Software designs following System- and Use Case-analysis would prevent against destructive operations if implemented correctly.
If there would be a use case 'delete all from...' then the system worked as designed. If there isn't (which I suspect), the ability to delete the data should be impossible, so that even a moron or an evil user couldn't wreak havoc. That is a part of software security that should have been imposed by management, not the user's responsibility (as the user can't fix it so it shouldn't have the tool in the first place).
If the error in this case is made through a developer's or admin's backdoor (often called 'control panel'), that gives full options to mess around, the regular _Managament_ restrictions should apply like not operating on live data and always make a backup beforehand. This should help fixing 'pushing the wrong button' kinds of mistakes like 'oops I ran sudo rm -r *'.
If the error is made by a 'bug', so that a software error (coming from a programmer's error) damages the data indirectly (or the user in Therac-25), the it's not pushing the wrong button but bad software testing and validation, again something Management should oversee and be responsible for.
Aren't all satellites in space? It's like saying 'submarine detects creatures under water'. Correct, informative headline should read 'Global photosynthesis measured by satellite using fluorescence'.
The cycle will always have a net effect because the propane-part of the cycle involves transportation, waste and other overhead that will consume energy. I'm not against the whole idea, I just don't see it solving the problems the environment currently faces.
True, but that's the same a calling unleaded gasoline 'environmentally-friendly' because it's cleaner than leaded gasoline. The whole 'friendly' part bugs me because it stigmatises a possible improvement as a solution, which it is not. Carbon-neutral is just better, not good.
Less carbon == good for the environment is markerteer's logic. It certainly is an improvement but it doesn't tip the scale. Switching from regular coke to diet coke doesn't make your drinking habit 'healthy', it's making it less unhealthy.
A environment-friendly way of producing something does not mean that the product is suddenly environmentelly-friendly to begin with. If I get a set of bacteria to produce gasoline, would this suddenly be called 'the envrionmentally-friendly fuel gasoline'?
Have you seen the 'computer' that actually won? Technology is far closer to mainstream self driving cars than to mainstream chess champion pc's.
Of course this is mainly due to demand but that's why the whole comparisons between mainstream and excess technologies ('They can put a man on the moon but...') are a waste of time.
Slashdot Mirror
Software designs following System- and Use Case-analysis would prevent against destructive operations if implemented correctly. If there would be a use case 'delete all from ...' then the system worked as designed. If there isn't (which I suspect), the ability to delete the data should be impossible, so that even a moron or an evil user couldn't wreak havoc. That is a part of software security that should have been imposed by management, not the user's responsibility (as the user can't fix it so it shouldn't have the tool in the first place).
If the error in this case is made through a developer's or admin's backdoor (often called 'control panel'), that gives full options to mess around, the regular _Managament_ restrictions should apply like not operating on live data and always make a backup beforehand. This should help fixing 'pushing the wrong button' kinds of mistakes like 'oops I ran sudo rm -r *'.
If the error is made by a 'bug', so that a software error (coming from a programmer's error) damages the data indirectly (or the user in Therac-25), the it's not pushing the wrong button but bad software testing and validation, again something Management should oversee and be responsible for.
Aren't all satellites in space? It's like saying 'submarine detects creatures under water'. Correct, informative headline should read 'Global photosynthesis measured by satellite using fluorescence'.
The cycle will always have a net effect because the propane-part of the cycle involves transportation, waste and other overhead that will consume energy. I'm not against the whole idea, I just don't see it solving the problems the environment currently faces.
True, but that's the same a calling unleaded gasoline 'environmentally-friendly' because it's cleaner than leaded gasoline. The whole 'friendly' part bugs me because it stigmatises a possible improvement as a solution, which it is not. Carbon-neutral is just better, not good.
Less carbon == good for the environment is markerteer's logic. It certainly is an improvement but it doesn't tip the scale. Switching from regular coke to diet coke doesn't make your drinking habit 'healthy', it's making it less unhealthy.
A environment-friendly way of producing something does not mean that the product is suddenly environmentelly-friendly to begin with. If I get a set of bacteria to produce gasoline, would this suddenly be called 'the envrionmentally-friendly fuel gasoline'?
Have you seen the 'computer' that actually won? Technology is far closer to mainstream self driving cars than to mainstream chess champion pc's. Of course this is mainly due to demand but that's why the whole comparisons between mainstream and excess technologies ('They can put a man on the moon but...') are a waste of time.