I use problems related to real problems I've worked on in my career. I find that's a better way to reliably sort candidates.
I find that the best way to sort candidates is to use a "sorting hat". Mostly I try to hire hire Ravenclaw. Unless it's a help desk position; then it's almost always a Hufflepuff.
No offense, but why the hell would you want to work there without being an engineer and getting the stock options?
Because you still get a lot of the benefits, as well, even though you explicitly don't get all of them, since companies are required to not treat contractors exactly the same as employees, including having limited terms of employment, and "air gaps" in employment history with the company. But it's not like you don't get the food, or access to most of the athletic stuff, etc..
Plus, you get to hang out with very smart people, and, if you impress them, it's possible that they will pursue you for full time employment. Even without that, however: you get to put "Google" on your resume.
A software engineer is just a programmer, nothing more. Both turn concepts into designs, the only difference is in the lettering on their business card.
That's bullshit.
If I gave a software engineer a test on Knuth's Algorithms, and Sedgewick, a Software Engineer would pass.
A programmer, particularly a self-taught one, unless they put in the effort to do the book study necessary, would fail.
If I gave the software engineer a test on language specifics, they probably wouldn't pass, unless they were also a good programmer.
If I gave a programmer a test on language specifics, they wouldn't pass, unless they were a good programmer.
I can't speak for where you live, but here in the UK you certainly have to be suitably qualified to practise as a doctor, same as a solicitor/barrister (lawyer).
You can't ensure a nice personality, but you can be sure they are technically competent.
I think we have different definitions of "suitably qualified".
I really don't care about their paper qualifications (everyone who practices has those, or they end up in jail), and would be extraordinarily happy with a "Doc Martin" type who was a better diagnostician than I am.
For "soliciter/barrister (lawyer)", suitably qualified is defined as "gets me acquitted", and, again, has nothing to do with their paperwork, as every Tom, Dick, and Harry has paperwork, or eventually lands in jail.
Should people who do not understand the gradations and distinctions between educational requirements for different roles in software related projects be asking stupid questions in The Atlantic, as if we were all interchangeable, and equally incompetent as the least of us?
Journalists should have certifications and apprenticeships so that this kind of incompetent article doesn't end up published.
It's just another person who thinks that there should be apprenticeships, because they did not pay attention in their software engineering classes in college, and most colleges no longer teach specific programming languages like C in the abstract, and so he has a piss-poor tool belt.
BTW: I really don't know a lot of places that offers apprenticeships in electrical engineering; you can get one as an electrician, or an electronics technician, but not so much as an electrical engineer, say working on analog radio circuit design.
Also: A Software Engineer designs systems; a programmer turns other people's designs into machine instructions. Big difference, so please quit lumping us in with the programmers.
Unlike law, medicine and traditional engineering fields, software development is completely unregulated with no real standard certifications (even a degree is optional).
Medicine is regulated?!?
Then why do I have to search among so many bad doctors to find a good one (obviously: regulations are not weeding out the bad ones)?
And why, when I take my body to the doctor, most of the time it feels like I'm taking my card to the automotive department at Sears?
If they were smart, they wouldn't be terrorists in the first place. Or TSA screeners, for that matter.
It's idiots against idiots, all the way down.
A large chunk of the 9/11 participants had engineering degrees. If you include engineering, medical, and the sciences, more than 50% of terrorists have either some college or degrees in these fields. They aren't stupid, they just have goals which they can not meet through rational channels, and so they act out through irrational ones. It's not like there is available land for them to run off an form their own country. And it's not like women would flock to such a country to be their wives, were they able to form one; no woman wants to be prohibited from learning to read, be genitally mutilated, and then, if raped, be stoned to death for it, while their rapist goes scot free.
You have to realize that the people engaged in terrorism are the implacable foes of expeditionism and cultural imperialism (and yes, this includes the U.N. Charter on Human Rights, since it's externally imposed).
