Orange juice which taste.. weird? Like tart/yeasted?
Old cock lentils and vegetables which taste... creamy? I don't know what it taste really.
I notice the difference in taste and given the option wouldn't pick it over fresher food but what if one don't want to throw it or its the only option?
Avoid all that taste weird or eat it unless terrible?
When food is going bad, its taste will be different from what it used to be (or its original taste). If it starts going that way, dump it, period. If you keep eating it, then be ready to run to the bathroom more often and may end up in a hospital. Though, I found some people who can't distinguish between what the normal taste and what not...
What would jailing the couple accomplish? Do you think society needs to be protected from them because they might find and exploit another vulnerability?
You think the fault solely lies on a big company. I don't know if you are naive or simple minded. Jailing is a kind of punishment and it DOES accomplish certain moral stand point. This is NOT just about the couple only, but it also shows others who may think of doing the similar in the future. If no punishment which is hard enough to show others, there will be copy-cat all over the place. There are "risk" and "reward" here. The risk is being punished when get caught. I can't believe you don't realize this. You are teaching the moral that it is OK to abuse vulnerability of big companies because they are at false.
What not jailing them would so is send a powerful message to Lowe's and all other companies that they need to stop shifting their costs onto taxpayers and start hiring better people instead of outsourcing at every opportunity.
Again, it shows that you hate big companies/corporations. I don't mind that because I don't like them too. The message is sent to both sides, However, you seem not to be able to see the message that is sent to people as well as to the corporations. I don't know why you are so fearful of what corporations could gain but you can't seem to see what they could also lose at the same time. I have already stated why these couple needs to be punished, but I will state it again. To me, the wrong doing start when they repeat the action to abuse the bug, period. Jailing may not be the choice of punishment (and I didn't say they must be jailed anyway), so if you choose to FINE them & return all stuff would be OK to me. They MUST be punished because they "intended" to exploit the situation. As I said before, if they did once and stop, it wouldn't be a case and I would support them. However, they INTEND to do it again and gain as much benefits off others regardless who they are doing to (it's just in this case is a corporation). That is the whole point of punishment.
a) This is about real human launguages [sic], not programming languages
b) You wern't [sic] using the speech recognition software that this is talking about
I would agree with point "a" but I would agree with point "b" only under certain conditions.
If a software is specifically for speech and has built-in functionalities in attempt to auto-correct words to fit a context sentence, then I agree. However, if it simply transcribes a speech, then it can be used to do anything and does not need to be related to just a conversation recognition.
What does Lowe's deserve for creating the loophole and not hiring qualified security people to find and fix it? Do we really want a world where companies don't have to face the consequences of their actions?
You go overboard in this case. If the couple did it once and report to Lowe, then I agree that the company should not pursue any law suit against the couple and it would be similar to paying the bounty. However, the couple abused the bug (repeatedly exploited the bug). Are you still seeing the action as consequence against the company? Because you do not like corporations doesn't mean any actions, including abuses, against the company flaw are acceptable and/or lawful.
Lowes packed up their order and had it delivered to their house! There should be like 3 computer functions that mitigate that risk and oh, a dozen PHYSICAL ACTS that should have stopped it.
Lowes is just full of fail on this one.
If you don't know, then you don't understand how a simple work flow works (especially for a big companies/corporations). It is just a simple logic why they do it the way they did.
Each check point is supposed to correctly validate inputs. If it works properly, there should NOT NEED to have redundant validations along the line later on because other processes do not need to know what other process is doing because it is not their job to validate others' work. In this case, the validation happens at the POS department, and the other department is delivery. As far as the delivery department knows, they received correct inputs (order list). Can you give me a good reason why does shipping/delivering department need to know which item has been paid and which has not when they expected POS to correctly do that already?
You can think of this as a simple program/assignment. For example, your assignment is to implement a factorial calculator. The input from users should be an integer. You implements 3 functions for your program -- acceptInput, calculateFactorial, and displayResult. For sure, you need to validate the user input to make sure that it is a positive integer (or zero) in your acceptInput() before you pass the input value to calculateFactorial(). If the input is invalid, acceptInput() should deal with the issue. Is there any reason that you need to validate the input again in your calculateFactorial() if you properly validate acceptInput() already? Then if calculateFactorial() can't compute certain factorial values due to overflow, who makes the decision on what to be displayed? Of course, it is calculateFactorial(), not displayResult() function. In other words, whatever comes out of calculateFactorial() should not need to be validated in displayResult() because it is not displayResult() job/purpose.
