Computers can be hacked, all computers are insecure given enough time (or secret knowledge, or collusion on the part of vendors,) using them for elections is irredeemable in the eyes of any sane person.
Send Paul Allen to park his yacht over it so Gore can bitch about the climate! True fact: Paul Allen is single-handedly responsible for destroying 70% of the world's dead coral reefs by dragging his yacht anchor over them for months on end.
A tractor is a material thing with costs well beyond the R&D involved, not least of all are the distribution and maintenance networks. Software is 100% R&D, there are companies (most mid-to-large sized ones) today which have the same 90%+ labor savings applied as they did a decade or more ago from a piece of software written back then which hasn't been changed since (or has only been changed in extraordinarily minor patches.) Most of the issues we've seen with labor could be avoided by making the original developers entitled to even a small portion of the savings in labor costs - e.g. 50% - the company still gets a 50% savings on labor and nerds have lots of fanciful hobbies which would stimulate the industrial sector (you can't exactly automate creativity and engineering or what those things tie into without removing Humanity from the equation entirely, and if we get that far we're pretty well fucked anyway.)
The consumer shouldn't own it if the consumer is automating labor. Individuals are different, but corporate software? No way should the client own the software - they're automating jobs in an ongoing manner, they don't get a product, they get perpetual labor for free.
That demand has already been met when software is released, and is out of the equation.
But that doesn't stop other demands for which there is a limited supply.
Only because people are dumb enough to accept that. Software which automates labor necessarily keeps on being in demand, the authors are just too dim to get paid for it more than once.
Preferential treatment of data is what net neutrality is meant to fight. Picking and choosing which services (in this case, public safety workers) is exactly what goes against net neutrality. If it's neutral they would remove ALL data caps for ALL users for ALL services - that's the only definition of "net neutrality."
There shouldn't be an exception for government, on any level or for any reason, which doesn't apply to civilians. The fire dept has a safety concern, there are lots of potential safety concerns which don't get helped by simply making a blanket "don't throttle the fire dept bandwidth" but do get fixed by "don't throttle anyone's bandwidth." Net neutrality however is about not charging different amounts or supplying different bandwidths for different services - so what they're actually advocating for here is not having net neutrality.
How about we let the people who actually work in a field develop jargon and mannerisms and nomenclatures and speaking patterns relating to that field? Reporters, English majors, etc - their job is to, well they don't do much - but their job isn't to dictate how we speak, they're allowed to catalog in non-binding ways at best.
More just speaking into the void and seeing what came back, no point to make with this particular comment (some of the others in this thread yes, but not this one.)
The companies I've known who use recruiters do so because they think craigslist is sketchy, local job sites are universally shit, and they don't have the time to conduct interviews or screen more than a handful of resumes. When you only look at 2-3 resumes a month (or even a week) you aren't going to find a good fit for a remotely complex position.
In my multi-decade career I've applied to hundreds if not thousands of jobs (definitely thousands, but probably hundreds of legit-and-not-trying-to-check-a-box-before-pulling-in-an-h1b jobs.) In that time I've gotten a grand total of two rejections - both instances after calling to ask. These days I get 2-3 actual offers a week without applying to anything and I take the time to say something along the lines of "I'm not interested at this time" as a basic courtesy - so really there's no excuse for being rude on their part.
I had a sort of reasonable one - they got me in the door for a good position. Of course, afterward they tried to bait me with double the salary in non-existent positions then claim to the employer that I was shopping around while simultaneously probing me for leads to get more people in the door and putting people in the same place who actively worked to make the environment hostile for everyone thereby increasing turnover rates. Recruiters should be treated as tools - it's the only way to survive them. They're out for bonuses and candidates are just commodities, their objective is to push as many people through the door as quickly as possible and to leverage existing clients (potential employers willing to use recruiters) to the fullest extent of their abilities. Cover your ass and you'll be fine, just don't slip and think they're on your side.
Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
Except Bitcoin has unmitigated issues in the near-term. We're looking at 6 years at most until quantum computers can run Shor's Algorithm. At that point the signature schemes used in Bitcoin are dead. Before that happens (by a few years, at a minimum, to ensure the blockchain is irrevocably altered) everyone needs to convert to post-quantum protocols on a wallet-by-wallet basis (as in, initiated by every single Bitcoin holder individually.) The issue there is that smallest secure post-quantum protocols have signatures on the order of 30KB per transaction. That means a blockchain on the order high-TB to low-PB growth annually. That means mass centralization (at best) because there's no way every user (or even most non-exchanges) can afford that within the next decade given anticipated hardware developments.
TL;DR: Bitcoin is already dead due to hardware constraints, it exists purely as a pump and dump campagin: the same applies to all cryptocurrencies.
I've been writing software for over 2 decades and I still routinely copy+paste key components straight off the first StackOverflow result and hit run without testing it. It's just faster and it works 99% of the time, the other 1% takes a few more minutes of tweaking it but it ends up looking largely the same. It's definitely not inexperience. In fact, if I'm picking up some bleeding-edge thing I'll tend to do that less because there aren't preexisting code samples.
The table analogy is probably a bit oversimplified, a non-hack solution would be to take the leg off, measure it against another, and cut it straight instead of some hand-made angle with a hacksaw, or to lengthen the other 3 legs. Realworld object analogies don't really work that well for software. (Cue the horde of plebs talking about building houses.)
I agree - a hack is an elegant solution to an old problem - since securing IT is an old problem a hack gets around controls - fits perfectly
That's the exact opposite of what a hack is. A hack is an inelegant shit solution to a problem. Hacks are defined by the absolute lack of skill on the part of their creator, be it in sloppy code to get something hacked together quickly and barely functional with no potential for future adaptation or someone so pathetic they take the easy route of breaking stuff instead of creating things. Hacks are by definition inelegant abominations.
I think that was his point. E.g. it's easier to break something than it is to create it for each individual instance of a thing (break or thing created.)
Slashdot Mirror
Computers can be hacked, all computers are insecure given enough time (or secret knowledge, or collusion on the part of vendors,) using them for elections is irredeemable in the eyes of any sane person.
If you write electronic voting machine software you're a traitor, no if's and's or but's.
Send Paul Allen to park his yacht over it so Gore can bitch about the climate! True fact: Paul Allen is single-handedly responsible for destroying 70% of the world's dead coral reefs by dragging his yacht anchor over them for months on end.
A tractor is a material thing with costs well beyond the R&D involved, not least of all are the distribution and maintenance networks. Software is 100% R&D, there are companies (most mid-to-large sized ones) today which have the same 90%+ labor savings applied as they did a decade or more ago from a piece of software written back then which hasn't been changed since (or has only been changed in extraordinarily minor patches.) Most of the issues we've seen with labor could be avoided by making the original developers entitled to even a small portion of the savings in labor costs - e.g. 50% - the company still gets a 50% savings on labor and nerds have lots of fanciful hobbies which would stimulate the industrial sector (you can't exactly automate creativity and engineering or what those things tie into without removing Humanity from the equation entirely, and if we get that far we're pretty well fucked anyway.)
The consumer shouldn't own it if the consumer is automating labor. Individuals are different, but corporate software? No way should the client own the software - they're automating jobs in an ongoing manner, they don't get a product, they get perpetual labor for free.
That demand has already been met when software is released, and is out of the equation. But that doesn't stop other demands for which there is a limited supply.
Only because people are dumb enough to accept that. Software which automates labor necessarily keeps on being in demand, the authors are just too dim to get paid for it more than once.
Preferential treatment of data is what net neutrality is meant to fight. Picking and choosing which services (in this case, public safety workers) is exactly what goes against net neutrality. If it's neutral they would remove ALL data caps for ALL users for ALL services - that's the only definition of "net neutrality."
Actually uphold the constitution by punishing corrupt politicians actively working to subvert it?
There shouldn't be an exception for government, on any level or for any reason, which doesn't apply to civilians. The fire dept has a safety concern, there are lots of potential safety concerns which don't get helped by simply making a blanket "don't throttle the fire dept bandwidth" but do get fixed by "don't throttle anyone's bandwidth." Net neutrality however is about not charging different amounts or supplying different bandwidths for different services - so what they're actually advocating for here is not having net neutrality.
