Imagine being an A380 or 777 captain making $250K+ a year flying all over the world, then getting hit by a car or losing your vision.
You go on long term sick leave and still make over 6 figures. And the way airlines are hiring right now, any commercial pilot who leaves an airline not due to performance or loss of medical will find a job somewhere else, they will just start over in seniority and pay.
Long term disability insurance tends to cap out at under six figures, or at least it has at the last three employers I have worked for. While my company's plan covers 60% of salary, that caps out at $90k per year so it doesn't actually reach 60% of my salary. It also doesn't account for bonuses which is a significant part of my total compensation.
A pilot making $250k a year certainly wouldn't be poor if he became too disabled to be a pilot, but he would probably take a $7500+ reduction to his take home pay each month which is no small thing.
It's kind of curious how most of the people getting shitcanned for pussy grabbing (Harvey Weinstein, Rob Malda, Al Franken, John Conyors, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, etc) are liberals.
I'm not saying conservatives don't like pussy. But they get busted for it. Liberals have been getting a free pass (Bill Clinton much) for years and now the bill is coming due.
The current outpouring of sexual harassment accusations are primarily focused against politicians, Hollywood, and the press. It's not surprising that most of those accused would have Democratic leaning views considering the demographics of those groups. As for politicians, there are plenty of Republicans being accused such as Trump, Moore, and Bush Sr.
This is not a partisan issue. This is a gender issue.
You sir, are laughably moronic. A farmer can bury his shit and dig a well.
Is that some kind of joke? I'm not exactly sure how a farmer burying his possessions helps when millions of migrants from the cities come to take their land. The 2% of the population who are farmers aren't going to be any better off than the other 98% when those masses are looking for land to plant crops.
100% post justification of emotional positioning. Let me guess: you live in a city.
Nope, my dad was a farmer and I lived the first 20 years of my life about 15 miles outside of a rural farm town. You seem to have some mythical view of farmers who can live off the land and repel a dozen invaders with his ex-Marine combat skills. Most of them are just as dependent on technology as those who live in the city. My dad's main cash crop yields grew from about 75 bushels an acre in the 70's to nearly 200 bushels an acre when he retired a few years ago, and all of that was from relying more technology. If my dad was still farming and Monsanto stopped producing seeds next year, he wouldn't grow anything but alfalfa. If his tractor broke down needing anything but the most minor repairs, he wouldn't grow anything either. 20 years ago he would just ask a neighbor for help, but while today's technology may make him twice as productive it also makes him nearly completely dependent on that technology.
On the other hand, the farmers near the suburbs I work now grow mostly vegetables for local consumers. They would do much better.
If the US or any modern country crashed completely people in the cities are going to die off pretty badly due to crime, disease, hunger and so on. [...] People out in the country with an artesian well, solar panels, a stockpile of food, the land to grow more and a lot of guns to ward off scavengers/hunt game would fare better.
If civilization really crashed, city dwellers would migrate out to rural areas very quickly. And no amount of small arms would stop that migration. Well funded armies can be toppled by revolution; rural families with a couple rifles each won't fare any better. It isn't like urban dwellers would just stay in the city without enough food and water, they will go to where the cultivatable land is.
Arguably city dwellers like more government because they're dependent on government. Rural types are less dependent and therefore less keen.
Those rural types are just as dependent on the government for the protection of property rights. The average small farm owner probably relies on the government more than your average city dweller because they have more wealth tied to land rights which the government defends.
Every farmer I know, and I know 3, is a millionaire. The poor country farm owner is a myth.
The poor country farm laborer, on the other hand, is a real thing, and also the best prospect for most millennials.
I grew up in a farming community and there were two very different classes of farmers. One owned land passed down to them by their parents. They were very well off and their kids became instant millionaires as soon as their parents died and the farm was sold off.
The other class, and they were the majority in my area, rented their farmland or were hired hands. They made a working class living. My father was lucky enough to rent land from a long time friend of the family who had no intention of making the most profit possible. Luckily after that owner died her kids let him farm another 4 years with the same low rates until he retired, even as their lawyer tried to convince them otherwise. My father had it very easy and made far more money than most farmers who rented land.