If they had open borders, in which anyone who wished to could leave their territory, and with it their rule, they would likely quickly die out as their reproductive population went to zero. It wouldn't be as dramatic as the Shakers, who are intentionally celibate, and therefore not reproduce, but over time, the effect would be the same.
Therefore, they can not tolerate open borders, nor can they tolerate a number of things normally associated as basic human rights; if they are to maintain their desired society and social order, they must needs be maintain it through force and oppression. Obviously, they find it highly frustrating that the rest of us, pardon my "French", think they are assholes, and won't let them"live in peace" (at least the rulers in the society), and insist on things like human rights, and other things which seriously cramp their lifestyle.
So they're not stupid, they're just really annoyed that the rest of us won't let them have something they'd like to have (or that the minority would like to have); and, as in the West, we will tolerate the sins of the privileged in the hopes that one day we ourselves can achieve similar status, they are largely willing to forgive the sins of their own leaders, in the same way.
So you think they are stupid, and not achieving their goals, when in fact you are simply not *recognizing* that they are doing so.
from this "deal", because they know better than throwing themselves under the American's bus.
The Chinese are absent from this deal because they get whatever the deal gives to anyone else the U.S. trades with for free, without having to make concessions on their side of the table. The Chinese have MFN - Most Favored Nation - status, which means that the U.S. can not apply restrictions, nor charge more tariff, to China, as it does to the least restricted and tariffed trading partner.
In addition, this give the Chinese an "American Hole", in the same way that NAFTA gave the U.S. a "Mexican Hole". If China is having a problem getting favorable terms with any of the 11 other nations (and, later, the other 2 nations considering joining the party), then they need only transship and do minor changes (the easiest is to just run a shrink-wrap operation in the ports at Hawaii, and (re)shrink-wrap the boxes) making it a product where "final assembly" (the term is intentionally vague) occurs in the U.S. and therefore it's subject to the TPP thereafter.
The NAFTA version of this is to ship products which would ordinarily be tariffed through Mexico, and run through a maquiladora for similar treatment, such that they are technically "Products of Mexico", rather than where the major manufacturing and assembly took place, and therefore not tariffed, due to NAFTA.
What, in the IP section, is worse than treaties and statutes that are already US law? There hasn't been mass civil disobedience (there has been massive lawbreaking, but that's not the same thing) over those.
It mandates ISP monitoring and reporting, because since RIAA and MPAA can't figure out how to do it, they figure the ISPs should have to work as unpaid employees to figure it out for them.
The reporting part means your ISP is no longer a common carrier, because they are required to tattle on people specifically.
It transfers said information without a warrant or court order.
Technically, this was designed to enforce copyright in NZ and Australia, and is basically a ratification of some of the things that Telstra does, which no one likes, and which Telstra can now point to and say "But dad told us! We had to!". The problem being , no one wants to license all the content that the U.S. produces for rebroadcast in those countries, because, seriously, sheep don't watch "Survivor!", but there are one or two people who'd like to.
At the same time as creating a uniform copyright law and application zone for said law, it fails to address the issue of region encoding, and staggered releases for things like new movies; in other words, the people behind the law are able to still perform manual market segmentation when selling media to maximize their profit, by e.g. encoding DVDs for regions 1, 4, or 6, but the people who have to abide by the new law can't ignore the region encoding as if it were *acutally* a uniform copyright law and application zone.
Big media gets to have their cake and eat it too.
I've only read about half the thing so far; I'm sure there's going to be some more brilliant stuff about copyright.
Now if you want to talk about something *other* than IP... perhaps you'd like to talk about the export of the remainder of the U.S. blue collar textile industry to slave labor factories in Malaysia? Because that's kind of in there, too...
Benson is a pretty fantastic engineer. He dots the i's and crosses the t's, which is somewhat rare these days.