A proper flow is both efficient (simple work flow), speedy (no redundancy), and cost saving. However, the weak point is that if the validation failed at some point, all latter processes may be affected. In this case, the failure happened at the beginning of the process -- POS. Still, this does not directly affect latter processes (still correctly functioning) but rather the financial point of view.
The person/company who implements the application should be in big trouble because the validation of the application should have caught the bug before it went out live. Besides, this bug could cause a lot of damage to the company...
Exactly! If I plug 100 into late 2008, when QE first started, That's equivalent to 115 today. Wow.. $15 over 9 years! That's sure a lot of money!
You are so lucky to get that high interest! I have been with my bank and they give me 0.01% APY interest for a saving account since 2008. How much interest would it generate up until today for $100? >:(
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with your post. Even though it would be easier to deal with Programming if one knows Maths, they are 2 completely different skills. You could still teach programming without using the need of maths. Loop (addition/multiplication) and condition (equality/inequality) statements are not Algebra but rather Arithmetics. Using program may actually help them understand how it works because they see what they learn to be used for.
Off topic, I think Americans should teach kids (only kids) basic mathematics by teaching them how to use an abacus instead of calculator. The reason is that abacus helps them calculate simple maths (addition/subtract/multiplication/division) as images in their head. As a result, they will be able to calculate in their head when they grow up and it is much faster than a calculator.
Well a video game, I'd sell them virtual Nestle bars and not give Nestle any of the money. But that's fair right, because Nestle isn't interested in copyright or trademarks.
There is a difference. An increase of worker pay results in more tax money going to the government. There is income taxes on wages, there is not an equivalent tax deduction for corporations for worker pay.
And which one is higher? Corporate revenue taxes or worker individual income taxes???
This entire hairball can be summed up, by one statement: "government should not be dictating, how to price labor." Socialism and control (yes, even semi-controlled) markets inevitably FAIL to achieve the desired objective. However, that's never stopped a progressive from trying again and again and again... of course, expecting a different result.
Err... I don't know how could the post from GP turns into politic as this post. Anyway, no you have one directional vision toward the problem. Your statement is true only on one direction as your vision. You completely forgot human nature which is abusing of opportunity. If government does not have any involvement at all (not dictate at least a certain degree of minimum wage) in the market, eventually the market (business owners) will abuse the freedom and will cause those who are laborers to have worse conditions. On the other hand, heavily involvement of government (increase the minimum wage to an outrageous wage) would be the opposite problem as you stated.
Please try to look at any problem from both sides, not just one or you would just get only half understanding of the issue.
Hilarious, it is left wing racists that have murdered far more people in the last 40 years, destroyed property, glorify living like a savage.
Seriously? You are trying to justify your own political point of view with amount of violence of the opposite political point of view people did? Violence is NOT OKAY regardless the perpetrators' political point of view. There should never be a comparison which side did what. All of those who commit violence are wrong. Period.
Actually, according to Wikipedia, the word "Sawastika" is supposed to referred to a different symbol (clock-wised drawing), and its meaning is on the good side. However, the one that Nazis used (counter-clock-wised) is called "Sauvastika" which is the bad side of "Sawastka". However, people kept calling the bad symbol as "Sawastika" all along, so now the word is referring to a bad meaning regardless how it is being drawn...
Take a history lesson and also apply a bit of logic. When in history has a disenfranchised nation peacefully handed over absolute power to a government.
Here is the only example of how Thailand abolished slavery peacefully by the King Rama V back in 19th century (read the section "Abolition of corvée and slavery"). Not to disagree with what you said about Nazis. This is just to show you the only example I knew that there exists a way to do things the right way but would take a long time.
And when the pharmaceutical companies do come out with a harmful vaccine? Just because there has been a pretty good record of vaccines being less harmful then the diseases they prevent doesn't mean that is always going to be true and having laws forcing people to take vaccines will motivate the drug companies to make more vaccines and possibly take short cuts with testing, especially if government decides that regulating the testing is bad.
