All this guy needs to do is upload a new picture of himself to Facebook, and it will prove his identity to everyone when it asks "would you like to tag X?"
You're confused about the real cause and effect here. The biggest problem with open source QA is that no one wants to fund it. It's straightforward (albeit not easy) to solicit sponsors for building new features. The users of the software who financially benefit from it rarely feel like it's their responsibility to pay for QA across the whole project. And that's how QA normally works; ugly, time consuming bugs to chase down often start with a problem you can't even connect to the responsible code at first.
Developers don't just work on features over bug fixes just for status or personal satisfaction. You're projecting a sort of selfishness on them by saying that, which is a pretty silly attitude to have toward the sort of people who work on open source.
Getting paid to develop new features give you a clear finish line to get some money to support yourself at the end of the day. That's why open development ends up organized in that direction so often. The main thing that's different about commercial development priorities is that paying a person to do QA is recognized as necessary. When I raise money for open source development, I constantly struggle over how to put QA into the budget in a form that it's recognized as necessary.
This is absolutely at the core of the Heartbleed story. The OpenSSL Foundation has dumped large amounts of money toward checkblock compliant features like FIPS compliance. The same amount of money would have funded a lot of source code review, but people don't pay for that. If developers want to eat, they have to prioritize chewing on features.
If Google et. all want to help open source, they should provide a lot more funding. We don't need their QA departments, we need the cash they're making off our backs.
Software that works very differently in debug builds is common. The 1993 edition of Steve McConnell's "Code Complete" was the first thing I remember reading that talked about reducing debug vs. release variance. IIRC, Microsoft was chewing this problem heavily then because the betas of Windows and their development tools going to developers included debug instrumentation, while the released versions did not.
SPARK falls squarely into silver bullet territory. Taking on that idea goes back to at least Fred Brooks's 1986 No Silver Bullet paper.
The "Office of Government Ethics" explicitly authorized the SEC for an accelerated revolving door for regulatory capture back in 1991. Since this collusion has becomes downright transparent recently, they made a change to reverse the situation a bit starting this month. People who are just learning about the problem through "Flash Boys" are too late--you've already been outplayed here. You see, the problem is solved!
Yeah, the failure of Outbox is barely connected to USPS policy. "their market model needed to scale quickly to become profitable". It didn't. The end. Their big problem was paying for the fleet of vehicles? Wow, no one could ever see that coming.
Switching the stickers isn't the only way to screw one up. It's also easy to make an unsolvable cube after taking it apart with a screwdriver. The wiki-how guide states 11/12 of randomly assembled cubes aren't solvable.
I could solve a cube in just under a minute. Rather than focus on speeding that up further, I worked on all the other puzzles that came out after the cube's popularity. Missing Link, Pyramid, Rubik's Snake...I still have them all in a big bag o' nostalgia.
Amazon's retail store card situation isn't quite as hands-off for parents as Apple's. You need a credit card to create a new iTunes account, but afterward you can disconnect it and kids can be self-sufficient. They might take some birthday cash, buy an iTunes card just about anywhere, enter the code, they're off. I only get pulled in to help with things like backups and migration between devices.
The tween who uses my Amazon account for her Kindle has hit multiple little headaches I had to resolve for her. Example: Amazon's Kindle gift cards aren't as easy to find as iTunes ones, but she did find one at a local store. It turns out you cannot just redeem them directly on the Kindle and go shopping. You have to visit your account on Amazon's web site, add the gift card there, and then it's available as a credit for Kindle purchases. It was not as smooth of an experience, and I have yet to figure out how to make her self-sufficient on the device. If you give the kids enough account info to add a gift card, they'll get full write access to all the account info. That's a bad plan.
You placed the rich people and the politicians into separate categories. The whole mess is easier to understand once you realize the politicians at the top are a subset of the rich people, not a different group. Congress isn't even subtle anymore about how they structure insider trading to get rich, take a look at how the STOCK act was gutted to see them at work.
"If you do not work you do not eat"? Spoken as a true corporate tool. Who defines what "work" is then? Guess what: the people with money do, as they always have. Ask a rich CEO why they deserve the highest compensation multiple of workers ever today, and they'll tell you all about how their work adds value!
There's only place this road has ever led toward: rich people get so much negotiating power over poor ones they force them into inhumane working conditions, knowing they have to accept that or starve. You don't get a wonderful world--instead you'll just keep reinventing the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire for modern workers. Gotta lock the doors, can't have people in the factory stealing our precious iThings to sell them for food!