I hope Puneet (if Puneet is still his manager, as he was Benson's and mine, when I worked with Benson) is having Google pay for the cables he's buying, instead of Benson paying for them out of pocket.
In any case, definitely take his Amazon reviews to heart: he knows what the hell he is doing, and he knows which end is the probe and which end goes in the meter. If he says a cable sucks, it sucks, and if he says it's good, it's good.
This is not an unknown thing. We know exactly how hard it is to change. We all know that "You can't teach an old dog...", "Leopard can't change it's spots", and a scorpion will sting the frog even if it drowns.
Helms of Opposite Alignment.
They're pretty effective, too (very high saving throw, unless it's critical to the plot of the module, then of course, the character stays reversed until the end). It's really funny to be playing a neutral character, know about the module, and volunteer to put on the hat. Did that once, and the DM had me trip, fall, and the hat flew threw the air and landed on one of the other players. We were all [not] surprised.
In what universe where Spock has a beard... does an IT guy:
- Play golf - Enjoy football
I grant you the wife and kids, assuming you're old enough that the young people don't respect you (>5 year difference in age).
The college degree is hit or miss; if you were hired out of college without finishing the degree to be a cubicle warmer, and have been too well paid subsequently to go back, you probably won't have the degree still. Otherwise, generally you don't hire self-taught people if they have to work on a team, wo it's a mix of haves/have nots there.
On the other, I'd hate to give inept dummy terrorists the idea that they should give this stuff a try since we're catching so little.
Having the information out there is better.
The effectiveness of a terrorist attack is proportional to how much people believe they are protected from a terrorist attack. In other words, the attack effect is amplified by the idea that the attack is impossible or unlikely to be successful.
One of the reasons for using a commercial jetliner, rather than simply using the money, which these groups has in abundance, and buying or leasing business jets, and filling them with explosives, and then using those to crash into the targets instead was obviously to prove that the screening at airports was not enough to keep the public safe from such attacks.
How much worse would the public overreaction to a subsequent attack, if the public had the perception that the security theater was in fact actually security, and terrorists were able to penetrate it anyway? How much more would the public be unlikely and unwilling to trust government reassurances that they are protected from terrorists?
I can think of about 15 ways to crash the U.S. economy, and I can thing of at least 9 ways to crash the economy of the Western world, and I can think of about 11 more ways to crash things using domino attacks vs. European only targets, or a specific nexus or set of nexuses that don't look like they'd need protecting.
It's pretty obvious that the attacks were not intended to crash the economy.
In fact, if you think about it some more, the fact that there have not been subsequent large scale attacks... the terrorists must feel that they have achieved the goals they intended to achieve through them: massive losses of civil liberties, civil unrest relative to that, and so on.
Security theater in the form of the TSA -- the inability to take bottled water not purchased at the on the other side of the security checkpoint aboard a plane, the inability to see friends and family off at the gate at departure, or greet them at arrival -- merely serves to rearm the weapon of a public perception of security where none actually exists.
Once again: Having the information out there is better.
Yeah it's all the carriers' fault. Samsung are perfect in every way. Except they aren't. I'm never buying a Samsung again because they're poor quality, filled with bloatware and security bugs go unfixed.
I'm confused.
Did you simply fail to understand the part where I stated that the partner model was to ship many units at low margin, rather than a smaller number of units at higher margin? The Android partners, including Samsung, are also to blame.
Even if this is largely driven by their customers being the telcos, rather than the end users, it's Samsung's choice as to which market they want to participate in (the end users do not directly pay for the phones, except in an amortized way, and they will pay that fee regardless of whether or not they get a new phone in exchange for paying it).
Also, partner updates are trapped behind source base non-homgeneity -- this is partly the partner's fault, since they want to maintain secrecy -- and partly Google's fault, for not insisting that all changes to build a platform image be upstreamed to the Android source base -- and partly Linux's fault, for not taking externally generated platform support patches and beating on them into shape to make them acceptable to integrate, rather than expecting the people providing the support to do it for them. You could even blame git's architecture, somewhat, for not supporting security partitioning of versions by user ID, so that two companies secrets could live in the same repository, yet remain secret.
