REAL inventors reinvent in the wheel everytime they need one!
The quote, if I understood it correctly, means that a real inventor can and would create a new invention from existing inventions. Correct me if I am wrong.
I doubt that there is no more security issue with JS (for now and not even talk about in the future). It may be a good time for me to use only Chrome for browsing, and use FF for developing web pages locally (for their easy-to-use Firebug add-on). Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript) has some vulnerability issues for JS (may or may not be outdated by now).
Your meaning is different from "forbidden" in this topic. "Forbidden" in this case means "all". Your "deny or limit" does not mean "all" of any types of fire arms (in law).
Don't need to be rude. It does not matter whether it is a utility closet or bank vault because the right question would be... does he have the authority to open the door? The answer is simply "no" because if he does then the door should not be locked or he should have the key.
What he did has a consequence as well. Who is paying for the electric bill? It is unlikely him alone to pay because it is a centralized system. I could agree that 65 degrees is a bit too low for most people, but 10-degree different cost a lot of money.
Back to the discussion, electronic or physical keys have their own advantages/disadvantages. It requires only one or a few of those who exploit the disadvantage of the keys to ruin the whole concept. Therefore, saying "electronic key is better than physical key" is a myth. It only depends on your preferences.
Forward-thinking is one thing, capability is another. I doubt that India is capable of achieving the "dream" they are having. They can't even feed and/or solve their own population poverty, how could they be able to afford a huge budget on something that may (yes may) do good for their country.
What I can see is only a corruption rather than a real plan for their country. Why? Because the disappearing fund could be included in failing missions and there will likely be plenty of failures in their attempts with their current knowledge and resources. I see a similar situation from my country that has this similar luxurious thinking regardless the voice of people against the idea. As a result, the goal has never been delivered but disappearing of funds. All the losses were from taxes that people have paid into.
Forward thinking in general is good, but it could turn bad when it is unrealistic (from whatever factors) and/or very exploitable. If there is no way to reach the goal or takes too many resources to be worthwhile, it should not be called a forward thinking.
You need to read TFA http://deedy.quora.com/Hacking-into-the-Indian-Education-System that should give you an idea of what the person in the article talks about with tampering data. Even with 1 question asked in the test, the score range should not be this ugly or the evaluation/grading method is not up to par. TLDR summary, it is statistically impossible to miss that "many" score points between 1~100 from this size of data.
On a side note, I am not sure whether the person is going to jail... I hope there won't be "mysteriously missing or injured" person because India culture is not a western culture...
if one day someone develop a machine that can read your mind and memories
Your assumption already exists but it is in a different form -- Polygraph. It is very similar to what you call "mind reading" but it can be manipulated or changed. A so called "mind reader" machine you are talking about will have a hard time (or even impossible) defeating the way humans convince/change/obscure their memory.
However, if you are talking about a new way of encryption that can be decrypted with several different keys but only one key will enable the content you intend to hide, then it would be more convincing. That may be a new encryption algorithm which is not discovered yet...
Even though it is likely that he is toast, it does not mean he will be toast. In law, there could be many things sprung up and cause you to lose a case. Or you prosecute it in a way that at the end the current support evidence is not good enough. The more evidence, the better to ensure the winning. If you keep jumping into a conclusion with whatever evidence you have while you could actually get more support evidence (and you know that this evidence will immensely help your case), it could potentially cause you to lose the case. It is a common sense to gather as much support evidence as while you could to ensure the winning.
Here is my opinion about why the guy does not let MS know about the bug but rather posts on mailing list. He mentioned about "As vuln-dev is dead, I thought I'd post here, I don't have much free
time to work on silly Microsoft code..." at the time. What is the purpose of "Vuln Dev" site? The purpose of the site is quoted below (taken from http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/82/description ).
The VULN-DEV list is dedicated to the concept of full disclosure. We believe that release of exploit code serves the security community overall. Since the list is dedicated to interactively researching vulnerabilities, there will there will generally NOT be an opportunity to warn software vendors or authors. In many cases it will not be clear that there is a problem until the exploit or description is finalized, at which point all list subscribers will know. It is very appropriate to notify vendors or authors as soon as it is clear there is a problem.
My take on this is that he is not completely clear about the bug and needs clarification from security community. He was hoping to get clarification on Vuln-dev but he could not at the time (from the part "I don't have much free time..."). As a result, he posted on seclists instead. That was on May 17, 2013. Therefore, I am not sure that your analogy is suitable to the situation at all because the meaning of "seeing something and let others know" is not the same as in computer security. The only thing I may agree is that once he completely understands the bug (as his second post on June 2), he should let MS know before he posts it.