The poor country farmer is not a myth, but it isn't the vast majority either. Across the country about half of small family farms are owned by the family, although many of these could be considered "house poor" because so much of their wealth is tied to their land until they sell the farm.
I don't know what to make of this. Either people are too lazy to even load a dishwasher and just litter the plates all over their house, or maybe there really is not much robots can do for us because our basic needs are already fulfilled by simple household appliances.
It takes far longer than 5 minutes to load a dishwasher, unless you are single and never cook. The process of cleaning pots and pans by hand, rinsing dishes, scraping off tough to clean food, loading a dishwasher, unloading a dishwasher, and putting them away in the cabinets is easily a half hour of effort for a family of four, if not a little longer.
That is a significant amount of work to offload; probably more time savings than dishwashers initially introduced.
So what people actually want is robots to take the dirty dishes and put them into the dishwasher, and then press a button?
(and presumably unload and put them away afterwards)
Yes. And to rinse the dishes first, scrape off food which the dishwasher will have trouble cleaning, and most importantly put them away after they are dry.
Code cannot behave in unintended ways if the intentions are not defined. The opposite of unintended is intended. All bugs are when the code does not do what is intentionally defined.
Plenty of requirements are implicit. Very few requirements documents would list something like: "Don't delete all files on the computer when they click the Cancel button", but if some random cancel button ends up deleting all files on their computer it would be considered a bug.
All design decisions are intentional. Bugs are by definition unintentional defects.
All design decisions are intentional, but design decisions nearly always have unintentional effects. Bugs are often caused by those unintentional effects.
Anyway, if you read any books on architecture, design, or security, they all say that you cannot test for architectural or design flaws because by definition, you tests are working to spec and should not fail if they follow the architecture and design.
Do you have an example of such a book? Our testing team routinely catches architectural or design flaws when their tests identify edge cases which were not considered during architectural or design reviews. It is certainly much harder to catch these defects but it certainly common to do so.
I am assuming Torvalds considers not building security into a system is a bug.
By that measure, the code with the most bugs is the program that hasn't been written yet.
If the program hasn't been written yet, it cannot behave in any unintended way. So no, it doesn't have any bugs. A piece of software that when run allows a user to do something they aren't supposed to do is behaving in an unintended way, so that is a bug regardless of whether they put any thought into security when building it.
I disagree that you can view lack of security as a bug. Using your example, lets say a novel way to attack databases developed in 2018. Lets call it relationship mutations. Today we have no idea how it works and how to defend against it, because it isn't invented yet. Are all databases released today buggy as a result? Do they become buggy, without any code change whatsoever, at the time this new exploit is invented?
I am not sure why you don't consider that a bug. If a new way of attacking any SQL command was discovered tomorrow, that would simply mean that 100% of existing SQL commands have a bug in them. It was a previously undiscovered bug, but a bug which needs to be fixed none the less. Perhaps the bug is in the SQL syntax or ODBC interface, but it is still a bug in need of fixing.
He is demonstrably wrong. True, some security problems are bugs, but there are also security problems that are bad design choices, that are misconfigurations, that are counting use of old technology (e.g. RSA 1024), that are poor use cases (nobody follows policy, because it is too complex and/or convoluted). You can't secure systems with just code reviews and patching. No way, no how.
The context of Linus's statements must also be considered. He is talking about product level security (Linux kernal in this case), not enterprise scale system level security. At my company some security concerns are at the product level, such as ensuring users can only see the appropriate fields / records. Others are at the operations level, such as properly verifying the identity of a customer over the phone before relieving certain information. I agree with Linus that security problems at the product level are primarily just bugs. Security problems at the level of corporate policies are sometimes bugs, but also sometimes the result of people not following protocol. All the training in the world will never prevent employees from making mistakes, and sometimes it isn't possible to put checks and balances everywhere.
It's true, security problems usually exploit a bug. BUT, in general, there is a systematic problem underneath the bug, which allows a bug in a program to escalate to gain access to root-level systems. So, it's not just a bug, but a bug that is built on a system that does not have security built in.
I am assuming Torvalds considers not building security into a system is a bug. Consider software which does not prevent SQL injection attacks. If there was no attempt to prevent these attacks, technically the code is working as intended. Security simply was not a consideration. But in practice I believe it is still fair to consider that a bug.