So what you meant is that if a vaccine helps 99 people to survive and finally live on but 1 person was fatal and die, the vaccine must be stop because it is harmful? I understand that you may value lives very much; however, if the benefit is for the greater good (and in the case of vaccine, it must be significantly "greater" good), then to me I would take a shot (and pun intended).
I believe you have a problem with reading comprehension there. GP said "The only way to change this is to become smart and utilize vaccines and other forms of bio-protection" which is obvious about science. Religious may change the way of thinking (which could make the situation worse) but it does not do anything physically (unless you believe in miracle). You simply picked the portion and spin it to your own way...
and every PC snowflake he sues. He did nothing wrong & he is being slandered by just about every "news" & social outfit that is willingly mischaracterizing his memo.
Have you really read his memo? Then you should know that it is NOT EVERY news & social outfit that is slandering him. Sadly, as usual, the actual problem comes from people who use his memo to advance their own political agenda. Both extreme sides interpret/characterize his memo to their own interest...
His memo is neither a complete research nor opinion piece. It is a mixture of both. About the first half of his memo, it is more scientific research. The second half, it is more of opinions that some are supported by scientific data and the rest aren't but pure opinion. However, I have to admit that his opinion is leaning toward the Right. Some of his suggestions are good, but some others aren't.
Anyway, Google mishandled his case for sure. They should have not fired him but rather apply some of his idea. They should be able to identify some of ideas that aren't good and then discuss/reason with him about those ideas. The way they handle with his case right now is similar to suppressing their own free speech system which is internally implemented for this purpose. It is a bad idea...
I don't disagree if he wants to sue Google because it is Google fault -- mismanagement. A real cooperative would be to try to resolve the issue before exercising a hash action - terminate his employment. Google is getting what it deserves.
The exponent of the equation (alphabet_size)^(length of password) matters MUCH more than the mantissa.
Put another character on the end of an alphanumeric password and you're doing more than selecting even the weirdest of keyboard-typeable symbols.
And the change-your-password-every-X-days was always junk and just provide a route for social engineering of the password reset process on a pre-determined schedule. If your password hasn't been compromised in a reasonable time, it's not going to be compromised. If your system LETS you try trillions of passwords, it's game over whether you change every week or not.
Here is one thing that I have often times seen people are doing it... Write the password on a sticky note or a paper, and then stick/tape it to the monitor. How could you beat that???
The problem is not how difficult to guess of a password is, but it is from users. They need to understand what "security" and the consequence of security breach are. As long as they don't understand the real purpose of passwords, they will never pay attention and will allow attackers to get a hold of their passwords (by neglecting, hacking, or social engineering).
Well, they must be extremely good at it, considering that IBM has been around for 100+ years.
However, the name IBM was actually created in 1924 which is not 100 years yet. Before that, it was called Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR).:p
If you got rid of the pilot and co pilot, you would barely see a blip in your ticket price.
Agreed. The real charges that we are paying to fly as customers is those fees (including taxes). If you look at the detail when buying a ticket, you will see that at least half of the price paid would be for those fees...
"This is the point. Why should it mean increased profit for airlines rather than lower prices for passengers?"
Why not both? Without having to pay pilots, hey could lower the prices for passengers and still make a profit. Might need to spend a bit more on the insurance but that's the breaks.
Because corporations often times don't think it that way. They just want to maximize profits for their investors or themselves. Do you really think they care for their customers as well???
There is nothing wrong with selling poisoned candy to the weird neighbor the night before Halloween either.
Unless you know what your weird neighbor is going to do with the candy you sold (e.g. gives it to kids in the neighborhood), then it is the opposite...
Slashdot Mirror
But how bad does it have to taste to be bad?
Orange juice which taste .. weird? Like tart/yeasted?
Old cock lentils and vegetables which taste... creamy? I don't know what it taste really.
I notice the difference in taste and given the option wouldn't pick it over fresher food but what if one don't want to throw it or its the only option?
Avoid all that taste weird or eat it unless terrible?
