Like many things, it is important to separate the bullshit bingo from the reality. Gartner is no different.
I work for a company where Sales believes very strongly in Gartner's magic quadrants. We sell a lot of stuff that is recommended by Gartner. Funnily enough, most of it actually delivers, even if it doesn't do so as smoothly as the marketing bullshit and Gartner promises.
If we were to sell purely on the Gartner recommendations, we'd be out of business. The strenght of the products and services, and our knowledge in how to actually implement them, makes up for the weaknesses.
To give one example: ArcSight Security and Incident Management is a great product to get a grip on the massive amount of data relevant to security processes. Gartner praises it sky-high. Yet in order to use it to the fullest extent of those promises you need a lot of knowledge to decently implement it. Once implemented correctly however, it does deliver.
No, TEPCO failed because they relied on a design that requires active input to stay safe. Any measures you think of to improve safety for such a design come down to security by 'Allow by default' and closing holes after exploits. Since it is impossible to keep up with all possible circumstances, this means the design is unsafe.
Have you even RTFS? It's right in there, and otherwise it's in RTFA, according to the EU directive that this law is based on, you don not have to confirm each and every cookie.
It's quite possible the IT person you are working with is a "knows just enough to be dangerous"
Fsck my moderation, this is the second poster I read posting such sentiment, and it really gets on my nerves.
By asking for a non-privileged account this IT person demonstrates the exact opposite. Not wanting access that can compromise the server (by e.g. inadvertent messing with the config as root), this IT guy is showing that he is acting professionally and intelligently; that he knows the limits of his knowledge.
It is the doctor who is showing a clear demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
So what if his parents weren't billionaires? You specifically said that "Great wealth only came to him as the result of creating something of value" (emphasis mine). Well guess what? It is easy to 'create something of value' if you do not have to struggle to make the daily ends meet. Witness Zuckerberg again, who had the time to work on Facebook during his stay at one of the harder U.S. universities. Slacking off like that is impossible unless mommy and daddy are standing by to pay your way.
Wealth breeds more wealth. It is hard to deny that with history as the witness for the prosecution. Zuckerberg is not the first whose privileged background is suddenly obscured by those who want to create yet another 'hard work can make anyone rich!' myth.
[Zuckerberg] didn't start with all that wealth and power.
Yeah right. He went to school in a district with a median income of over 100,000 USD. His parents were rich enough to send him to a prestigious boarding school, and he attended Harvard.
If that doesn't constitute the very definition of 'born with a silver spoon in his mouth', then I don't know what would.
Great wealth generally comes to those who are already wealthy. Zuckerberg is no great example to try and disprove that rule of thumb.
Perhaps it escaped your attention, but the bit you're quoting says nothing about the amount of refugees, it is rather an assesment on the areas that are at risk of producing refugees for whatever reason, including rising sea levels
Which was exactly wat the OP was pointing out.
Another data point for the hypothesis that climate denialism correlates with stupidity, I guess.
While regexes are great, and Perl's treatment of them as first-class parts of the language is a great boon, there are plenty of tasks where using a regex is the wrong thing to do, such as parsing (X|HT)ML, parsing a spreadsheet, or reading CSV files. For that you need a true parser, which is a loadable module, often with a lot of dependencies.
I also submit that if your task requires regex support or heavy system i/o, by definition Perl is not overkill anymore. However, for most of the things I use shell scripting for, I don't need Perl's advanced features. And if I only need Perl for its control flow structures, I might as well use shell script with less overhead.
How about some examples? So far you have wasted two posts and lots of verbiage on mere assertions.
I happen to think the Advanced Bash Scripting guide is just fine. Those who enter into it with no prior knowledge of shell and mess up their scripts because they don't understand what they are doing cannot blame this on the ABS. It is there in the bloody title after all: "Advanced Bash Scripting".
Then again, cargo-cult programmers who rely on copy/pasting code without understanding, and then blame the resulting breakage on the language or on their reading material exist in any language.
Try doing anything useful in Perl without loading modules.
And I'm saying this as a Perl fan. I use it for everything that can't be done in a 10-line shell script, but for some simple automation tasks it is just overkill.
Spammers don't use dictionary attacks. They just throw a purchased list of addresses at your mailserver.
In the nineties 'accept-then-bounce' might have been acceptable, but this behaviour was default until the previous version of Exchange, when rejecting already was best practice for almost a decade.
In fact, Microsoft Exchange "best practices" state you should be using the unqualified server name as one of the SAN entries in the SSL cert.
A widely trusted CA shouldn't issue certificates for unqualified hostnames. It is a bad practice. And if a document calls a bad practice for a best practice, I'll question the validity of said document.
