No, I have plenty of experience in ferretting out hidden / unknown / unstated requirements, with very good results.
I don't like the question either - if an interviewer states a problem, then dings you for not asking if there was more to the problem - that's idiotic. That's the point I was trying to (badly) get across I guess.
Maybe Archie Bunker had the right idea: "I could end all hijackings tomorrow. Just arm all the passengers. Then the hijackers have no advantage. You could pass out guns to everyone and collect them after the flight. Problem solved."
He'd already stated his problem to be solved - an in-car coffee maker. So the candidate is expected to treat his customer as an idiot and grill him for hidden / forgotten / unstated requirements? If he did that with every question the interview would take a week and he'd look like a pedantic lawyer more than anything else. No, I think the candidate got it right - if they want a more specific answer, then they need to ask a better question.
Agreed. Especially since the GPL explicitly says that the end user does not have to agree to anything in order to use and modify the software. Only if they want to distribute / sell it.
Don't be rediculous. A five ounce swallow CANNOT carry a one pound coconut... er.. message. Of course the African swallow could - that goes without saying - but the European swallow is right out. I mean, it's not a question of where he'd grip the message, it a simple matter of weight ratios.
You have to add in the 'other' stuff too - network boxes, firewalls, routers, switches, etc. Also lights and AC for it all in one place. Not all the processors in the houses will be top of the line either, which adds to the AC bill. Maybe factor in redundancy in the network too - I wouldn't want a SPOF in an array that large. Stuff adds up...
There are a few things that aren't clear in TFA, but look pretty alarming.
The article mentions a manual process for inputting a 4 digit PIN to seed the pairing process. Then goes on to state that bluetooth devices can send a 'whoops - forgot our secret key. Sorry. Can we pick a new one?' message that is honored without any intervention by, or alerting of, the user(s) involved. Just having that message - without any authentication or encrytion it seems - defeats the entire security process. WTF?
The second thing is the 4 digit PIN - if the 128 bit key is generated from a 4 digit PIN, and done without randomness (how else could both devices arrive at the same key?) - then you have less than 6 bit keys in effect. WTF?
If this article is accurate the bluetooth security protocols were designed by a bunch of frickin' morons.
<rant> Does getting paid to develop security software render people imbeciles??? It sure seems like it does to me. </rant>
What Elwood stated isn't accurate - B is the one sharing the file, that's true (in the A-B-C example). The RIAA would have to control C to know who was giving and who getting the file. BUT - in the parent post to this was a 4 node example.
In that one, the RIAA could control ANY of the 4 nodes, and not get any conclusive information out of it since any other node they connect to could be a proxy for someone else.
Legally though, they could be the seeder (F) and sue the proxy (E) that contacts them to download (or B and sue C). Do they know if E is the end downloader? No, and they don't care.
It would be up to E to defend themselves from a lawsuit - E to convince someone they *might* not be guilty of copyright infringement. And since it's a civil case, not a criminal one, there isn't any "reasonable doubt", just a "preponderance of evidence" (51% if you will). E would not have a fun time in court.
Copyright BEGAN as a temporary monopoly over copying and distribution. However, recently it also gives the copyright holder control over derivative works - the toilet paper with Jar-Jar on it would be a derivative work, as is any other story set in the Star Wars 'universe' or using it's characters or storyline.
Also, Intellectual Property includes copyrights, trade secrets, patents, trademarks, even overall 'style' in some cases. So it's pretty broad.
As for moral rights - our copyright law now basically includes them too,with the provisions about derivative works, but allows them to be assigned to another (which the European version is not).
But alas we shall never see that pass, as ALL YOUR BASE for these small, airborne, scalding grits dispensing, beowulf clustering, Soviet Russia manufactured craft
I'd like some of what you are smoking - it must be GOOD. While I admire the hard work you put in to get out of support, you have no idea what development is like.
Most of the time (>90% would be my guess) as a developer getting paid to write code you aren't *allowed* the time to "write code that is so good it doesn't - require - support". You aren't even allowed time to make a pretty good attempt at it - if you do you are lucky.
Closed source development has a huge DISADVANTAGE over OpenSourced - when you aren't getting paid by the hour, or with bosses, customers, or marketing breathing down you neck - you can give yourself the time to do it right. ClosedSource development rarely - if ever - gets that. In ClosedSource development everyone can see your code - it's like showing the world your underwear, you'll make sure it's clean.
So if it comes down to OpenSourced vs ClosedSource - that can both do the same job - I'll choose OpenSourced every time.
Actually, what I use is that building software is like building an airplane (I used to work with a lot of Air Force guys).
Like an airplane, software is most often dozens or hundreds of small parts, some new, some existing, that all have to work together, as inteded, to 'fly'. It doesn't always go as planned.
Some customers hand you a set of vague specs and show up a week later to see how much code we've written, and get upset when told we're designing. To put that in perspective, ask if they give specs for a new aircraft and show up to see how much of the airframe is built the following week. They should expect to see some design taking place.
