And COBOL was human-comprehensible.
SOA is definitely in the realm of COBOL, except that it goes one better: not only is the code difficult to read but there's lots more of it.
Nobody better tell 'em that the majority of that code is simply copying Strings around, or we'll all be outta work...
Are you saying "why bother"? Just checking;-)
Good read, that - looks more like their environment messed them up. Natural selection: they weren't expecting any of that stuff to happen!
Actually, I wasn't thinking of terrorists at all, just old-fashioned organised crime, something like this.
I'm sure criminals would be interested in the contents of a security professional's laptop. An airport would be a good place to find a security professional, even if he only visited occasionally. It's possible that this guy habitually left the laptop in that office. That kind of thing;-)
It's possible that is an "inside job", rather than an opportunistic theft. I mean, the laptop could have been "stolen to order". Identity criminals are getting more organised. Who knows what other data was on that laptop, given that it was being used by a security professional.
I trust neither, unless previously proven trustworthy
By whom? Someone trustworthy? Mathematics? You're clutching at straws there, dude.
Vendors sell open-source products, too, BTW.
The point is not that open-source is inherently more trustworthy than closed source, it's that an open-source vendor who claimed that their code could do something it couldn't do would lose credibility.
Closed-source products give the vendor "credibility through obscurity", i.e. something for nothing.
All this as a result of two guys who thought, "Hey, what if somebody made an uncluttered search engine with unobtrusive advertising that was REALLY, ACTUALLY user-friendly and didn't suck to use?"
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Google started out with no ads, which, in the days before broadband, was welcome simply because of faster page loads. The results were refreshingly relevant, too.
Their popularity was not enough to make them as big as we wanted them to be, so they sold some of the page off for text ads. Then they had a business model.
I know what you're saying - and thank you for the equations, which I will try to understand later.
My point was that as long as the carbon is in the coral, it isn't in the water.
I was talking surface area, not chemistry. And taking advantage of the opportunity to make a juicy pun about "getting around" the problem. Not only does the coral encapsulate some carbon (get it?), but it evades the problem, rather than solving it. As you pointed out, it isn't a permanent solution (another juicy pun?) - unless we were to take the coral out of the water before it dissolved back in (I later thought of the possiblity of using edible shellfish and working on two problems at once;-)
I wonder how much of the salinity of the ocean it would take with it?
I only have basic Chemistry but I can only imagine that a precipitate would take some soluables to the bottom with it.
Excuse me, but TheSync's solution does, exactly "get around" the basic chemistry of the problem - by sequestering carbon in coral, thus keeping it out of the water in which it would dissolve if exposed.
(That said, I didn't look up the definition of "sequester";-)
In politics these days, appearances are everything.
Maybe this wouldn't be so much of an issue if it were possible to vote people out as easily as they are voted in.
Corporations are not obliged to put shareholders ahead of everything else: some companies behave like that because their share price is more important than their products. The "obligation" actually applies to shareholders: pension funds are the greatest purchaser of shares and they have legal obligations to their members.
The situation has got pretty absurd: the requirement for continually-increasing share prices means that companies are hiring less so that they can report increased profit and keep the interest of pension funds. Of course, an unemployed person would not be entitled to a pension.
So you've identified the problem.... now what's the solution?
I think you mean it the other way around, Jeri Ryan being a solution in search of a problem...
...which makes her right at home in a software company;-)
BTW Irish Slashdotters are very unlikely to harden at the sound of the words "GerryRyan".
I had already disabled LinkScanner.
I followed instructions as posted recently here to remove LinkScanner: this resulted in a re-install of AVG (without LinkScanner). The first update this re-install wanted was LinkScanner plus plugins, there was no way I could cancel and just get virus definitions, no point in continuing.
I have installed Clam. Now I can scan what I want when I want.
The idea was used before by The Yes Men, who filmed the idea going down relatively well with business types.
Votes aren't typically bought as a objects: a political manifesto is at least worded like a contract and it's possible for people to "vote with their wallets".
"Rebuke"is not a technical word and is certainly not what happened.
The whole thing was a bit more polite than the way it has been descibed here - as anyone who follows the link will find, at least.
Re:There is an old saying along these lines:
on
The Privacy Paradox
·
· Score: 1
If you're going to be conscious about it, tit-for-tat seems to be a good strategy; for one thing, it can save you the trouble of holding a grudge unnecessarily.
It is very widely deployed in various forms, if you think about it...
Slashdot Mirror
And COBOL was human-comprehensible. SOA is definitely in the realm of COBOL, except that it goes one better: not only is the code difficult to read but there's lots more of it.
Nobody better tell 'em that the majority of that code is simply copying Strings around, or we'll all be outta work...
Are you saying "why bother"? Just checking ;-)
Good read, that - looks more like their environment messed them up. Natural selection: they weren't expecting any of that stuff to happen!