People report on topics that draw attention. That alone is enough to explain why the perception of crime is higher than the reality. "Lots of kids went to school and nothing bad happened", zero clicks. "Think of the children!" story, parents furiously re-share with their half-baked "this has to change!" commentary, every reporter tries to cover it, pundits have material for their shows, and politicians get something to lecture on so they sound relevant. Everybody hears about it.
Don't confuse that news spectacle with government scare-mongering. They're both real, but the government one is a slower and subtler game. Also very real: the heavily entrenched biases about race in the US. Why does LeVar Burton teach his kids how not be shot by police? Hint: it's not because of media sensationalism.
"Traditionally" 40%? That's a citation needed claim. Companies like MGIC have let people shift around the downpayment risk to where it makes sense since 1957, and the standard LMI/PMI rate has been 20% for as long as I've been alive.
All three of down payment, mortgage length, and interest rate interact to determine what's been acceptable. The best example of how that can play out dramatically in modern US history were the high interest rates and "stagflation" of the 1970's. Unusual things happened to typical mortgage lengths when the rate jumped up, and the risk/reward on downpayments moved with all that.
The idea that you can always move to somewhere cheap to live is just silly. A major reason real estate prices inflate in an area is because it's where the jobs are. You can't just move away from real estate spikes without a strong assurance you'll get work in the new area that nets you more. That this will always be possible is one of those things you mainly hear from entitled young people. Good luck with that.
The one thing you can sell into a stagnant economy are consumable and necessity products that cost less. Stare at the things that are still selling--food, basic clothing, etc.--put resources into making a cheaper version. It's easy to show there's a huge volume of such opportunities, just look at the growth of Walmart on the back of such work.
But that just circles back to the same problem again. Products where the innovation is improved efficiency and/or lower costs take you right back to less spending.
And then after Spielberg replaced all the guns in the movie with walkie-talkies, it ruined that one good scene where Elliott shot his eye out.
The hype around the movie was pretty bad, but I don't remember this as the most overhyped Atari 2600 game. I'd give that honor to the 2600 Pac-Man. The first commercial in heavy rotation for that one didn't even show the real gameplay. They kinda ripped off the music to "Pac-Man Fever" there too.
Self-organization is a perfectly reasonable way to run a project. It has several properties that are useful for geographically distributed open source projects, like how it avoids a single point of failure. You can't extrapolate global leadership maxims from the dysfunction of local groups you've been involved in. I'd argue that an open source program that requires "strong leadership" from a small group to survive is actually being led badly. That can easily breed these troublesome monocultures where everyone does the same wrong thing.
I think the way Mark Shuttleworth organizes Canonical is like the traditional business role of a "strong leader". That's led to all sorts of pissed off volunteers in the self-organizing Debian community. Compare that against the leadership style of Linus Torvalds, who aggressively pushes responsibility downward toward layers of maintainers. The examples of Debian and Linux show volunteers can organize themselves if that's one of the goals of the project.
Security by obscurity means that the product is secure only when you don't have the source code. The idea is that parts of the security mechanism would be simple to break if only you could see how they are implemented. A simple example is a hardcoded backdoor password in the code. Very hard to just stumble on, trivial to find with source access. Ideally security mechanisms should work equally well whether or not you have their source code, which is security by design.
This is a completely different concept from security by low market share.
No, it can't, by definition. If it's not available to everyone, then it's not "open" in this context. To quote the OSI, "Open source software is software that can be freely used, changed, and shared (in modified or unmodified form) by anyone". The essential missing part here is that sharing must be allowed, and the sort of commercial arrangements that get you source to proprietary code don't allow that.
Proprietary software that makes source available to customers has some of the properties of free software. But since it can't satisfy all of the GNU project's four freedoms, it's not appropriate to refer to those products as free software either.
My understanding from conversations with a friend in this field is that the big money is around the oil industry positions, you go wherever they're active at. The data collected by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics rates underwater welders as making a good bit more than regular ones, but it's hard to get a firm number because they lump divers in with them. The summary at waterwelders matches a few other sources I checked.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't need no stinkin' badges.
All this guy needs to do is upload a new picture of himself to Facebook, and it will prove his identity to everyone when it asks "would you like to tag X?"
Not difficult? You, sir, have a great deal to learn about animal breeding. I'd suggest Cracked's recent article.