To show the need for testing, again reference the airplane - we've just finished coding, which is equivalent to the first prototype aircraft for a new design. We now need to test it rigorously, just like an airplane is tested, and modified to correct problems unforseen in design and construction. Would your customer dare get in the cockpit of the first prototype of a new aircraft?
Actually, you raise a good point - though not one you though of:
"Real estate prices will only continue to rise over time because there are only so many places to live in this country and a lot more people both being born and moving in every day."
Italy, IIRC, actually currently has a declining population, not a growing one. And all developed countries, including the US, are headed to a steady state instead of population growth. So... perhaps in a few decades real-estate will go down in price if there ends up being a population decline - more supply, less demand.
Well, I'm sure it's kind of mutual. Chinese have a LOONG memory, and it's only been ~60 years since the occupation of China by the Japanese was ended. The Japanese conduct in China won them great emnity - I'm sure China considers Japan a Hostile Power even after all this time.
Re:Definition of sourcecode of graphics files.
on
Revising the GPL
·
· Score: 1
Oh. Sorry. Mea Culpa
Re:Definition of sourcecode of graphics files.
on
Revising the GPL
·
· Score: 1
Graphics files are what you create/edit with the GPL'd tool - it is not in any way a derivation of that tool (that's what the GPL covers). EMACS is GPL'd, but you can WRITE whatever you want with it - in no way is the letter to your grandmother you just wrote on EMACS GPL'd (whatever that can mean). The GPL is only on the source code of the TOOL - if you modify the GIMP and sell your new version THEN, and ONLY THEN, would you have to make the source code for the modified GIMP available to those you sell / give it to. But you can create whatever you want WITH the GIMP - you created the graphics, you own them. Period.
The odds come up with by these 'scientists' are ludicrous at best, and are not based on historical facts. Here are the facts: 1) Dinosaurs evolved on the Earth 2) Dinosaurs were believed killed off by a world-changing event, like is postulated here 3) The time between Dinosaurs evolving and the world-changing event was HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS. 4) Ergo, the ones who came up with the 1 in 45,500 years odds are FOS.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I have plenty of experience in ferretting out hidden / unknown / unstated requirements, with very good results.
I don't like the question either - if an interviewer states a problem, then dings you for not asking if there was more to the problem - that's idiotic. That's the point I was trying to (badly) get across I guess.
Maybe Archie Bunker had the right idea:
"I could end all hijackings tomorrow. Just arm all the passengers. Then the hijackers have no advantage. You could pass out guns to everyone and collect them after the flight. Problem solved."
He'd already stated his problem to be solved - an in-car coffee maker. So the candidate is expected to treat his customer as an idiot and grill him for hidden / forgotten / unstated requirements? If he did that with every question the interview would take a week and he'd look like a pedantic lawyer more than anything else.
No, I think the candidate got it right - if they want a more specific answer, then they need to ask a better question.
Agreed. Especially since the GPL explicitly says that the end user does not have to agree to anything in order to use and modify the software. Only if they want to distribute / sell it.
Don't be rediculous. A five ounce swallow CANNOT carry a one pound coconut ... er .. message. Of course the African swallow could - that goes without saying - but the European swallow is right out. I mean, it's not a question of where he'd grip the message, it a simple matter of weight ratios.
You have to add in the 'other' stuff too - network boxes, firewalls, routers, switches, etc. Also lights and AC for it all in one place. Not all the processors in the houses will be top of the line either, which adds to the AC bill. Maybe factor in redundancy in the network too - I wouldn't want a SPOF in an array that large. Stuff adds up...
Or finding Jimmy Hoffa's body.
[drumming fingers on desk, waiting for the announcement]
Works as a DOS attack too then. Yay.
There are a few things that aren't clear in TFA, but look pretty alarming.
The article mentions a manual process for inputting a 4 digit PIN to seed the pairing process. Then goes on to state that bluetooth devices can send a 'whoops - forgot our secret key. Sorry. Can we pick a new one?' message that is honored without any intervention by, or alerting of, the user(s) involved. Just having that message - without any authentication or encrytion it seems - defeats the entire security process. WTF?
The second thing is the 4 digit PIN - if the 128 bit key is generated from a 4 digit PIN, and done without randomness (how else could both devices arrive at the same key?) - then you have less than 6 bit keys in effect. WTF?
If this article is accurate the bluetooth security protocols were designed by a bunch of frickin' morons.
<rant> Does getting paid to develop security software render people imbeciles??? It sure seems like it does to me. </rant>
Much better example I agree.
What Elwood stated isn't accurate - B is the one sharing the file, that's true (in the A-B-C example). The RIAA would have to control C to know who was giving and who getting the file. BUT - in the parent post to this was a 4 node example.
In that one, the RIAA could control ANY of the 4 nodes, and not get any conclusive information out of it since any other node they connect to could be a proxy for someone else.
Legally though, they could be the seeder (F) and sue the proxy (E) that contacts them to download (or B and sue C). Do they know if E is the end downloader? No, and they don't care.