Except, it's not the little guy who's buying new equipment for a small business, it's that "rich" business owner. It's not the little guy who's been keeping huge piles of cash outside of the US because of wildly high domestic tax rates. The whole idea is to get businesses buying new facilities and equipment and hiring people. Because when you have an historically high number of people who've given up looking for work, new business activity and a paycheck is FAR more of a big deal than getting $30 a week less in taxes taken out of a paycheck (that you don't have).
But it is the little guy who spends more if that money in the local economy, causing a much greater benefit to the US economy. There is no significant debate among economists that giving more money to the poor, working, and middle class creates a greater economic gain than giving more money to the rich. Increased demand causes increased investment to meet the demand. Having more cash on hand but no demand to fill does not benefit the economy nearly as much.
Believing giving the rich greater tax breaks will help the economy is at a similar level of ignorance as climate change denial.
I don't understand your comment. In both cases, the graduate student and apprentice are being paid under market rate because of the education they are receiving. Today neither of them are taxes on the value of that free education. What makes you think either are being treated differently today?
Right, the tax breaks for the "little guy" make up only a small portion of the impact of the bill because "the little guy" makes up only a VERY small portion of the taxes paid in the first place. How is this mysterious? It's simple math.
It is also simple math that you can give tax breaks to the middle class without giving any tax breaks to the wealthy. It wouldn't take any effort, just give tax breaks that phase out at a certain income level. This is the only reasonable option with the current level of deficits and income inequality.
Then be honest. The vast majority of the middle class takes the standard deduction, which doubles under the "R's" tax plan.
The vast majority of the middle class making under $50k yearly per year take the standard deduction, but the majority of middle class families making over $75k yearly itemize their deductions. This plan does help the majority of middle class Americans a little, and helps wealthy Americans a lot. This is all paid for by the upper middle class, middle class citizens in many blue states, and all citizens overall by increasing national debt. It is the bill that wealthy donors have been working for years to get passed under the illusion it will help the economy. In truth it is merely a huge tax break for the wealthy.
So, that guy down the street who's running a modest landscaping business and will come out thousands of dollars ahead every year, the hell with him?
And the other guy down the street who's running a modest landscaping business will lose thousands of dollars a year from extra taxes. It all depends on what state they live in and what deductions they may be losing. A little higher taxes on the higher end of the middle class ($50k-$300k yearly income) wouldn't be such a bad thing if it wasn't funding massive tax breaks on the ultra-wealthy.
They can cut taxes on the poor, working, and middle class without the massive tax breaks to the wealthy and drastically increased national debt. All of the tax breaks for the "little guy" make up a small fraction of this tax bill.
Without these waivers, you would have to work like the rest of us. Instead, you get free education.
They are working. They are paying for their education with their labor. The government values a highly educated workforce, so it provides tax incentives to increase the number of people who can afford an education. This simply reduces government funding and reduces the quality of education in our country. That is all.
Then consider reading outside of your echo chamber.
It is quite amusing that someone who doesn't realize this entire tax bill is a sham to give tax breaks to the wealthy is accusing others of being in an echo chamber.
Although I do agree that everything about the tax bill isn't bad. Just the entire concept of it and 90%+ of the details. The simple fact is that it vastly increases the debt to give tax breaks to the wealthy that nearly all economists agree won't help the economy, and then gives a few hundred dollars a year to everyone else so they can claim the bill helps everyone. It takes some real blinders to have anything good to say about this sham of a tax reform bill.
I just don't dig "family cars"....sedans with > 2 seats.
I get that. I put down a deposit for the Tesla 3 but ended up getting a convertible instead because I decided I just wanted a convertible. I would have went with a Tesla instead of a BMW if there was a convertible Tesla, but there isn't. A $50-75k Tesla convertible would certainly get my money when they make one though.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine being an A380 or 777 captain making $250K+ a year flying all over the world, then getting hit by a car or losing your vision.
You go on long term sick leave and still make over 6 figures. And the way airlines are hiring right now, any commercial pilot who leaves an airline not due to performance or loss of medical will find a job somewhere else, they will just start over in seniority and pay.