So plenty of economically driven blame to go around, here.
Samsung have no control over telco update deployment. And if you bothered to read, you'd have seen many were fixed long before these "hackers" found them, which means the "hackers" merely looked at the fixes to create an exploit.
This.
The bug hunting, and the 90 day public disclosure window for the bugs... this is "version shaming", in order to try to get the partners to update their firmware, and to get the telcos to deploy the updates.
It generally costs a partner the same to do a new version of Android as it did to do the original version of Android. This is because most of the code changes needed to port the software to a device in the first place, and most of the partner productization changes, are not upstreamed back into the Android main line tree. They weren't put there in the first place, since Google and the partners have non-disclosure agreements in place so that Samsung doesn't get to know what another Android phone maker is about to release, and they don't know what Samsung is about to release.
This makes the process very messy, and it makes updating the version actually running on the phone very very messy, and if a kernel change is necessary because the user space uses new or altered user/kernel interfaces, it makes things even more difficult, since it means kernel changes which have to be upstreamed as well, and that usually means making them available to, but not "cleaning up to the point of acceptability to upstream Linux" for those.
The telco business model has been to get you locked into a 2 year contract at initial signup, and then cause you to re-up the contract every 18 months by offering a new phone with the new OS to get the new features, and to be compatible with the new "store" offerings in apps, in order to *keep* you perpetually locked into the two year window.
The partner model has been to create low margin OEM phones, with the understanding that they will make up for the low margin on volume, by having a rolling inventory of the new model going into those 18 month renewal window pipeline themselves.
In both cases, these are not "buy once, use forever" devices. Neither are iPhones (try to find a 2G service area on either coast for AT&T to use the first generation iPhone; AT&T is actively ripping out 2G capacity, since that's the only way to force someone off a grandfathered unlimited data contract).
Practically speaking, it's in no one's interest, but Google, since they've been eating the bad press on the update situation whenever there's a bug found, and a security flaw is generally the most convenient can opener. Effectively they are using this as judo, to try and version shame both the partners and the telcos: the partners into the development effort for an update, and the telco for the deployment of those updates.
In other words, they are trying to mimic the Apple model, without the hardware or iOS source base homogeneity that allows it to work.
It will be quite interesting to see how long this goes on before something cracks. My personal prediction on what will crack is that the telcos will start offering updated phones earlier, with a prorated valuation on the old phones, and roll the costs into the hardware costs in the first place, and thus into the monthly billing cost.
While you are at it, fix the brush fires from lightning in Africa, which account for about 26.3% of annual CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere.
Even if that were true, where do you think the brush came from? Digging carbon out of the ground and burning it is going to have a different net effect than extracting carbon from the atmosphere into a plant and releasing it back into the atmosphere.
The brush came from the ground. The brush fires came from lightning. The uncontrolled, large area brush fires came from misguided environmental policies, which prevent the clearing of "natural brush" and the creation of fire breaks. The resulting fires are called "fire use" or "let burn" fires. It came out of some misguided philosophies from the 1960's and 1970's. It was first instituted by the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) in 1968.
Here's a history, if you care to read it; sadly other countries have adopted the U.S. policy as well:
According to Climate Action Tracker, Bhutan is leading the way. Also, China, India, the EU and Mexico are all doing a better job at emission reduction than the United States.
Which fails to speak to my original point, which is that as goes California, so the rest of the U.S., and California isn't going anywhere, despite talking a good game. So you are basically agreeing with me (but disagreeing with me and the NY Times on the slope of China's vector relative to the slope of the U.S.'s vector).
So in other words, it's a politically motivated investigation which will go nowhere, for the same reason manufacturers of aluminum ladders are not required to disclose that you could grind them up to manufacture thermite.