When food is going bad, its taste will be different from what it used to be (or its original taste). If it starts going that way, dump it, period. If you keep eating it, then be ready to run to the bathroom more often and may end up in a hospital. Though, I found some people who can't distinguish between what the normal taste and what not...
What would jailing the couple accomplish? Do you think society needs to be protected from them because they might find and exploit another vulnerability?
You think the fault solely lies on a big company. I don't know if you are naive or simple minded. Jailing is a kind of punishment and it DOES accomplish certain moral stand point. This is NOT just about the couple only, but it also shows others who may think of doing the similar in the future. If no punishment which is hard enough to show others, there will be copy-cat all over the place. There are "risk" and "reward" here. The risk is being punished when get caught. I can't believe you don't realize this. You are teaching the moral that it is OK to abuse vulnerability of big companies because they are at false.
What not jailing them would so is send a powerful message to Lowe's and all other companies that they need to stop shifting their costs onto taxpayers and start hiring better people instead of outsourcing at every opportunity.
Again, it shows that you hate big companies/corporations. I don't mind that because I don't like them too. The message is sent to both sides, However, you seem not to be able to see the message that is sent to people as well as to the corporations. I don't know why you are so fearful of what corporations could gain but you can't seem to see what they could also lose at the same time. I have already stated why these couple needs to be punished, but I will state it again. To me, the wrong doing start when they repeat the action to abuse the bug, period. Jailing may not be the choice of punishment (and I didn't say they must be jailed anyway), so if you choose to FINE them & return all stuff would be OK to me. They MUST be punished because they "intended" to exploit the situation. As I said before, if they did once and stop, it wouldn't be a case and I would support them. However, they INTEND to do it again and gain as much benefits off others regardless who they are doing to (it's just in this case is a corporation). That is the whole point of punishment.
a) This is about real human launguages [sic], not programming languages b) You wern't [sic] using the speech recognition software that this is talking about
I would agree with point "a" but I would agree with point "b" only under certain conditions.
If a software is specifically for speech and has built-in functionalities in attempt to auto-correct words to fit a context sentence, then I agree. However, if it simply transcribes a speech, then it can be used to do anything and does not need to be related to just a conversation recognition.
What does Lowe's deserve for creating the loophole and not hiring qualified security people to find and fix it? Do we really want a world where companies don't have to face the consequences of their actions?
You go overboard in this case. If the couple did it once and report to Lowe, then I agree that the company should not pursue any law suit against the couple and it would be similar to paying the bounty. However, the couple abused the bug (repeatedly exploited the bug). Are you still seeing the action as consequence against the company? Because you do not like corporations doesn't mean any actions, including abuses, against the company flaw are acceptable and/or lawful.
Lowes packed up their order and had it delivered to their house! There should be like 3 computer functions that mitigate that risk and oh, a dozen PHYSICAL ACTS that should have stopped it.
Lowes is just full of fail on this one.
If you don't know, then you don't understand how a simple work flow works (especially for a big companies/corporations). It is just a simple logic why they do it the way they did.
Each check point is supposed to correctly validate inputs. If it works properly, there should NOT NEED to have redundant validations along the line later on because other processes do not need to know what other process is doing because it is not their job to validate others' work. In this case, the validation happens at the POS department, and the other department is delivery. As far as the delivery department knows, they received correct inputs (order list). Can you give me a good reason why does shipping/delivering department need to know which item has been paid and which has not when they expected POS to correctly do that already?
You can think of this as a simple program/assignment. For example, your assignment is to implement a factorial calculator. The input from users should be an integer. You implements 3 functions for your program -- acceptInput, calculateFactorial, and displayResult. For sure, you need to validate the user input to make sure that it is a positive integer (or zero) in your acceptInput() before you pass the input value to calculateFactorial(). If the input is invalid, acceptInput() should deal with the issue. Is there any reason that you need to validate the input again in your calculateFactorial() if you properly validate acceptInput() already? Then if calculateFactorial() can't compute certain factorial values due to overflow, who makes the decision on what to be displayed? Of course, it is calculateFactorial(), not displayResult() function. In other words, whatever comes out of calculateFactorial() should not need to be validated in displayResult() because it is not displayResult() job/purpose.