Wouldn't be the first time MS has a very 'interesting' interpretation of best practice. Remember how long it took for Exchange to stop using 'accept-then-bounce' instead of outright rejecting the SMTP session for an unknown recipient?
The myth that a reactor system dependent on active cooling cannot be safe?
The myth that the industry downplays the risks at every turn?
The myth that every major incident until now was either caused by operator negligence or an organisational culture more concerned with cost cutting and PR than actual safety?
Hell, even with the problems found in the AVR Julich reactor in Germany, a pebble bed reactor would have been a better design than the BWRs at Fukushima.
And if you're going to argue that this design wasn't available 40 years ago, then you just confirmed my point: a design with known safety defects was built in a seismically active location. The only question was when
Mart
From the very beginning the industry supporters were downplaying the severity of the incident: "Oh no, the plant was built to only withstand an 8.something quake, look at how beatifully it shut down when it turned out to be much worse!"; "Oh no, there is some radiation, but just a tad above background!"
And then you get industry shills like the MIT NSE guys who are clothing this "Rah! Rah! Go nuclear power!" attitude in scientific sounding jargon, so that ignorant Slashbots like you can make fun of concerned people.
I say, if it is really going so well there, why don't you go off and stand in reactor building two for an hour or so?
How on earth are they supposed to release facts they don't have?
Well, that didn't stop them releasing 'facts' about the situation that turned out to be wildly optimistic every time, to say it charitably, now did it?
Yeah, the good old Microsoft solution to just about any problem: don't fix it, just throw up another useless dialog box.
And people wonder why users just click through any message without reading it. Every time I use Windows, I start to understand that attitude more and more; there is no more dialog-happy OS on the planet.
The problem is that identity confirmation is innate in providing correct encryption.
The problem is not the encryption per se, it is the key exchange. In order for Alice to securely talk to Bob, they have to agree on a shared secret to use for encryption. It is useless for Alice to provide Bob with a key unless she can verify she is not actually talking to Eve.
Yup. Just like the International Criminal Court. A great thing to have to go after Qadaffi, but God forbid it would prosecute an American, that would be tantamount to a declaration of war.
Mart
Actually, I just did an Office upgrade (and re-fired my hatred for Microsoft), and MS still says that you should install 32-bit Office, even on 64-bit systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Like many things, it is important to separate the bullshit bingo from the reality. Gartner is no different.
I work for a company where Sales believes very strongly in Gartner's magic quadrants. We sell a lot of stuff that is recommended by Gartner. Funnily enough, most of it actually delivers, even if it doesn't do so as smoothly as the marketing bullshit and Gartner promises.
If we were to sell purely on the Gartner recommendations, we'd be out of business. The strenght of the products and services, and our knowledge in how to actually implement them, makes up for the weaknesses.
To give one example: ArcSight Security and Incident Management is a great product to get a grip on the massive amount of data relevant to security processes. Gartner praises it sky-high. Yet in order to use it to the fullest extent of those promises you need a lot of knowledge to decently implement it. Once implemented correctly however, it does deliver.
Mart
Most modern designs are passively safe? Really? How do they handle decay heat on shutdown? They all require active coolant input, as far as I know.
The one exception I know of is the Pebble Bed Reactor, but that has other problems, as the Julich test reactor showed.
Mart
No, TEPCO failed because they relied on a design that requires active input to stay safe. Any measures you think of to improve safety for such a design come down to security by 'Allow by default' and closing holes after exploits. Since it is impossible to keep up with all possible circumstances, this means the design is unsafe.
Mart
Oh yeah, the London bombing. Real impressive, compared to the pinpricks of the IRA.
Mart
Have you even RTFS? It's right in there, and otherwise it's in RTFA, according to the EU directive that this law is based on, you don not have to confirm each and every cookie.
Mart
3. There is always a nitwit who can't give any arguments and therefore starts babbling about meta-issues.
Mart
Fsck my moderation, this is the second poster I read posting such sentiment, and it really gets on my nerves.
By asking for a non-privileged account this IT person demonstrates the exact opposite. Not wanting access that can compromise the server (by e.g. inadvertent messing with the config as root), this IT guy is showing that he is acting professionally and intelligently; that he knows the limits of his knowledge.
It is the doctor who is showing a clear demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Mart
So what if his parents weren't billionaires? You specifically said that "Great wealth only came to him as the result of creating something of value" (emphasis mine). Well guess what? It is easy to 'create something of value' if you do not have to struggle to make the daily ends meet. Witness Zuckerberg again, who had the time to work on Facebook during his stay at one of the harder U.S. universities. Slacking off like that is impossible unless mommy and daddy are standing by to pay your way.
Wealth breeds more wealth. It is hard to deny that with history as the witness for the prosecution. Zuckerberg is not the first whose privileged background is suddenly obscured by those who want to create yet another 'hard work can make anyone rich!' myth.