You're confused about the real cause and effect here. The biggest problem with open source QA is that no one wants to fund it. It's straightforward (albeit not easy) to solicit sponsors for building new features. The users of the software who financially benefit from it rarely feel like it's their responsibility to pay for QA across the whole project. And that's how QA normally works; ugly, time consuming bugs to chase down often start with a problem you can't even connect to the responsible code at first.
Developers don't just work on features over bug fixes just for status or personal satisfaction. You're projecting a sort of selfishness on them by saying that, which is a pretty silly attitude to have toward the sort of people who work on open source.
Getting paid to develop new features give you a clear finish line to get some money to support yourself at the end of the day. That's why open development ends up organized in that direction so often. The main thing that's different about commercial development priorities is that paying a person to do QA is recognized as necessary. When I raise money for open source development, I constantly struggle over how to put QA into the budget in a form that it's recognized as necessary.
This is absolutely at the core of the Heartbleed story. The OpenSSL Foundation has dumped large amounts of money toward checkblock compliant features like FIPS compliance. The same amount of money would have funded a lot of source code review, but people don't pay for that. If developers want to eat, they have to prioritize chewing on features.
If Google et. all want to help open source, they should provide a lot more funding. We don't need their QA departments, we need the cash they're making off our backs.
Software that works very differently in debug builds is common. The 1993 edition of Steve McConnell's "Code Complete" was the first thing I remember reading that talked about reducing debug vs. release variance. IIRC, Microsoft was chewing this problem heavily then because the betas of Windows and their development tools going to developers included debug instrumentation, while the released versions did not.
SPARK falls squarely into silver bullet territory. Taking on that idea goes back to at least Fred Brooks's 1986 No Silver Bullet paper.
The "Office of Government Ethics" explicitly authorized the SEC for an accelerated revolving door for regulatory capture back in 1991. Since this collusion has becomes downright transparent recently, they made a change to reverse the situation a bit starting this month. People who are just learning about the problem through "Flash Boys" are too late--you've already been outplayed here. You see, the problem is solved!
Yeah, the failure of Outbox is barely connected to USPS policy. "their market model needed to scale quickly to become profitable". It didn't. The end. Their big problem was paying for the fleet of vehicles? Wow, no one could ever see that coming.
On my lawn, you are.
Switching the stickers isn't the only way to screw one up. It's also easy to make an unsolvable cube after taking it apart with a screwdriver. The wiki-how guide states 11/12 of randomly assembled cubes aren't solvable.
I could solve a cube in just under a minute. Rather than focus on speeding that up further, I worked on all the other puzzles that came out after the cube's popularity. Missing Link, Pyramid, Rubik's Snake...I still have them all in a big bag o' nostalgia.
Blue Horseshoe, buddy, how you been?
Can someone remind me how to uninstall IE from Windows?
fdisk /dev/sda
Amazon's retail store card situation isn't quite as hands-off for parents as Apple's. You need a credit card to create a new iTunes account, but afterward you can disconnect it and kids can be self-sufficient. They might take some birthday cash, buy an iTunes card just about anywhere, enter the code, they're off. I only get pulled in to help with things like backups and migration between devices.
The tween who uses my Amazon account for her Kindle has hit multiple little headaches I had to resolve for her. Example: Amazon's Kindle gift cards aren't as easy to find as iTunes ones, but she did find one at a local store. It turns out you cannot just redeem them directly on the Kindle and go shopping. You have to visit your account on Amazon's web site, add the gift card there, and then it's available as a credit for Kindle purchases. It was not as smooth of an experience, and I have yet to figure out how to make her self-sufficient on the device. If you give the kids enough account info to add a gift card, they'll get full write access to all the account info. That's a bad plan.
If this mean substitute is actually tasty
I had a mean substitute once, but she was not very tasty at all.
You placed the rich people and the politicians into separate categories. The whole mess is easier to understand once you realize the politicians at the top are a subset of the rich people, not a different group. Congress isn't even subtle anymore about how they structure insider trading to get rich, take a look at how the STOCK act was gutted to see them at work.
"If you do not work you do not eat"? Spoken as a true corporate tool. Who defines what "work" is then? Guess what: the people with money do, as they always have. Ask a rich CEO why they deserve the highest compensation multiple of workers ever today, and they'll tell you all about how their work adds value!
There's only place this road has ever led toward: rich people get so much negotiating power over poor ones they force them into inhumane working conditions, knowing they have to accept that or starve. You don't get a wonderful world--instead you'll just keep reinventing the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire for modern workers. Gotta lock the doors, can't have people in the factory stealing our precious iThings to sell them for food!