How about we let the people who actually work in a field develop jargon and mannerisms and nomenclatures and speaking patterns relating to that field? Reporters, English majors, etc - their job is to, well they don't do much - but their job isn't to dictate how we speak, they're allowed to catalog in non-binding ways at best.
More just speaking into the void and seeing what came back, no point to make with this particular comment (some of the others in this thread yes, but not this one.)
The companies I've known who use recruiters do so because they think craigslist is sketchy, local job sites are universally shit, and they don't have the time to conduct interviews or screen more than a handful of resumes. When you only look at 2-3 resumes a month (or even a week) you aren't going to find a good fit for a remotely complex position.
In my multi-decade career I've applied to hundreds if not thousands of jobs (definitely thousands, but probably hundreds of legit-and-not-trying-to-check-a-box-before-pulling-in-an-h1b jobs.) In that time I've gotten a grand total of two rejections - both instances after calling to ask. These days I get 2-3 actual offers a week without applying to anything and I take the time to say something along the lines of "I'm not interested at this time" as a basic courtesy - so really there's no excuse for being rude on their part.
I had a sort of reasonable one - they got me in the door for a good position. Of course, afterward they tried to bait me with double the salary in non-existent positions then claim to the employer that I was shopping around while simultaneously probing me for leads to get more people in the door and putting people in the same place who actively worked to make the environment hostile for everyone thereby increasing turnover rates. Recruiters should be treated as tools - it's the only way to survive them. They're out for bonuses and candidates are just commodities, their objective is to push as many people through the door as quickly as possible and to leverage existing clients (potential employers willing to use recruiters) to the fullest extent of their abilities. Cover your ass and you'll be fine, just don't slip and think they're on your side.
Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
This made me laugh.
--A FreeBSD user (not joking)
Don't forget things like power issues. Waiting on a computer to boot seems like it adds unnecessary overhead when a problem eventually develops.
https://xkcd.com/2030/
Getting the right result the first try is more about using the right keywords than the difficulty involved.
Except Bitcoin has unmitigated issues in the near-term. We're looking at 6 years at most until quantum computers can run Shor's Algorithm. At that point the signature schemes used in Bitcoin are dead. Before that happens (by a few years, at a minimum, to ensure the blockchain is irrevocably altered) everyone needs to convert to post-quantum protocols on a wallet-by-wallet basis (as in, initiated by every single Bitcoin holder individually.) The issue there is that smallest secure post-quantum protocols have signatures on the order of 30KB per transaction. That means a blockchain on the order high-TB to low-PB growth annually. That means mass centralization (at best) because there's no way every user (or even most non-exchanges) can afford that within the next decade given anticipated hardware developments.
TL;DR: Bitcoin is already dead due to hardware constraints, it exists purely as a pump and dump campagin: the same applies to all cryptocurrencies.
I've been writing software for over 2 decades and I still routinely copy+paste key components straight off the first StackOverflow result and hit run without testing it. It's just faster and it works 99% of the time, the other 1% takes a few more minutes of tweaking it but it ends up looking largely the same. It's definitely not inexperience. In fact, if I'm picking up some bleeding-edge thing I'll tend to do that less because there aren't preexisting code samples.
There's a difference between works used as tools and works used as mass entertainment.
Yeah, tools have use and are easier to trick their creators into doing it for free.
What have we learned today?
That English majors don't know dick about computer jargon (or much else.)
The table analogy is probably a bit oversimplified, a non-hack solution would be to take the leg off, measure it against another, and cut it straight instead of some hand-made angle with a hacksaw, or to lengthen the other 3 legs. Realworld object analogies don't really work that well for software. (Cue the horde of plebs talking about building houses.)
I agree - a hack is an elegant solution to an old problem - since securing IT is an old problem a hack gets around controls - fits perfectly
That's the exact opposite of what a hack is. A hack is an inelegant shit solution to a problem. Hacks are defined by the absolute lack of skill on the part of their creator, be it in sloppy code to get something hacked together quickly and barely functional with no potential for future adaptation or someone so pathetic they take the easy route of breaking stuff instead of creating things. Hacks are by definition inelegant abominations.
I think that was his point. E.g. it's easier to break something than it is to create it for each individual instance of a thing (break or thing created.)