Having horrible credit has made me significantly less vulnerable
Thanks, I've been trying to convince myself of that - for years ;-)
Actually, I wasn't thinking of terrorists at all, just old-fashioned organised crime, something like this. I'm sure criminals would be interested in the contents of a security professional's laptop. An airport would be a good place to find a security professional, even if he only visited occasionally. It's possible that this guy habitually left the laptop in that office. That kind of thing ;-)
What happens when we have >1TB optical disks? We won't need to share files over the Internet then! ;-)
Oops, probably shouldn't have said that
Public humiliation is no laughing matter
...except for the public...
It's possible that is an "inside job", rather than an opportunistic theft. I mean, the laptop could have been "stolen to order". Identity criminals are getting more organised. Who knows what other data was on that laptop, given that it was being used by a security professional.
I trust neither, unless previously proven trustworthy
By whom? Someone trustworthy? Mathematics? You're clutching at straws there, dude.
Vendors sell open-source products, too, BTW.
The point is not that open-source is inherently more trustworthy than closed source, it's that an open-source vendor who claimed that their code could do something it couldn't do would lose credibility.
Closed-source products give the vendor "credibility through obscurity", i.e. something for nothing.
All this as a result of two guys who thought, "Hey, what if somebody made an uncluttered search engine with unobtrusive advertising that was REALLY, ACTUALLY user-friendly and didn't suck to use?"
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Google started out with no ads, which, in the days before broadband, was welcome simply because of faster page loads. The results were refreshingly relevant, too.
Their popularity was not enough to make them as big as we wanted them to be, so they sold some of the page off for text ads. Then they had a business model.
Maybe they should cuil their results to actually provide useful hits?
Someone should have told those venture capitalists that cuil sounds a lot like caill. "Caill" would not be a good name for a search engine ;-)
I know what you're saying - and thank you for the equations, which I will try to understand later. ;-)
My point was that as long as the carbon is in the coral, it isn't in the water.
I was talking surface area, not chemistry. And taking advantage of the opportunity to make a juicy pun about "getting around" the problem. Not only does the coral encapsulate some carbon (get it?), but it evades the problem, rather than solving it. As you pointed out, it isn't a permanent solution (another juicy pun?) - unless we were to take the coral out of the water before it dissolved back in (I later thought of the possiblity of using edible shellfish and working on two problems at once
Hey, how about a genetically-engineered shellfish that's edible? ;-)
Hope everyone likes shrimp
I've been reminded that salinity is related to temperature, thanks to this post. So maybe the oceans can absorb more heat, too? ;-)
Er, fish need oxygen, not C02...
I wonder how much of the salinity of the ocean it would take with it?
I only have basic Chemistry but I can only imagine that a precipitate would take some soluables to the bottom with it.
Excuse me, but TheSync's solution does, exactly "get around" the basic chemistry of the problem - by sequestering carbon in coral, thus keeping it out of the water in which it would dissolve if exposed. (That said, I didn't look up the definition of "sequester" ;-)
It has proven to be observable, at least.
How do we prove truth is true?
Why can't people recognize that "God" is a metaphorical reference to the universe which science is dedicated to studying?
Because that doesn't make them feel protected.
"appear tough on terrorism"
In politics these days, appearances are everything.
Maybe this wouldn't be so much of an issue if it were possible to vote people out as easily as they are voted in.
Corporations are not obliged to put shareholders ahead of everything else: some companies behave like that because their share price is more important than their products. The "obligation" actually applies to shareholders: pension funds are the greatest purchaser of shares and they have legal obligations to their members.
The situation has got pretty absurd: the requirement for continually-increasing share prices means that companies are hiring less so that they can report increased profit and keep the interest of pension funds. Of course, an unemployed person would not be entitled to a pension.
So you've identified the problem.... now what's the solution?
I think you mean it the other way around, Jeri Ryan being a solution in search of a problem... ;-)
...which makes her right at home in a software company
BTW Irish Slashdotters are very unlikely to harden at the sound of the words "Gerry Ryan".
I had already disabled LinkScanner.
I followed instructions as posted recently here to remove LinkScanner: this resulted in a re-install of AVG (without LinkScanner). The first update this re-install wanted was LinkScanner plus plugins, there was no way I could cancel and just get virus definitions, no point in continuing.
I have installed Clam. Now I can scan what I want when I want.
The idea was used before by The Yes Men, who filmed the idea going down relatively well with business types.
Votes aren't typically bought as a objects: a political manifesto is at least worded like a contract and it's possible for people to "vote with their wallets".
"Rebuke"is not a technical word and is certainly not what happened.
The whole thing was a bit more polite than the way it has been descibed here - as anyone who follows the link will find, at least.
If you're going to be conscious about it, tit-for-tat seems to be a good strategy; for one thing, it can save you the trouble of holding a grudge unnecessarily.
It is very widely deployed in various forms, if you think about it...