Long term disability insurance tends to cap out at under six figures, or at least it has at the last three employers I have worked for. While my company's plan covers 60% of salary, that caps out at $90k per year so it doesn't actually reach 60% of my salary. It also doesn't account for bonuses which is a significant part of my total compensation.
A pilot making $250k a year certainly wouldn't be poor if he became too disabled to be a pilot, but he would probably take a $7500+ reduction to his take home pay each month which is no small thing.
It's kind of curious how most of the people getting shitcanned for pussy grabbing (Harvey Weinstein, Rob Malda, Al Franken, John Conyors, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, etc) are liberals.
I'm not saying conservatives don't like pussy. But they get busted for it. Liberals have been getting a free pass (Bill Clinton much) for years and now the bill is coming due.
The current outpouring of sexual harassment accusations are primarily focused against politicians, Hollywood, and the press. It's not surprising that most of those accused would have Democratic leaning views considering the demographics of those groups. As for politicians, there are plenty of Republicans being accused such as Trump, Moore, and Bush Sr.
This is not a partisan issue. This is a gender issue.
You sir, are laughably moronic. A farmer can bury his shit and dig a well.
Is that some kind of joke? I'm not exactly sure how a farmer burying his possessions helps when millions of migrants from the cities come to take their land. The 2% of the population who are farmers aren't going to be any better off than the other 98% when those masses are looking for land to plant crops.
100% post justification of emotional positioning. Let me guess: you live in a city.
Nope, my dad was a farmer and I lived the first 20 years of my life about 15 miles outside of a rural farm town. You seem to have some mythical view of farmers who can live off the land and repel a dozen invaders with his ex-Marine combat skills. Most of them are just as dependent on technology as those who live in the city. My dad's main cash crop yields grew from about 75 bushels an acre in the 70's to nearly 200 bushels an acre when he retired a few years ago, and all of that was from relying more technology. If my dad was still farming and Monsanto stopped producing seeds next year, he wouldn't grow anything but alfalfa. If his tractor broke down needing anything but the most minor repairs, he wouldn't grow anything either. 20 years ago he would just ask a neighbor for help, but while today's technology may make him twice as productive it also makes him nearly completely dependent on that technology.
On the other hand, the farmers near the suburbs I work now grow mostly vegetables for local consumers. They would do much better.
If the US or any modern country crashed completely people in the cities are going to die off pretty badly due to crime, disease, hunger and so on. [...] People out in the country with an artesian well, solar panels, a stockpile of food, the land to grow more and a lot of guns to ward off scavengers/hunt game would fare better.
If civilization really crashed, city dwellers would migrate out to rural areas very quickly. And no amount of small arms would stop that migration. Well funded armies can be toppled by revolution; rural families with a couple rifles each won't fare any better. It isn't like urban dwellers would just stay in the city without enough food and water, they will go to where the cultivatable land is.
Arguably city dwellers like more government because they're dependent on government. Rural types are less dependent and therefore less keen.
Those rural types are just as dependent on the government for the protection of property rights. The average small farm owner probably relies on the government more than your average city dweller because they have more wealth tied to land rights which the government defends.
Every farmer I know, and I know 3, is a millionaire. The poor country farm owner is a myth.
The poor country farm laborer, on the other hand, is a real thing, and also the best prospect for most millennials.
I grew up in a farming community and there were two very different classes of farmers. One owned land passed down to them by their parents. They were very well off and their kids became instant millionaires as soon as their parents died and the farm was sold off.
The other class, and they were the majority in my area, rented their farmland or were hired hands. They made a working class living. My father was lucky enough to rent land from a long time friend of the family who had no intention of making the most profit possible. Luckily after that owner died her kids let him farm another 4 years with the same low rates until he retired, even as their lawyer tried to convince them otherwise. My father had it very easy and made far more money than most farmers who rented land.
The poor country farmer is not a myth, but it isn't the vast majority either. Across the country about half of small family farms are owned by the family, although many of these could be considered "house poor" because so much of their wealth is tied to their land until they sell the farm.
I don't know what to make of this. Either people are too lazy to even load a dishwasher and just litter the plates all over their house, or maybe there really is not much robots can do for us because our basic needs are already fulfilled by simple household appliances.