Mart
Yeah right. He went to school in a district with a median income of over 100,000 USD. His parents were rich enough to send him to a prestigious boarding school, and he attended Harvard.
If that doesn't constitute the very definition of 'born with a silver spoon in his mouth', then I don't know what would.
Great wealth generally comes to those who are already wealthy. Zuckerberg is no great example to try and disprove that rule of thumb.
Mart
When a person is already quoting Watts like a believer, he has no awareness to further.
I don't waste my time being nice to flat-earthers and creationists, why should I be nice to a climate denialist then?
Mart
Perhaps it escaped your attention, but the bit you're quoting says nothing about the amount of refugees, it is rather an assesment on the areas that are at risk of producing refugees for whatever reason, including rising sea levels
Which was exactly wat the OP was pointing out.
Another data point for the hypothesis that climate denialism correlates with stupidity, I guess.
Mart
Actually, it is you who are clueless.
While regexes are great, and Perl's treatment of them as first-class parts of the language is a great boon, there are plenty of tasks where using a regex is the wrong thing to do, such as parsing (X|HT)ML, parsing a spreadsheet, or reading CSV files. For that you need a true parser, which is a loadable module, often with a lot of dependencies.
I also submit that if your task requires regex support or heavy system i/o, by definition Perl is not overkill anymore. However, for most of the things I use shell scripting for, I don't need Perl's advanced features. And if I only need Perl for its control flow structures, I might as well use shell script with less overhead.
Mart
How about some examples? So far you have wasted two posts and lots of verbiage on mere assertions.
I happen to think the Advanced Bash Scripting guide is just fine. Those who enter into it with no prior knowledge of shell and mess up their scripts because they don't understand what they are doing cannot blame this on the ABS. It is there in the bloody title after all: "Advanced Bash Scripting".
Then again, cargo-cult programmers who rely on copy/pasting code without understanding, and then blame the resulting breakage on the language or on their reading material exist in any language.
Mart
Try doing anything useful in Perl without loading modules.
And I'm saying this as a Perl fan. I use it for everything that can't be done in a 10-line shell script, but for some simple automation tasks it is just overkill.
Mart
In countries where automotive development is not stuck in the Fifties, diesel car engines start up without 'massive clouds of black soot'.
Mart
Stop being an apologist.
There is no excuse for this behaviour.
Mart
Wouldn't be the first time MS has a very 'interesting' interpretation of best practice. Remember how long it took for Exchange to stop using 'accept-then-bounce' instead of outright rejecting the SMTP session for an unknown recipient?
Mart
What myth?
The myth that a reactor system dependent on active cooling cannot be safe?
The myth that the industry downplays the risks at every turn?
The myth that every major incident until now was either caused by operator negligence or an organisational culture more concerned with cost cutting and PR than actual safety?
Hell, even with the problems found in the AVR Julich reactor in Germany, a pebble bed reactor would have been a better design than the BWRs at Fukushima.
And if you're going to argue that this design wasn't available 40 years ago, then you just confirmed my point: a design with known safety defects was built in a seismically active location. The only question was when Mart
Have you been reading the same news I have?
From the very beginning the industry supporters were downplaying the severity of the incident: "Oh no, the plant was built to only withstand an 8.something quake, look at how beatifully it shut down when it turned out to be much worse!"; "Oh no, there is some radiation, but just a tad above background!"
And then you get industry shills like the MIT NSE guys who are clothing this "Rah! Rah! Go nuclear power!" attitude in scientific sounding jargon, so that ignorant Slashbots like you can make fun of concerned people.
I say, if it is really going so well there, why don't you go off and stand in reactor building two for an hour or so?
Mart
Well, that didn't stop them releasing 'facts' about the situation that turned out to be wildly optimistic every time, to say it charitably, now did it?
Mart
You forgot Llamasoft.
Mart
Yeah, the good old Microsoft solution to just about any problem: don't fix it, just throw up another useless dialog box.
And people wonder why users just click through any message without reading it. Every time I use Windows, I start to understand that attitude more and more; there is no more dialog-happy OS on the planet.
Mart
The problem is that identity confirmation is innate in providing correct encryption.
The problem is not the encryption per se, it is the key exchange. In order for Alice to securely talk to Bob, they have to agree on a shared secret to use for encryption. It is useless for Alice to provide Bob with a key unless she can verify she is not actually talking to Eve.
Mart
Yup. Just like the International Criminal Court. A great thing to have to go after Qadaffi, but God forbid it would prosecute an American, that would be tantamount to a declaration of war. Mart
Actually, I just did an Office upgrade (and re-fired my hatred for Microsoft), and MS still says that you should install 32-bit Office, even on 64-bit systems.
So no, Office is still effectively 32-bit only.
Mart