What I usually do is to temporarily enable javascript of that site (not any others in the list) to see if the content shows up. If it still doesn't, I simply revert the NoScript back and don't go to that site again. If a site requires third party scripts to get all functions up, I don't need it. I understand that it is nice and gives more flexibilities to use others' libraries over the Internet, but I prefer web sites that use their own contents/files.
You think you are being funny but you keep it up, you will find yourself an aging bachelor before you know it. Don't buy into the line there's someone for everyone or worse, think they will come to you when the time is right. By the time you figure out none of that is true, you'll be pushing 40 and have all the aches and pains that come with middle age.
Regardless the standard or how picky you are, some people are not meant to be married. They were told (or believe) that marry is the ultimate goal of life and they expect that everything will always be fine once married. Or even worse, some believe that they will be able to figure out how married works once they get married. Sadly, many of them never grow out of their fantasy, and in the end they are not able to hold on a married. Some of them keep trying and never get the idea that they are not capable of being married. There should be some thing like "Too many tries, account frozen" thing for married.;)
Therefore, the issues are NOT your standard or when you are going to marry. Half of the issue would be from the other (spouse), and the other half is from you. If you cannot admit to life after married (not capable of being married), regardless how good your spouse is, you will always fail to hold the married and be unhappy.
Yes, a fixed amount of work for a defined period of time, this is why you pay them by the day or hour. If you want more than that then pay more than that. You don't get to pay a contractor for a days work then expect him to do a day and half's work.
If I take the OP words, his answer is in his post -- "... then shop it around to developers who are interested." In other words, the contractor must understand and agree to work with a fixed amount of payment before starting the work. If the contractor thinks that the money is not worth the work or he/she is expecting a certain hours of work, he/she should have negotiated before working on it. If he/she gets paid the full amount but could not deliver the work as the given spec (good enough with bugs), what do you think who is responsible for the extra work afterward?
If you feel the contractor's work wasn't of sufficient quality then either withhold payment and dispute it legally with them or just don't ever hire them again.
You are taking it quite far when you talk about legal. To do so, you have to be sure about your written contract with developers that ensure you to do so. It is not easy though because interpretation of laws is not the same for everyone. If you have even a hole in it, you will waste both time and money.
To me, the OP is not clear on 2 parts. One part, he/she said that he/she is an excellent product spec writer. My question would be how excellent? If his/her write up is that great, then the bugs in the software would be from the contractor (developer). However, if it is just good enough and the software produces bugs that are hidden (or not obvious) in his/her spec, then it is his/her responsibility (and the write up is not that excellent).
The other part when he/she talks about his/her client complains about bugs and he/she wants the developer to fix them for free. This is very important. What kind of "bugs" he/she is talking about? End users usually do not know what they want, and may expect something different from what the software introduces. As a result, the users complain and report the issue as a bug because it is not exactly what they want. If that is the case, the responsibility is for the OP himself/herself. However, if the bugs come from misinterpreting of the spec or incomplete implementations, it could be from the developer. I said it could be because there are some cases that the spec is not written clearly. This then refers back to what I said earlier, how excellent the spec writer the OP is?
Well, tell us the "whole" story about that before you summarize it into something too brief with bias.
To answer to GP, sometimes the law should be harsh if one violates it. Different people view each situation differently. This situation may look too harsh to Americans (and I agree), but it may not be enough or is good enough to Latvian. We are living in different cultures, so we should not expect others to be the same. If this issue happens in the U.S., then I would completely agree with the opinion.
Again, you're underestimating the careful care a (good) bartender has to follow when preparing for drinks. Say for instance, the recipe calls for lemon juice. A typical implementation of a robot would be to have lemon juice prepared earlier, but that has different taste profile to freshly juiced lemon. Then ok, let's have a juicer... except are you going to also roll the lemon carefully first to bring out the juice and flavour before cutting it carefully for the wedge? Or are you going to shred/press it? How are you going to do careful presentation work on the slice, like zesting it? Carefully pinch the skin to bring out the oils from the skin, but not actually put it in the drink?
And hell, that's just lemons.
I can't imagine having machines that are yet delicate enough to do this quickly, that are also small enough to fit in a bar, as well as being so versatile. Most likely, for a while yet, only humans can do the task considering how delicate the work is.