It would be up to E to defend themselves from a lawsuit - E to convince someone they *might* not be guilty of copyright infringement. And since it's a civil case, not a criminal one, there isn't any "reasonable doubt", just a "preponderance of evidence" (51% if you will). E would not have a fun time in court.
Copyright BEGAN as a temporary monopoly over copying and distribution. However, recently it also gives the copyright holder control over derivative works - the toilet paper with Jar-Jar on it would be a derivative work, as is any other story set in the Star Wars 'universe' or using it's characters or storyline.
,with the provisions about derivative works, but allows them to be assigned to another (which the European version is not).
Also, Intellectual Property includes copyrights, trade secrets, patents, trademarks, even overall 'style' in some cases. So it's pretty broad.
As for moral rights - our copyright law now basically includes them too
But alas we shall never see that pass, as ALL YOUR BASE for these small, airborne, scalding grits dispensing, beowulf clustering, Soviet Russia manufactured craft
ARE BELONG TO US
That's the wedge - Once you are running Firefox, GAIM, OpenOffice.org, The GIMP, etc. etc. - What do you really NEED Windows for, besides Solitare?
Actually, several navys used airships for anti-submarine work and surveillance during WWII.
I'd like some of what you are smoking - it must be GOOD. While I admire the hard work you put in to get out of support, you have no idea what development is like.
Most of the time (>90% would be my guess) as a developer getting paid to write code you aren't *allowed* the time to "write code that is so good it doesn't - require - support". You aren't even allowed time to make a pretty good attempt at it - if you do you are lucky.
Closed source development has a huge DISADVANTAGE over OpenSourced - when you aren't getting paid by the hour, or with bosses, customers, or marketing breathing down you neck - you can give yourself the time to do it right. ClosedSource development rarely - if ever - gets that. In ClosedSource development everyone can see your code - it's like showing the world your underwear, you'll make sure it's clean.
So if it comes down to OpenSourced vs ClosedSource - that can both do the same job - I'll choose OpenSourced every time.
Actually, what I use is that building software is like building an airplane (I used to work with a lot of Air Force guys).
Like an airplane, software is most often dozens or hundreds of small parts, some new, some existing, that all have to work together, as inteded, to 'fly'. It doesn't always go as planned.
Some customers hand you a set of vague specs and show up a week later to see how much code we've written, and get upset when told we're designing. To put that in perspective, ask if they give specs for a new aircraft and show up to see how much of the airframe is built the following week. They should expect to see some design taking place.
To show the need for testing, again reference the airplane - we've just finished coding, which is equivalent to the first prototype aircraft for a new design. We now need to test it rigorously, just like an airplane is tested, and modified to correct problems unforseen in design and construction. Would your customer dare get in the cockpit of the first prototype of a new aircraft?
Anyone want to bet how long until a spammer sets up a zombie to hit IBM with emails from "joe@ibm.com"?
If this description of how IBM built their system is accurate, they'll DOS themselves.
My bet is one week, or until the first spammer gets ticked off by their zombies being slowed down, whichever comes first.
Actually, you raise a good point - though not one you though of:
"Real estate prices will only continue to rise over time because there are only so many places to live in this country and a lot more people both being born and moving in every day."
Italy, IIRC, actually currently has a declining population, not a growing one. And all developed countries, including the US, are headed to a steady state instead of population growth. So... perhaps in a few decades real-estate will go down in price if there ends up being a population decline - more supply, less demand.
Huh. Something to think about.
"Linux works somewhat similarly, but fortunately you can replace just the kernel, rather than the entire OS."
Or simply select the correct one when booting - several distros include SMP kernels by default.
Well, I'm sure it's kind of mutual. Chinese have a LOONG memory, and it's only been ~60 years since the occupation of China by the Japanese was ended. The Japanese conduct in China won them great emnity - I'm sure China considers Japan a Hostile Power even after all this time.
Well said - perhaps it can be summed up thus:
Linux is Windows' competition.
Linux has no competition.
Oh. Sorry. Mea Culpa
Graphics files are what you create/edit with the GPL'd tool - it is not in any way a derivation of that tool (that's what the GPL covers). EMACS is GPL'd, but you can WRITE whatever you want with it - in no way is the letter to your grandmother you just wrote on EMACS GPL'd (whatever that can mean). The GPL is only on the source code of the TOOL - if you modify the GIMP and sell your new version THEN, and ONLY THEN, would you have to make the source code for the modified GIMP available to those you sell / give it to. But you can create whatever you want WITH the GIMP - you created the graphics, you own them. Period.
Get it now?
"You went up in that thing? You're braver than I though."
The odds come up with by these 'scientists' are ludicrous at best, and are not based on historical facts. Here are the facts:
1) Dinosaurs evolved on the Earth
2) Dinosaurs were believed killed off by a world-changing event, like is postulated here
3) The time between Dinosaurs evolving and the world-changing event was HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS.
4) Ergo, the ones who came up with the 1 in 45,500 years odds are FOS.