Slashdot Mirror
what is the alternative when we need an o(1) access time?
Insertion sort and infix trees work well. The allow you to make specific assumptions about the data you are traversing.
I use problems related to real problems I've worked on in my career. I find that's a better way to reliably sort candidates.
I find that the best way to sort candidates is to use a "sorting hat". Mostly I try to hire hire Ravenclaw. Unless it's a help desk position; then it's almost always a Hufflepuff.
No offense, but why the hell would you want to work there without being an engineer and getting the stock options?
Because you still get a lot of the benefits, as well, even though you explicitly don't get all of them, since companies are required to not treat contractors exactly the same as employees, including having limited terms of employment, and "air gaps" in employment history with the company. But it's not like you don't get the food, or access to most of the athletic stuff, etc..
Plus, you get to hang out with very smart people, and, if you impress them, it's possible that they will pursue you for full time employment. Even without that, however: you get to put "Google" on your resume.
A software engineer is just a programmer, nothing more. Both turn concepts into designs, the only difference is in the lettering on their business card.
That's bullshit.
If I gave a software engineer a test on Knuth's Algorithms, and Sedgewick, a Software Engineer would pass.
A programmer, particularly a self-taught one, unless they put in the effort to do the book study necessary, would fail.
If I gave the software engineer a test on language specifics, they probably wouldn't pass, unless they were also a good programmer.
If I gave a programmer a test on language specifics, they wouldn't pass, unless they were a good programmer.
typedef const char *cstring_t;
typedef char const *stringc_t;
Describe the differences between the following, and tell me *why*:
cstring_t A; ...as one example of thousands.
const char *B;
stringc_t C;
char const *D;
I can't speak for where you live, but here in the UK you certainly have to be suitably qualified to practise as a doctor, same as a solicitor/barrister (lawyer).
You can't ensure a nice personality, but you can be sure they are technically competent.
I think we have different definitions of "suitably qualified".
I really don't care about their paper qualifications (everyone who practices has those, or they end up in jail), and would be extraordinarily happy with a "Doc Martin" type who was a better diagnostician than I am.
For "soliciter/barrister (lawyer)", suitably qualified is defined as "gets me acquitted", and, again, has nothing to do with their paperwork, as every Tom, Dick, and Harry has paperwork, or eventually lands in jail.
Should people who do not understand the gradations and distinctions between educational requirements for different roles in software related projects be asking stupid questions in The Atlantic, as if we were all interchangeable, and equally incompetent as the least of us?
Journalists should have certifications and apprenticeships so that this kind of incompetent article doesn't end up published.
Move along; nothing to see here.
It's just another person who thinks that there should be apprenticeships, because they did not pay attention in their software engineering classes in college, and most colleges no longer teach specific programming languages like C in the abstract, and so he has a piss-poor tool belt.
BTW: I really don't know a lot of places that offers apprenticeships in electrical engineering; you can get one as an electrician, or an electronics technician, but not so much as an electrical engineer, say working on analog radio circuit design.
Also: A Software Engineer designs systems; a programmer turns other people's designs into machine instructions. Big difference, so please quit lumping us in with the programmers.
Unlike law, medicine and traditional engineering fields, software development is completely unregulated with no real standard certifications (even a degree is optional).
Medicine is regulated?!?
Then why do I have to search among so many bad doctors to find a good one (obviously: regulations are not weeding out the bad ones)?
And why, when I take my body to the doctor, most of the time it feels like I'm taking my card to the automotive department at Sears?
If they were smart, they wouldn't be terrorists in the first place. Or TSA screeners, for that matter.
It's idiots against idiots, all the way down.