I am sorry but your explanation still does not convince me that these tasks (step-by-step in certain timely manner) can be perfectly done only by humans. If you are arguing about these tasks can't be done by the current technology and/or with the same amount of money that pay to hire bartenders, then I would accept that. Robots are good at doing tasks precisely if it is correctly set up. All you are talking are tasks. Unless you are talking about emotions and communication (the social part), I don't see that it is impossible with any amount of money in the near future.
Also, speaking of space, your imagination seems to be stuck to an old cranky robot hand in an assembly factory. It is all about design. The brain (CPU) parts can be outside of the bar area (could be behind the counter, the bar wall, etc), and connect the hand with wires toward the ceiling. The bar counter could be design to have specific items in specific locations (somewhat hard-wired style). Therefore, the small enough space you are talking about is irrelevant.
Your maths is correct, but that means you have an assumption of linearly incremental performance equation. What if the incremental equation is instead a 1/x? So that the result would opposite!
Obama's new 'Pay as you Earn' idea is going to change the way people pay back loans, no more the loan payment will be tied to the actual loan amount, now it will be tied to your yearly earnings, so it will make sense to rack up the biggest debt you can and stay in college as long as you possibly can stretch, and then find a low enough paying job so that you won't be repaying too much. In 10 years the remainder of your loan is forgiven, and so colleges will raise tuition faster than ever before in history, I even fully expect to see doubling of tuition in a single year. Why not, you are not paying for it, you are not price sensitive.
Even though I agree with you that there will always be people doing what you mentioned, it should not be concerned unless the U.S. is populated with those evil mind set that plan ahead to suck as much blood as they can from their host (the U.S.). I doubt that.
Unless I am very far off, a regular person would try to get the best job he or she could. Salary is one of the major reasons for taking a job. It makes no sense to take a less payment on purpose for the student loan payment. If the person is too lazy to work, the person would never get a job at all because low-payment job does not always mean less work (often times it is the opposite).
The part I agree is that there should not be any time limitation of the loan. With limitation, it actually teaches people to ignore consequences of what they have done. The loan should not be forgiven until it is paid in full.
Noticed they said "Programmers" not "Software Engineers", there is a HUGE difference between the two. Programmers are peons who design nothing, just code what they are told to code. Software Engineers design the applications/software from the ground up, has a game plan ready AND programs. These companies only want Programmers.
I don't agree with the definition. It may used to be that way, but I doubt it is that black & white any more. The words are just to be convenient. Often times, the responsibilities of those who are programmers & software engineers are overlapped. It depends on how a company names the position. Also, often times the name is related to salary rate. Don't simply put down "programmers" and praise "software engineers" with a bias. Some programmers do more design work than software engineers, and vice versa.
I half agree with you. The problem is that you assume that everyone will give in an equal (or close) amount in the sharing. In reality, this rarely happens and it usually ends up some taking advantages of the situation -- only take but not share or mostly take and very little share. The Copyright is supposed to protect from those who only take (or steal). Again, nothing is perfect. A few others found a loop hole and exploit the Copyright protection -- trolls -- and that is the issue we are facing anywhere right now.
So complaining about copyright is purely bad is extreme; whereas, saying copyright is totally good is the other extreme. I believe copyright is neutral but good or bad comes from how people use it to their own advantages.
Dedicated thieves don't go the route most people think to make money. They may also have plenty of time in their hand and no need to make it obvious. Besides, What would they lose if they really try and got locked out? Unless they are not that sophisticated thieves and associate their real identity to the attempt.
Does that CVV really matter if a thief got everything he/she needs but merely 3-digit (or 4-digit) number? Is it impossible for someone to implement a way (even brute-force) to get those 3 (or 4) digit numbers? I highly doubt that there is NO way to obtain a card's CVV number. Think out of the box please...
How does this destroy our planet? Or, for that matter, the civet cats?
You may need to research about the word ecosystem. Even though it may not guarantee that this action would destroy the world, the current ecosystem would be distorted by human and could impact other system directly and indirectly.
Seems to me the #1 way for an animal to prevent extinction is to be commercially useful alive.
You seem to be too optimistic in the issue. You need to think further outside the optimistic box. On the flip side, what would happen when there is an abuse of the system? Would the abuse cause worse effect than leaving these civets alone in their wild?