It takes far longer than 5 minutes to load a dishwasher, unless you are single and never cook. The process of cleaning pots and pans by hand, rinsing dishes, scraping off tough to clean food, loading a dishwasher, unloading a dishwasher, and putting them away in the cabinets is easily a half hour of effort for a family of four, if not a little longer.
That is a significant amount of work to offload; probably more time savings than dishwashers initially introduced.
So what people actually want is robots to take the dirty dishes and put them into the dishwasher, and then press a button?
(and presumably unload and put them away afterwards)
Yes. And to rinse the dishes first, scrape off food which the dishwasher will have trouble cleaning, and most importantly put them away after they are dry.
The ONLY ways I've found turkey to be remotely flavorful are: Injecting it and deep frying it, or smoking it.
Have you ever tried gravy?
Code cannot behave in unintended ways if the intentions are not defined. The opposite of unintended is intended. All bugs are when the code does not do what is intentionally defined.
Plenty of requirements are implicit. Very few requirements documents would list something like: "Don't delete all files on the computer when they click the Cancel button", but if some random cancel button ends up deleting all files on their computer it would be considered a bug.
All design decisions are intentional. Bugs are by definition unintentional defects.
All design decisions are intentional, but design decisions nearly always have unintentional effects. Bugs are often caused by those unintentional effects.
Anyway, if you read any books on architecture, design, or security, they all say that you cannot test for architectural or design flaws because by definition, you tests are working to spec and should not fail if they follow the architecture and design.
Do you have an example of such a book? Our testing team routinely catches architectural or design flaws when their tests identify edge cases which were not considered during architectural or design reviews. It is certainly much harder to catch these defects but it certainly common to do so.
I am assuming Torvalds considers not building security into a system is a bug.
By that measure, the code with the most bugs is the program that hasn't been written yet.
If the program hasn't been written yet, it cannot behave in any unintended way. So no, it doesn't have any bugs. A piece of software that when run allows a user to do something they aren't supposed to do is behaving in an unintended way, so that is a bug regardless of whether they put any thought into security when building it.
I disagree that you can view lack of security as a bug. Using your example, lets say a novel way to attack databases developed in 2018. Lets call it relationship mutations. Today we have no idea how it works and how to defend against it, because it isn't invented yet. Are all databases released today buggy as a result? Do they become buggy, without any code change whatsoever, at the time this new exploit is invented?
I am not sure why you don't consider that a bug. If a new way of attacking any SQL command was discovered tomorrow, that would simply mean that 100% of existing SQL commands have a bug in them. It was a previously undiscovered bug, but a bug which needs to be fixed none the less. Perhaps the bug is in the SQL syntax or ODBC interface, but it is still a bug in need of fixing.
He is demonstrably wrong. True, some security problems are bugs, but there are also security problems that are bad design choices, that are misconfigurations, that are counting use of old technology (e.g. RSA 1024), that are poor use cases (nobody follows policy, because it is too complex and/or convoluted). You can't secure systems with just code reviews and patching. No way, no how.
A software bug is an error, flaw, failure or fault in a computer program or system that causes it to produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or to behave in unintended ways. You may disagree with this definition of a software bug from Wikipedia, but I think it lines up with what I consider a bug. The bad design choices you mention are merely another potential cause of a bug.
The context of Linus's statements must also be considered. He is talking about product level security (Linux kernal in this case), not enterprise scale system level security. At my company some security concerns are at the product level, such as ensuring users can only see the appropriate fields / records. Others are at the operations level, such as properly verifying the identity of a customer over the phone before relieving certain information. I agree with Linus that security problems at the product level are primarily just bugs. Security problems at the level of corporate policies are sometimes bugs, but also sometimes the result of people not following protocol. All the training in the world will never prevent employees from making mistakes, and sometimes it isn't possible to put checks and balances everywhere.
It's true, security problems usually exploit a bug. BUT, in general, there is a systematic problem underneath the bug, which allows a bug in a program to escalate to gain access to root-level systems. So, it's not just a bug, but a bug that is built on a system that does not have security built in.
I am assuming Torvalds considers not building security into a system is a bug. Consider software which does not prevent SQL injection attacks. If there was no attempt to prevent these attacks, technically the code is working as intended. Security simply was not a consideration. But in practice I believe it is still fair to consider that a bug.