A large chunk of the 9/11 participants had engineering degrees. If you include engineering, medical, and the sciences, more than 50% of terrorists have either some college or degrees in these fields. They aren't stupid, they just have goals which they can not meet through rational channels, and so they act out through irrational ones. It's not like there is available land for them to run off an form their own country. And it's not like women would flock to such a country to be their wives, were they able to form one; no woman wants to be prohibited from learning to read, be genitally mutilated, and then, if raped, be stoned to death for it, while their rapist goes scot free.
You have to realize that the people engaged in terrorism are the implacable foes of expeditionism and cultural imperialism (and yes, this includes the U.N. Charter on Human Rights, since it's externally imposed).
If they had open borders, in which anyone who wished to could leave their territory, and with it their rule, they would likely quickly die out as their reproductive population went to zero. It wouldn't be as dramatic as the Shakers, who are intentionally celibate, and therefore not reproduce, but over time, the effect would be the same.
Therefore, they can not tolerate open borders, nor can they tolerate a number of things normally associated as basic human rights; if they are to maintain their desired society and social order, they must needs be maintain it through force and oppression. Obviously, they find it highly frustrating that the rest of us, pardon my "French", think they are assholes, and won't let them"live in peace" (at least the rulers in the society), and insist on things like human rights, and other things which seriously cramp their lifestyle.
So they're not stupid, they're just really annoyed that the rest of us won't let them have something they'd like to have (or that the minority would like to have); and, as in the West, we will tolerate the sins of the privileged in the hopes that one day we ourselves can achieve similar status, they are largely willing to forgive the sins of their own leaders, in the same way.
So you think they are stupid, and not achieving their goals, when in fact you are simply not *recognizing* that they are doing so.
from this "deal", because they know better than throwing themselves under the American's bus.
The Chinese are absent from this deal because they get whatever the deal gives to anyone else the U.S. trades with for free, without having to make concessions on their side of the table. The Chinese have MFN - Most Favored Nation - status, which means that the U.S. can not apply restrictions, nor charge more tariff, to China, as it does to the least restricted and tariffed trading partner.
In addition, this give the Chinese an "American Hole", in the same way that NAFTA gave the U.S. a "Mexican Hole". If China is having a problem getting favorable terms with any of the 11 other nations (and, later, the other 2 nations considering joining the party), then they need only transship and do minor changes (the easiest is to just run a shrink-wrap operation in the ports at Hawaii, and (re)shrink-wrap the boxes) making it a product where "final assembly" (the term is intentionally vague) occurs in the U.S. and therefore it's subject to the TPP thereafter.
The NAFTA version of this is to ship products which would ordinarily be tariffed through Mexico, and run through a maquiladora for similar treatment, such that they are technically "Products of Mexico", rather than where the major manufacturing and assembly took place, and therefore not tariffed, due to NAFTA.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What, in the IP section, is worse than treaties and statutes that are already US law? There hasn't been mass civil disobedience (there has been massive lawbreaking, but that's not the same thing) over those.
It mandates ISP monitoring and reporting, because since RIAA and MPAA can't figure out how to do it, they figure the ISPs should have to work as unpaid employees to figure it out for them.
The reporting part means your ISP is no longer a common carrier, because they are required to tattle on people specifically.
It transfers said information without a warrant or court order.
Technically, this was designed to enforce copyright in NZ and Australia, and is basically a ratification of some of the things that Telstra does, which no one likes, and which Telstra can now point to and say "But dad told us! We had to!". The problem being , no one wants to license all the content that the U.S. produces for rebroadcast in those countries, because, seriously, sheep don't watch "Survivor!", but there are one or two people who'd like to.
At the same time as creating a uniform copyright law and application zone for said law, it fails to address the issue of region encoding, and staggered releases for things like new movies; in other words, the people behind the law are able to still perform manual market segmentation when selling media to maximize their profit, by e.g. encoding DVDs for regions 1, 4, or 6, but the people who have to abide by the new law can't ignore the region encoding as if it were *acutally* a uniform copyright law and application zone.
Big media gets to have their cake and eat it too.