To me, attempt to make money off something you don't own in the first place is abusive and selfish. Also, many people who do not understand people from the 3rd world country would not understand how they think. There are a lot more of those who do not have, and these people may take advantage of whatever they have a hand on. In this case, there could be more people capturing all these wild animals; as a result, the local ecosystem (and could impact global in a different way) is changed by humans (and usually toward the worse). I would rather prepare for the worst than expect only good outcome of this change.
Excel marks parameters by drawing coloured borders around the selected range of cells.
I'm not quite sure how one could make it even more obvious without punching the user in the face.
Then I believe you don't know how end-user people work on Excel. One scenario I can think of from this type of user error is the assumption by the user.
For example, you create a data row and add a range-formula at the bottom of the table (to do average, count, sum, etc). Let say, your data is from A1 to A30 and you sum the value at cell A31 for those 30 rows above. Now, you have some new data to add, so you insert 2 new rows between A29 and A30. The sum-cell is now at A33 and you have empty cells at A30 and A31. When you enter new data in those 2 new cells, the sum-cell will automatically cover the values in those cells. Now, let's say you insert 2 more new rows between A32 and A33 (sum-cell). The sum-cell is now at A35. This often time is the problem for some people who don't understand Excel. These people would think that the sum-cell will automatically extend the range to cover from A1 to A34, but it is a wrong assumption. Excel will not automatically extend the range in this case and you must either edit the range or redo the sum again.
The similar behaviour (automatic range coverage when insert new rows/columns) is also in OpenOffice spreadsheet. So I believe this is an "on purpose" functionality of a spreadsheet software (correct me if I am wrong).
Well, that is still better than just using "password" as password.
"Better" does not mean it is "good enough" in the sense of security. If security is breached, do you still say "better" is "good"? This issue keeps occurring due to negligence and/or laziness of users who supposedly need to change the default password. Also, if someone intends to take control of/hijack your device, the person will find a way to get to your device and may or may not need to physically present by your house. Normally, the first thing to try is to probe with the default configuration...
In term of Verizon router, it is now publicly known as MAC address as the default password. Is it really different from '1234' in term of security?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you may misunderstand the GP.
REAL inventors reinvent in the wheel everytime they need one!
The quote, if I understood it correctly, means that a real inventor can and would create a new invention from existing inventions. Correct me if I am wrong.
I doubt that there is no more security issue with JS (for now and not even talk about in the future). It may be a good time for me to use only Chrome for browsing, and use FF for developing web pages locally (for their easy-to-use Firebug add-on). Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript) has some vulnerability issues for JS (may or may not be outdated by now).
deny or limit my right to keep and bare arms
Your meaning is different from "forbidden" in this topic. "Forbidden" in this case means "all". Your "deny or limit" does not mean "all" of any types of fire arms (in law).
Don't need to be rude. It does not matter whether it is a utility closet or bank vault because the right question would be... does he have the authority to open the door? The answer is simply "no" because if he does then the door should not be locked or he should have the key.
What he did has a consequence as well. Who is paying for the electric bill? It is unlikely him alone to pay because it is a centralized system. I could agree that 65 degrees is a bit too low for most people, but 10-degree different cost a lot of money.
Back to the discussion, electronic or physical keys have their own advantages/disadvantages. It requires only one or a few of those who exploit the disadvantage of the keys to ruin the whole concept. Therefore, saying "electronic key is better than physical key" is a myth. It only depends on your preferences.
I think you are confusing with 501c stuff (or at least 501c3) for non profit organization.
Forward-thinking is one thing, capability is another. I doubt that India is capable of achieving the "dream" they are having. They can't even feed and/or solve their own population poverty, how could they be able to afford a huge budget on something that may (yes may) do good for their country.
What I can see is only a corruption rather than a real plan for their country. Why? Because the disappearing fund could be included in failing missions and there will likely be plenty of failures in their attempts with their current knowledge and resources. I see a similar situation from my country that has this similar luxurious thinking regardless the voice of people against the idea. As a result, the goal has never been delivered but disappearing of funds. All the losses were from taxes that people have paid into.
Forward thinking in general is good, but it could turn bad when it is unrealistic (from whatever factors) and/or very exploitable. If there is no way to reach the goal or takes too many resources to be worthwhile, it should not be called a forward thinking.