A proper flow is both efficient (simple work flow), speedy (no redundancy), and cost saving. However, the weak point is that if the validation failed at some point, all latter processes may be affected. In this case, the failure happened at the beginning of the process -- POS. Still, this does not directly affect latter processes (still correctly functioning) but rather the financial point of view.
The person/company who implements the application should be in big trouble because the validation of the application should have caught the bug before it went out live. Besides, this bug could cause a lot of damage to the company...
Exactly! If I plug 100 into late 2008, when QE first started, That's equivalent to 115 today. Wow.. $15 over 9 years! That's sure a lot of money!
You are so lucky to get that high interest! I have been with my bank and they give me 0.01% APY interest for a saving account since 2008. How much interest would it generate up until today for $100? >:(
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with your post. Even though it would be easier to deal with Programming if one knows Maths, they are 2 completely different skills. You could still teach programming without using the need of maths. Loop (addition/multiplication) and condition (equality/inequality) statements are not Algebra but rather Arithmetics. Using program may actually help them understand how it works because they see what they learn to be used for.
Off topic, I think Americans should teach kids (only kids) basic mathematics by teaching them how to use an abacus instead of calculator. The reason is that abacus helps them calculate simple maths (addition/subtract/multiplication/division) as images in their head. As a result, they will be able to calculate in their head when they grow up and it is much faster than a calculator.
Well a video game, I'd sell them virtual Nestle bars and not give Nestle any of the money. But that's fair right, because Nestle isn't interested in copyright or trademarks.
They did tried to trademark but lost the case...
There is a difference. An increase of worker pay results in more tax money going to the government. There is income taxes on wages, there is not an equivalent tax deduction for corporations for worker pay.
And which one is higher? Corporate revenue taxes or worker individual income taxes???
This entire hairball can be summed up, by one statement: "government should not be dictating, how to price labor." Socialism and control (yes, even semi-controlled) markets inevitably FAIL to achieve the desired objective. However, that's never stopped a progressive from trying again and again and again... of course, expecting a different result.
Err... I don't know how could the post from GP turns into politic as this post. Anyway, no you have one directional vision toward the problem. Your statement is true only on one direction as your vision. You completely forgot human nature which is abusing of opportunity. If government does not have any involvement at all (not dictate at least a certain degree of minimum wage) in the market, eventually the market (business owners) will abuse the freedom and will cause those who are laborers to have worse conditions. On the other hand, heavily involvement of government (increase the minimum wage to an outrageous wage) would be the opposite problem as you stated.
Please try to look at any problem from both sides, not just one or you would just get only half understanding of the issue.
Hilarious, it is left wing racists that have murdered far more people in the last 40 years, destroyed property, glorify living like a savage.
Seriously? You are trying to justify your own political point of view with amount of violence of the opposite political point of view people did? Violence is NOT OKAY regardless the perpetrators' political point of view. There should never be a comparison which side did what. All of those who commit violence are wrong. Period.
Actually, according to Wikipedia, the word "Sawastika" is supposed to referred to a different symbol (clock-wised drawing), and its meaning is on the good side. However, the one that Nazis used (counter-clock-wised) is called "Sauvastika" which is the bad side of "Sawastka". However, people kept calling the bad symbol as "Sawastika" all along, so now the word is referring to a bad meaning regardless how it is being drawn...
Take a history lesson and also apply a bit of logic. When in history has a disenfranchised nation peacefully handed over absolute power to a government.
Here is the only example of how Thailand abolished slavery peacefully by the King Rama V back in 19th century (read the section "Abolition of corvée and slavery"). Not to disagree with what you said about Nazis. This is just to show you the only example I knew that there exists a way to do things the right way but would take a long time.
And when the pharmaceutical companies do come out with a harmful vaccine? Just because there has been a pretty good record of vaccines being less harmful then the diseases they prevent doesn't mean that is always going to be true and having laws forcing people to take vaccines will motivate the drug companies to make more vaccines and possibly take short cuts with testing, especially if government decides that regulating the testing is bad.
