so all you surround yourself with are examples and comments of his uselessness.
I don't doubt Trump is an expert politician (certainly isn't) but that's a good thing. I don't doubt some of his policies have been lucky rather than planned in their outcome, but that's not unusual for so many who give off an air of certainty about them that is really a mask of "fingers crossed".
trump really does seem to be doing better than so many other presidents for a very long time. Its almost scary how bad the others have been. Its also telling how scared the establishment are that someone they didn't control or place in power is now there.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that BBC. I think you need to visit someone for a bit of CBT, might help you calm down.
Oh.. not that CBT, the other one. :-)
In my experience, crashes on customer sites are good...
let me explain: product crashes on site, customer rings up and complains, we say "oh, there will be a dump file in directory x, can you send it to us please", customer sends it, we look in it, find the error location, then ring the customer and say "we've located the bug with your help, thanks, it'll be in the next update", customer beams happily and thinks we're the shizzle.
Its amazing, we screw up and they think we're great! Its all about managing that customer and their expectations, and they have been conditioned to love software updates, thanks Microsoft!
Sure, but his point isn't that the language allows you to make mistakes - they *all* do that, the problem is that the developers are too overwhelmed with frameworks, libraries, architectures and having to use many different languages all the time that they will make mistakes.
I used to code C++ and I was good at it, the number of errors I put in was minimal. But that was the days when it was the only language I used.
Today I'm using C++ and C# and javascript with a dose of scripting and loads of different ways to do the same thing, and every time I think of dong something I realise I don;t have the same level of expertise I used ot have before - not because I'm no longer good at my job, but because there is so much stuff to remember and apply that I will forget the odd bit here and there, and that is where mistakes creep in.
Once you've seen the kind of serious PCI compliance checking tools that tell you your perfectly-working code is unacceptable because of things you didn't consider, then you get a handle on why the language is not the problem at all.
the only safe way to write code today is to keep it modular, and then to keep things separated. Too bad that all the frameworks you code with try to make everything into a single monolithic lump "for ease of coding" so the noobs can find it accessible.
If you had only experienced programmers coding, in a few languages and systems, they'd be able to do all the stuff we have today, but faster and better. As it is, we try so hard to get as many people coding as possible, and have so many different systems to code in, that the whole industry is a massive chaotic mess.
once all I needed to code was a knowledge of C and the IBM big book of library calls (which told me everything their API did). Today, we need google and stackoverflow and looking up stuff hourly, and even then I'm having to filter results on the version of the library I'm working with so even the results for the documentation is often wrong. How does anyone expect our systems to work properly without massive amounts of effort.
You'd be the first to cry foul if they could do this - because they'd get a warrant to snoop on everyone's internet activity "who might" commit some crime.
Fortunately they have to show a bit more evidence than they think you might be committing a crime.
a regime like that... damn right I'd want to get out.
But then I'm a grown up adult with a sense of responsibility to the wider world and humanity. This is also why I'm dead set against the "liberals" with their sights set on their totalitarian fascist desire to tell everyone else what to do while profiting from it.
You want to put them out of business, write to them and say that they no longer have your permission to access your accounts or data held about you.
Now it isn't nearly as good as telling your bank this, but iof you tell your bank they'll restrict access to all credit reference agencies (you may like this idea better BTW).
When I worked at one, we had issues with some, usually older, accounts where the owner had not checked the little "we can use your data for marketing and other purposes" box and so the data was not legally allowable to be included in the dumps they send the credit reference agencies.
so its possible get your data away from these places,just tell your bank and anyone else that shows up on your credit report that they do not have your permission to share it.
There is, much as we ego-centric people dislike it.
If nobody died, the planet would be even more overrun with us than currently. Imagine the population crisis then!
reduction in population doesn't mean what you imply - it means stopping immigration and sending home those who are undesirable to the state - ie foreign nationals who are unemployed, or have criminal convictions.
So yes, me first - I've gone right back to my country of birth. It wasn't a long trip, I admit.
It was Blair who signed the treaties that opened up the borders to EU migration from the new eastern countries. That's the point where migration really took off - policy that encouraged it, not just from Europe but everywhere else too.
Take a look at the population graph of the UK, it was 58 million and quite stable until around the year 2000 when it started to increase by quite a lot.
Not quite - ZHC came about because there were so many workers businesses could suddenly get away with them. If there was a constraint on supply of workers, nobody would be doing a ZHC, they'd go get a different job.
This is the bigger picture view, immigration has given rise to these bad practices, partly due to a massive increase in supply, but also of workers prepared to work for very low wages. An interview with a lady working in hospitality and earning £10k a year said that she was happy because both her parents earned less than that between them.
ZHC are a way for business to take advantage of these facts, and pay less than minimum wage by various means.
Mass immigration was intended to suppress wage growth - Mervyn King said it was policy during the Blair years.
We know that a much increased supply of workers mean employee benefits reduce or disappear because businesses do not have to compete to attract the best workers - in many cases this doesn't just mean wages, but things like training disappear. IIRC McDonalds used to offer remedial education classes to attract workers - by 2005 those programmes were gone, cheaper to just employ a migrant (and thus those who didn't do well at school saw one route to some sort of productive life closed)
As an example, a TV prog I saw about minimum wage jobs had a Polish immigrant recount that she had worked at a place for nearly a decade and asked her boss for a pay rise or career progression - and his response was "no, and if you don;t like it, you can quit. There is a queue of people out there willing to do your job, I'd have you replaced by the afternoon".
So I don't know about Brexit, but the idea that Brexit means we can control our immigration and population issues is a strong reason for it. Whether the stupid politicians will do anything is another matter, one for another day after Brexit happens.
It was crushed by globalism. Why mine coal in the North of England these days when you can get it shipped over from places where mine workers are paid the rough equivalent of nothing?