You need to read TFA http://deedy.quora.com/Hacking-into-the-Indian-Education-System that should give you an idea of what the person in the article talks about with tampering data. Even with 1 question asked in the test, the score range should not be this ugly or the evaluation/grading method is not up to par. TLDR summary, it is statistically impossible to miss that "many" score points between 1~100 from this size of data.
On a side note, I am not sure whether the person is going to jail... I hope there won't be "mysteriously missing or injured" person because India culture is not a western culture...
if one day someone develop a machine that can read your mind and memories
Your assumption already exists but it is in a different form -- Polygraph. It is very similar to what you call "mind reading" but it can be manipulated or changed. A so called "mind reader" machine you are talking about will have a hard time (or even impossible) defeating the way humans convince/change/obscure their memory.
However, if you are talking about a new way of encryption that can be decrypted with several different keys but only one key will enable the content you intend to hide, then it would be more convincing. That may be a new encryption algorithm which is not discovered yet...
Even though it is likely that he is toast, it does not mean he will be toast. In law, there could be many things sprung up and cause you to lose a case. Or you prosecute it in a way that at the end the current support evidence is not good enough. The more evidence, the better to ensure the winning. If you keep jumping into a conclusion with whatever evidence you have while you could actually get more support evidence (and you know that this evidence will immensely help your case), it could potentially cause you to lose the case. It is a common sense to gather as much support evidence as while you could to ensure the winning.
Here is my opinion about why the guy does not let MS know about the bug but rather posts on mailing list. He mentioned about "As vuln-dev is dead, I thought I'd post here, I don't have much free time to work on silly Microsoft code ..." at the time. What is the purpose of "Vuln Dev" site? The purpose of the site is quoted below (taken from http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/82/description ).
The VULN-DEV list is dedicated to the concept of full disclosure. We believe that release of exploit code serves the security community overall. Since the list is dedicated to interactively researching vulnerabilities, there will there will generally NOT be an opportunity to warn software vendors or authors. In many cases it will not be clear that there is a problem until the exploit or description is finalized, at which point all list subscribers will know. It is very appropriate to notify vendors or authors as soon as it is clear there is a problem.
My take on this is that he is not completely clear about the bug and needs clarification from security community. He was hoping to get clarification on Vuln-dev but he could not at the time (from the part "I don't have much free time ..."). As a result, he posted on seclists instead. That was on May 17, 2013. Therefore, I am not sure that your analogy is suitable to the situation at all because the meaning of "seeing something and let others know" is not the same as in computer security. The only thing I may agree is that once he completely understands the bug (as his second post on June 2), he should let MS know before he posts it.
What I usually do is to temporarily enable javascript of that site (not any others in the list) to see if the content shows up. If it still doesn't, I simply revert the NoScript back and don't go to that site again. If a site requires third party scripts to get all functions up, I don't need it. I understand that it is nice and gives more flexibilities to use others' libraries over the Internet, but I prefer web sites that use their own contents/files.
You think you are being funny but you keep it up, you will find yourself an aging bachelor before you know it. Don't buy into the line there's someone for everyone or worse, think they will come to you when the time is right. By the time you figure out none of that is true, you'll be pushing 40 and have all the aches and pains that come with middle age.
Regardless the standard or how picky you are, some people are not meant to be married. They were told (or believe) that marry is the ultimate goal of life and they expect that everything will always be fine once married. Or even worse, some believe that they will be able to figure out how married works once they get married. Sadly, many of them never grow out of their fantasy, and in the end they are not able to hold on a married. Some of them keep trying and never get the idea that they are not capable of being married. There should be some thing like "Too many tries, account frozen" thing for married. ;)
Therefore, the issues are NOT your standard or when you are going to marry. Half of the issue would be from the other (spouse), and the other half is from you. If you cannot admit to life after married (not capable of being married), regardless how good your spouse is, you will always fail to hold the married and be unhappy.
Great reply and I agree. Thanks for the reply.
Yes, a fixed amount of work for a defined period of time, this is why you pay them by the day or hour. If you want more than that then pay more than that. You don't get to pay a contractor for a days work then expect him to do a day and half's work.
If I take the OP words, his answer is in his post -- "... then shop it around to developers who are interested." In other words, the contractor must understand and agree to work with a fixed amount of payment before starting the work. If the contractor thinks that the money is not worth the work or he/she is expecting a certain hours of work, he/she should have negotiated before working on it. If he/she gets paid the full amount but could not deliver the work as the given spec (good enough with bugs), what do you think who is responsible for the extra work afterward?