So what you meant is that if a vaccine helps 99 people to survive and finally live on but 1 person was fatal and die, the vaccine must be stop because it is harmful? I understand that you may value lives very much; however, if the benefit is for the greater good (and in the case of vaccine, it must be significantly "greater" good), then to me I would take a shot (and pun intended).
The only way to change this is to
You lost me there. That's religion, not science.
I believe you have a problem with reading comprehension there. GP said "The only way to change this is to become smart and utilize vaccines and other forms of bio-protection" which is obvious about science. Religious may change the way of thinking (which could make the situation worse) but it does not do anything physically (unless you believe in miracle). You simply picked the portion and spin it to your own way...
The average wage for people in Wisconsin generally (not just manufacturing) is around $67k. $54k doesn't sound ridiculous.
$67k? The page said otherwise.
Also, the AC GP makes sense because it is the current business model nowadays. Sad isn't it?
and every PC snowflake he sues. He did nothing wrong & he is being slandered by just about every "news" & social outfit that is willingly mischaracterizing his memo.
Have you really read his memo? Then you should know that it is NOT EVERY news & social outfit that is slandering him. Sadly, as usual, the actual problem comes from people who use his memo to advance their own political agenda. Both extreme sides interpret/characterize his memo to their own interest...
His memo is neither a complete research nor opinion piece. It is a mixture of both. About the first half of his memo, it is more scientific research. The second half, it is more of opinions that some are supported by scientific data and the rest aren't but pure opinion. However, I have to admit that his opinion is leaning toward the Right. Some of his suggestions are good, but some others aren't.
Anyway, Google mishandled his case for sure. They should have not fired him but rather apply some of his idea. They should be able to identify some of ideas that aren't good and then discuss/reason with him about those ideas. The way they handle with his case right now is similar to suppressing their own free speech system which is internally implemented for this purpose. It is a bad idea...
I don't disagree if he wants to sue Google because it is Google fault -- mismanagement. A real cooperative would be to try to resolve the issue before exercising a hash action - terminate his employment. Google is getting what it deserves.
LONG PASSWORDS.
The exponent of the equation (alphabet_size)^(length of password) matters MUCH more than the mantissa.
Put another character on the end of an alphanumeric password and you're doing more than selecting even the weirdest of keyboard-typeable symbols.
And the change-your-password-every-X-days was always junk and just provide a route for social engineering of the password reset process on a pre-determined schedule. If your password hasn't been compromised in a reasonable time, it's not going to be compromised. If your system LETS you try trillions of passwords, it's game over whether you change every week or not.
Here is one thing that I have often times seen people are doing it... Write the password on a sticky note or a paper, and then stick/tape it to the monitor. How could you beat that???
The problem is not how difficult to guess of a password is, but it is from users. They need to understand what "security" and the consequence of security breach are. As long as they don't understand the real purpose of passwords, they will never pay attention and will allow attackers to get a hold of their passwords (by neglecting, hacking, or social engineering).
Well, they must be extremely good at it, considering that IBM has been around for 100+ years.
However, the name IBM was actually created in 1924 which is not 100 years yet. Before that, it was called Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR). :p
If you got rid of the pilot and co pilot, you would barely see a blip in your ticket price.
Agreed. The real charges that we are paying to fly as customers is those fees (including taxes). If you look at the detail when buying a ticket, you will see that at least half of the price paid would be for those fees...
"This is the point. Why should it mean increased profit for airlines rather than lower prices for passengers?"
Why not both? Without having to pay pilots, hey could lower the prices for passengers and still make a profit. Might need to spend a bit more on the insurance but that's the breaks.
Because corporations often times don't think it that way. They just want to maximize profits for their investors or themselves. Do you really think they care for their customers as well???
Sounds to me like a couple programmers found a way to take their retirement accounts into their own hands.
And how the changes passed the QA anyway? I think the QA could also be involved. :p
He'd disOWN you pardenor! He got himself a XBOX!
And then he would spend the reward money on XBox games and such... MS is smart!
Don't know which counts (3 out of 8) he is convicted... Anyone can take a look at the SEC filing if interested...
There is nothing wrong with selling poisoned candy to the weird neighbor the night before Halloween either.
Unless you know what your weird neighbor is going to do with the candy you sold (e.g. gives it to kids in the neighborhood), then it is the opposite...