Why employ people to make cloth, when you can get it from abroad where workers are paid next to nothing and shipping costs are insignificant?
Why employ people to make clothings from that, when you can get it from abroad where workers and paid next to nothing too?
so all the old manufacturing industries that made Britain the richest country in the world - all the rag trade, wool trade, mining, heavy industrials, they've all gone elsewhere where workers are cheap. This is a net effect of globalisation.
Now you can say it was destined to happen, and it probably was once the world discovered it could do the same stuff cheaper, but then there was an issue where the replacement work was heavily skewed towards the already-rich, things like financial services, but the powers that be required a large mass of workers to support the rich, and so for some bizarre reason we decided to import large numbers of migrants from these countries so the workers could get even cheaper to support the rich, thus making the underlying problem even worse.
But the rich didn't care - they were rich, were getting richer, and any social problems won't affect them.
The question so what to do about it though really boils down to sustainability, so workers would make things here for large cost (think hipsters in Shoreditch selling organic coffee for £10 a cup, or t-shirts for £20 each) but applied to the rest of the country, and a reduction in population so the ability to do this becomes realistic. Minimum wage would have to rise massively, and benefits reduced massively too. And all that would require firm borders that prevent the $1 t-shirts from coming in, or the welfare migrants, or the economic migrants willing to work for next to nothing too.
And that'll never be allowed to happen, the rich like their workers to be cheap - back when the borders were thrown open in 1997, the cry was that nannies and builders were demanding too much and we needed to make them cheaper so those with too much money got to keep more of it for themselves. And so it'll continue. There's a reason the rich "metropolitan elites" want to remain in the EU so the status quo can continue without impediment.
It would also be more efficient - in the UK each operator puts its own masts up, and you regularly see masts with many different operator antenna in the same place.
If a single operator built the network, they could build it a lot cheaper than having everyone build several.
Yeah but bear in mind nobody really cares if you go to those places... your local politician however....
It as always going to end like this, and I suppose might be a good thing, criminal activity and criminals can be much more easily identified and dealt with.
The problem isn't with this technology as its just an automated mechanism of doing what cops might do if they had the resources to direct at it. Its with the people who get to decide what constitutes criminal activity.
Maybe Monopoly is not the right word, cartel might be a better one. As you can use any one of a number of messaging apps, social media portals, etc, but they're all the same.
And not Node.js, via LibUV?
Most jobs have huge inefficiencies in their workflow because people who know exactly what steps are simple and repetitive don't have the skills to apply some trivial automation.
sure, but most jobs also have huge inefficiencies because someone decided to automate their workflow using Excel macros.
The problem is one of expertise, coding isn't easy to do right and although I wish there were ways to automate workflows by using some simple and easy to use system (eg a more expressive batch language) the number of systems, and languages, mean that you have to become a semi-professional programmer just to make things work. Otherwise, you're just guessing and throwing together some code you found on the web and ending up with unmaintainable messes that cost more in the end.
Even with programmers, you have to become knowledgeable at algorithms and languages - and there are so many languages trhat you're never good at all of them. And here's Swift, yet another language to add to the ecosystem. No doubt in a few years there'll be another one and everyone will be fighting over an even larger ecosystem.
just a slip of the fingers - I know EPS is profit. Still the point stands, they are massively overvalued.
Alphabet's shareprice: $1171
Alphabet's earnings per share: $27.85 (2016 totals)
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/g...
It doesn't matter how much you're growing if your spare price is 40+ times your revenue. Some companies are valued only according to what the market thinks the share price will be - nothing at all to do with its fundamental financial data.
I mean Uber is valued at something, even though it makes less than no money.
and not just them but the frameworks that everyone uses to build their applications - using .NET core right now and the extra bits that I have to put in to make it secure is remarkable. Meaning, why aren't these features in the framework from the start, or at least as code is auto-generated, why doesn't it come with all the security restrictions you might put in, as if you don't need them its easier to delete the annotations and code than it is to put it in.
and if it wasn't for a lot of browsing stack overflow to find what to put, I'd have no idea of some of it. That's worrying.
Add to that the way the frameworks come in monolithic architectures anyway, where a tiered approach would make it much more securable from the start and you can see why so many programs and apps get hacked.
I think there is plenty of evidence....
but it won't be critical of Trump. And that's probably the reason why there is none released to the public. Better to stick to rumours and innuendo to keep the narrative going.
One thing to be very aware of with Google Authenticator is that if you move phone, you have to be very careful or all your auth will remain tied to the old phone. People have complained about this and it can be a very serious problem for you.
Other apps allow you to migrate your registered auth to new devices. Authy is much better, and provides you with a sync option.
Not so, they need to get past a password *and a key file*. Keepass stores it all locally, and (optionally) requires a file to decrypt as well as password.
Can be awkward putting your keyfile somewhere secure and fetching it on mobile (unlike a PC where you can keep it on a USB drive that you remove when not using it) but it can be done if you're paranoid by storing it on the cloud or remote location, or even just obfuscating it by using an ordinary file such as a picture or music mp3 as the keyfile.
If everytime you open your DB you have to select the file (and set it to not remember the history, obviously) then you're as secure as anything, particularly if you use 1 picture out of a folder full of a thousand.
and your comments are expressions of confirmation bias - you want Trump to be useless, so all you surround yourself with are examples and comments of his uselessness.
I don't doubt Trump is an expert politician (certainly isn't) but that's a good thing. I don't doubt some of his policies have been lucky rather than planned in their outcome, but that's not unusual for so many who give off an air of certainty about them that is really a mask of "fingers crossed".
trump really does seem to be doing better than so many other presidents for a very long time. Its almost scary how bad the others have been. Its also telling how scared the establishment are that someone they didn't control or place in power is now there.