If you feel the contractor's work wasn't of sufficient quality then either withhold payment and dispute it legally with them or just don't ever hire them again.
You are taking it quite far when you talk about legal. To do so, you have to be sure about your written contract with developers that ensure you to do so. It is not easy though because interpretation of laws is not the same for everyone. If you have even a hole in it, you will waste both time and money.
To me, the OP is not clear on 2 parts. One part, he/she said that he/she is an excellent product spec writer. My question would be how excellent? If his/her write up is that great, then the bugs in the software would be from the contractor (developer). However, if it is just good enough and the software produces bugs that are hidden (or not obvious) in his/her spec, then it is his/her responsibility (and the write up is not that excellent).
The other part when he/she talks about his/her client complains about bugs and he/she wants the developer to fix them for free. This is very important. What kind of "bugs" he/she is talking about? End users usually do not know what they want, and may expect something different from what the software introduces. As a result, the users complain and report the issue as a bug because it is not exactly what they want. If that is the case, the responsibility is for the OP himself/herself. However, if the bugs come from misinterpreting of the spec or incomplete implementations, it could be from the developer. I said it could be because there are some cases that the spec is not written clearly. This then refers back to what I said earlier, how excellent the spec writer the OP is?
Well, tell us the "whole" story about that before you summarize it into something too brief with bias.
To answer to GP, sometimes the law should be harsh if one violates it. Different people view each situation differently. This situation may look too harsh to Americans (and I agree), but it may not be enough or is good enough to Latvian. We are living in different cultures, so we should not expect others to be the same. If this issue happens in the U.S., then I would completely agree with the opinion.
Again, you're underestimating the careful care a (good) bartender has to follow when preparing for drinks. Say for instance, the recipe calls for lemon juice. A typical implementation of a robot would be to have lemon juice prepared earlier, but that has different taste profile to freshly juiced lemon. Then ok, let's have a juicer... except are you going to also roll the lemon carefully first to bring out the juice and flavour before cutting it carefully for the wedge? Or are you going to shred/press it? How are you going to do careful presentation work on the slice, like zesting it? Carefully pinch the skin to bring out the oils from the skin, but not actually put it in the drink?
And hell, that's just lemons.
I can't imagine having machines that are yet delicate enough to do this quickly, that are also small enough to fit in a bar, as well as being so versatile. Most likely, for a while yet, only humans can do the task considering how delicate the work is.
I am sorry but your explanation still does not convince me that these tasks (step-by-step in certain timely manner) can be perfectly done only by humans. If you are arguing about these tasks can't be done by the current technology and/or with the same amount of money that pay to hire bartenders, then I would accept that. Robots are good at doing tasks precisely if it is correctly set up. All you are talking are tasks. Unless you are talking about emotions and communication (the social part), I don't see that it is impossible with any amount of money in the near future.
Also, speaking of space, your imagination seems to be stuck to an old cranky robot hand in an assembly factory. It is all about design. The brain (CPU) parts can be outside of the bar area (could be behind the counter, the bar wall, etc), and connect the hand with wires toward the ceiling. The bar counter could be design to have specific items in specific locations (somewhat hard-wired style). Therefore, the small enough space you are talking about is irrelevant.
Your maths is correct, but that means you have an assumption of linearly incremental performance equation. What if the incremental equation is instead a 1/x? So that the result would opposite!
Obama's new 'Pay as you Earn' idea is going to change the way people pay back loans, no more the loan payment will be tied to the actual loan amount, now it will be tied to your yearly earnings, so it will make sense to rack up the biggest debt you can and stay in college as long as you possibly can stretch, and then find a low enough paying job so that you won't be repaying too much. In 10 years the remainder of your loan is forgiven, and so colleges will raise tuition faster than ever before in history, I even fully expect to see doubling of tuition in a single year. Why not, you are not paying for it, you are not price sensitive.
Even though I agree with you that there will always be people doing what you mentioned, it should not be concerned unless the U.S. is populated with those evil mind set that plan ahead to suck as much blood as they can from their host (the U.S.). I doubt that.
Unless I am very far off, a regular person would try to get the best job he or she could. Salary is one of the major reasons for taking a job. It makes no sense to take a less payment on purpose for the student loan payment. If the person is too lazy to work, the person would never get a job at all because low-payment job does not always mean less work (often times it is the opposite).
The part I agree is that there should not be any time limitation of the loan. With limitation, it actually teaches people to ignore consequences of what they have done. The loan should not be forgiven until it is paid in full.