Except, it's not the little guy who's buying new equipment for a small business, it's that "rich" business owner. It's not the little guy who's been keeping huge piles of cash outside of the US because of wildly high domestic tax rates. The whole idea is to get businesses buying new facilities and equipment and hiring people. Because when you have an historically high number of people who've given up looking for work, new business activity and a paycheck is FAR more of a big deal than getting $30 a week less in taxes taken out of a paycheck (that you don't have).
But it is the little guy who spends more if that money in the local economy, causing a much greater benefit to the US economy. There is no significant debate among economists that giving more money to the poor, working, and middle class creates a greater economic gain than giving more money to the rich. Increased demand causes increased investment to meet the demand. Having more cash on hand but no demand to fill does not benefit the economy nearly as much.
Believing giving the rich greater tax breaks will help the economy is at a similar level of ignorance as climate change denial.
Employer health care costs have went up faster than inflation, making up for the slight reduction in salary relative to inflation.
I don't understand your comment. In both cases, the graduate student and apprentice are being paid under market rate because of the education they are receiving. Today neither of them are taxes on the value of that free education. What makes you think either are being treated differently today?
Right, the tax breaks for the "little guy" make up only a small portion of the impact of the bill because "the little guy" makes up only a VERY small portion of the taxes paid in the first place. How is this mysterious? It's simple math.
It is also simple math that you can give tax breaks to the middle class without giving any tax breaks to the wealthy. It wouldn't take any effort, just give tax breaks that phase out at a certain income level. This is the only reasonable option with the current level of deficits and income inequality.
Then be honest. The vast majority of the middle class takes the standard deduction, which doubles under the "R's" tax plan.
The vast majority of the middle class making under $50k yearly per year take the standard deduction, but the majority of middle class families making over $75k yearly itemize their deductions. This plan does help the majority of middle class Americans a little, and helps wealthy Americans a lot. This is all paid for by the upper middle class, middle class citizens in many blue states, and all citizens overall by increasing national debt. It is the bill that wealthy donors have been working for years to get passed under the illusion it will help the economy. In truth it is merely a huge tax break for the wealthy.
So, that guy down the street who's running a modest landscaping business and will come out thousands of dollars ahead every year, the hell with him?
And the other guy down the street who's running a modest landscaping business will lose thousands of dollars a year from extra taxes. It all depends on what state they live in and what deductions they may be losing. A little higher taxes on the higher end of the middle class ($50k-$300k yearly income) wouldn't be such a bad thing if it wasn't funding massive tax breaks on the ultra-wealthy.
They can cut taxes on the poor, working, and middle class without the massive tax breaks to the wealthy and drastically increased national debt. All of the tax breaks for the "little guy" make up a small fraction of this tax bill.
Without these waivers, you would have to work like the rest of us. Instead, you get free education.
They are working. They are paying for their education with their labor. The government values a highly educated workforce, so it provides tax incentives to increase the number of people who can afford an education. This simply reduces government funding and reduces the quality of education in our country. That is all.
Everything I hear about it is wrong.
Then consider reading outside of your echo chamber.
It is quite amusing that someone who doesn't realize this entire tax bill is a sham to give tax breaks to the wealthy is accusing others of being in an echo chamber.
Although I do agree that everything about the tax bill isn't bad. Just the entire concept of it and 90%+ of the details. The simple fact is that it vastly increases the debt to give tax breaks to the wealthy that nearly all economists agree won't help the economy, and then gives a few hundred dollars a year to everyone else so they can claim the bill helps everyone. It takes some real blinders to have anything good to say about this sham of a tax reform bill.
I just don't dig "family cars"....sedans with > 2 seats.
I get that. I put down a deposit for the Tesla 3 but ended up getting a convertible instead because I decided I just wanted a convertible. I would have went with a Tesla instead of a BMW if there was a convertible Tesla, but there isn't. A $50-75k Tesla convertible would certainly get my money when they make one though.
The range looks good, now...if they can keep the price somewhere even close to the Vette, I'll be in.
Well starting price seems to be $250k, so not quite Vette range.
Nice to see a green car that isn't fugly.
I don't think I've ever talked to someone in person who thought the Tesla S was fugly. It is a gorgeous vehicle.