People report on topics that draw attention. That alone is enough to explain why the perception of crime is higher than the reality. "Lots of kids went to school and nothing bad happened", zero clicks. "Think of the children!" story, parents furiously re-share with their half-baked "this has to change!" commentary, every reporter tries to cover it, pundits have material for their shows, and politicians get something to lecture on so they sound relevant. Everybody hears about it.
Don't confuse that news spectacle with government scare-mongering. They're both real, but the government one is a slower and subtler game. Also very real: the heavily entrenched biases about race in the US. Why does LeVar Burton teach his kids how not be shot by police? Hint: it's not because of media sensationalism.
"Traditionally" 40%? That's a citation needed claim. Companies like MGIC have let people shift around the downpayment risk to where it makes sense since 1957, and the standard LMI/PMI rate has been 20% for as long as I've been alive.
All three of down payment, mortgage length, and interest rate interact to determine what's been acceptable. The best example of how that can play out dramatically in modern US history were the high interest rates and "stagflation" of the 1970's. Unusual things happened to typical mortgage lengths when the rate jumped up, and the risk/reward on downpayments moved with all that.
The idea that you can always move to somewhere cheap to live is just silly. A major reason real estate prices inflate in an area is because it's where the jobs are. You can't just move away from real estate spikes without a strong assurance you'll get work in the new area that nets you more. That this will always be possible is one of those things you mainly hear from entitled young people. Good luck with that.
The one thing you can sell into a stagnant economy are consumable and necessity products that cost less. Stare at the things that are still selling--food, basic clothing, etc.--put resources into making a cheaper version. It's easy to show there's a huge volume of such opportunities, just look at the growth of Walmart on the back of such work.
But that just circles back to the same problem again. Products where the innovation is improved efficiency and/or lower costs take you right back to less spending.
infamous adjective: well-known for being bad.
They could put a picture of the 2600 ET cartridge on that dictionary entry.
And then after Spielberg replaced all the guns in the movie with walkie-talkies, it ruined that one good scene where Elliott shot his eye out.
The hype around the movie was pretty bad, but I don't remember this as the most overhyped Atari 2600 game. I'd give that honor to the 2600 Pac-Man. The first commercial in heavy rotation for that one didn't even show the real gameplay. They kinda ripped off the music to "Pac-Man Fever" there too.
Well, first they tried to get the cartridges to levitate themselves out, but they kept falling back to the bottom of the landfill.
Self-organization is a perfectly reasonable way to run a project. It has several properties that are useful for geographically distributed open source projects, like how it avoids a single point of failure. You can't extrapolate global leadership maxims from the dysfunction of local groups you've been involved in. I'd argue that an open source program that requires "strong leadership" from a small group to survive is actually being led badly. That can easily breed these troublesome monocultures where everyone does the same wrong thing.
I think the way Mark Shuttleworth organizes Canonical is like the traditional business role of a "strong leader". That's led to all sorts of pissed off volunteers in the self-organizing Debian community. Compare that against the leadership style of Linus Torvalds, who aggressively pushes responsibility downward toward layers of maintainers. The examples of Debian and Linux show volunteers can organize themselves if that's one of the goals of the project.
Security by obscurity means that the product is secure only when you don't have the source code. The idea is that parts of the security mechanism would be simple to break if only you could see how they are implemented. A simple example is a hardcoded backdoor password in the code. Very hard to just stumble on, trivial to find with source access. Ideally security mechanisms should work equally well whether or not you have their source code, which is security by design.
This is a completely different concept from security by low market share.
That said, proprietary code can be open too.
No, it can't, by definition. If it's not available to everyone, then it's not "open" in this context. To quote the OSI, "Open source software is software that can be freely used, changed, and shared (in modified or unmodified form) by anyone". The essential missing part here is that sharing must be allowed, and the sort of commercial arrangements that get you source to proprietary code don't allow that.
Proprietary software that makes source available to customers has some of the properties of free software. But since it can't satisfy all of the GNU project's four freedoms, it's not appropriate to refer to those products as free software either.
My understanding from conversations with a friend in this field is that the big money is around the oil industry positions, you go wherever they're active at. The data collected by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics rates underwater welders as making a good bit more than regular ones, but it's hard to get a firm number because they lump divers in with them. The summary at waterwelders matches a few other sources I checked.