Noticed they said "Programmers" not "Software Engineers", there is a HUGE difference between the two. Programmers are peons who design nothing, just code what they are told to code. Software Engineers design the applications/software from the ground up, has a game plan ready AND programs. These companies only want Programmers.
I don't agree with the definition. It may used to be that way, but I doubt it is that black & white any more. The words are just to be convenient. Often times, the responsibilities of those who are programmers & software engineers are overlapped. It depends on how a company names the position. Also, often times the name is related to salary rate. Don't simply put down "programmers" and praise "software engineers" with a bias. Some programmers do more design work than software engineers, and vice versa.
Sharing is good. Copyright is bad.
I half agree with you. The problem is that you assume that everyone will give in an equal (or close) amount in the sharing. In reality, this rarely happens and it usually ends up some taking advantages of the situation -- only take but not share or mostly take and very little share. The Copyright is supposed to protect from those who only take (or steal). Again, nothing is perfect. A few others found a loop hole and exploit the Copyright protection -- trolls -- and that is the issue we are facing anywhere right now.
So complaining about copyright is purely bad is extreme; whereas, saying copyright is totally good is the other extreme. I believe copyright is neutral but good or bad comes from how people use it to their own advantages.
Dedicated thieves don't go the route most people think to make money. They may also have plenty of time in their hand and no need to make it obvious. Besides, What would they lose if they really try and got locked out? Unless they are not that sophisticated thieves and associate their real identity to the attempt.
Does that CVV really matter if a thief got everything he/she needs but merely 3-digit (or 4-digit) number? Is it impossible for someone to implement a way (even brute-force) to get those 3 (or 4) digit numbers? I highly doubt that there is NO way to obtain a card's CVV number. Think out of the box please...
How does this destroy our planet? Or, for that matter, the civet cats?
You may need to research about the word ecosystem. Even though it may not guarantee that this action would destroy the world, the current ecosystem would be distorted by human and could impact other system directly and indirectly.
Seems to me the #1 way for an animal to prevent extinction is to be commercially useful alive.
You seem to be too optimistic in the issue. You need to think further outside the optimistic box. On the flip side, what would happen when there is an abuse of the system? Would the abuse cause worse effect than leaving these civets alone in their wild?
To me, attempt to make money off something you don't own in the first place is abusive and selfish. Also, many people who do not understand people from the 3rd world country would not understand how they think. There are a lot more of those who do not have, and these people may take advantage of whatever they have a hand on. In this case, there could be more people capturing all these wild animals; as a result, the local ecosystem (and could impact global in a different way) is changed by humans (and usually toward the worse). I would rather prepare for the worst than expect only good outcome of this change.
Excel marks parameters by drawing coloured borders around the selected range of cells.
I'm not quite sure how one could make it even more obvious without punching the user in the face.
Then I believe you don't know how end-user people work on Excel. One scenario I can think of from this type of user error is the assumption by the user.
For example, you create a data row and add a range-formula at the bottom of the table (to do average, count, sum, etc). Let say, your data is from A1 to A30 and you sum the value at cell A31 for those 30 rows above. Now, you have some new data to add, so you insert 2 new rows between A29 and A30. The sum-cell is now at A33 and you have empty cells at A30 and A31. When you enter new data in those 2 new cells, the sum-cell will automatically cover the values in those cells. Now, let's say you insert 2 more new rows between A32 and A33 (sum-cell). The sum-cell is now at A35. This often time is the problem for some people who don't understand Excel. These people would think that the sum-cell will automatically extend the range to cover from A1 to A34, but it is a wrong assumption. Excel will not automatically extend the range in this case and you must either edit the range or redo the sum again.
The similar behaviour (automatic range coverage when insert new rows/columns) is also in OpenOffice spreadsheet. So I believe this is an "on purpose" functionality of a spreadsheet software (correct me if I am wrong).
Well, that is still better than just using "password" as password.
"Better" does not mean it is "good enough" in the sense of security. If security is breached, do you still say "better" is "good"? This issue keeps occurring due to negligence and/or laziness of users who supposedly need to change the default password. Also, if someone intends to take control of/hijack your device, the person will find a way to get to your device and may or may not need to physically present by your house. Normally, the first thing to try is to probe with the default configuration...
In term of Verizon router, it is now publicly known as MAC address as the default password. Is it really different from '1234' in term of security?