I've only read about half the thing so far; I'm sure there's going to be some more brilliant stuff about copyright.
Now if you want to talk about something *other* than IP... perhaps you'd like to talk about the export of the remainder of the U.S. blue collar textile industry to slave labor factories in Malaysia? Because that's kind of in there, too...
Benson is a pretty fantastic engineer. He dots the i's and crosses the t's, which is somewhat rare these days.
I hope Puneet (if Puneet is still his manager, as he was Benson's and mine, when I worked with Benson) is having Google pay for the cables he's buying, instead of Benson paying for them out of pocket.
In any case, definitely take his Amazon reviews to heart: he knows what the hell he is doing, and he knows which end is the probe and which end goes in the meter. If he says a cable sucks, it sucks, and if he says it's good, it's good.
"and open new Asia-Pacific markets" ... to the massive manufacturing juggernaut that is the United States Of America.
Too soon, after the Detroit bankruptcy? My bad...
This is not an unknown thing. We know exactly how hard it is to change. We all know that "You can't teach an old dog...", "Leopard can't change it's spots", and a scorpion will sting the frog even if it drowns.
Helms of Opposite Alignment.
They're pretty effective, too (very high saving throw, unless it's critical to the plot of the module, then of course, the character stays reversed until the end). It's really funny to be playing a neutral character, know about the module, and volunteer to put on the hat. Did that once, and the DM had me trip, fall, and the hat flew threw the air and landed on one of the other players. We were all [not] surprised.
In what universe where Spock has a beard... does an IT guy:
- Play golf
- Enjoy football
I grant you the wife and kids, assuming you're old enough that the young people don't respect you (>5 year difference in age).
The college degree is hit or miss; if you were hired out of college without finishing the degree to be a cubicle warmer, and have been too well paid subsequently to go back, you probably won't have the degree still. Otherwise, generally you don't hire self-taught people if they have to work on a team, wo it's a mix of haves/have nots there.
You also get higher verbal/word scores on the SAT ... enough that there have been studies about it.
Obviously, you've never encountered a "Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity"...
Of course it can be more secure.
Unplug it and bury it in cement. It works for all servers, but Amazon has deeper holes in which to bury them.
Depends, do you have a dedicated security team?
The security grunts are paid in Alpo, and the supervisors are paid in Meow Mix. I also pay their medical.
On the other, I'd hate to give inept dummy terrorists the idea that they should give this stuff a try since we're catching so little.
Having the information out there is better.
The effectiveness of a terrorist attack is proportional to how much people believe they are protected from a terrorist attack. In other words, the attack effect is amplified by the idea that the attack is impossible or unlikely to be successful.
One of the reasons for using a commercial jetliner, rather than simply using the money, which these groups has in abundance, and buying or leasing business jets, and filling them with explosives, and then using those to crash into the targets instead was obviously to prove that the screening at airports was not enough to keep the public safe from such attacks.
How much worse would the public overreaction to a subsequent attack, if the public had the perception that the security theater was in fact actually security, and terrorists were able to penetrate it anyway? How much more would the public be unlikely and unwilling to trust government reassurances that they are protected from terrorists?
I can think of about 15 ways to crash the U.S. economy, and I can thing of at least 9 ways to crash the economy of the Western world, and I can think of about 11 more ways to crash things using domino attacks vs. European only targets, or a specific nexus or set of nexuses that don't look like they'd need protecting.
It's pretty obvious that the attacks were not intended to crash the economy.
In fact, if you think about it some more, the fact that there have not been subsequent large scale attacks... the terrorists must feel that they have achieved the goals they intended to achieve through them: massive losses of civil liberties, civil unrest relative to that, and so on.
Security theater in the form of the TSA -- the inability to take bottled water not purchased at the on the other side of the security checkpoint aboard a plane, the inability to see friends and family off at the gate at departure, or greet them at arrival -- merely serves to rearm the weapon of a public perception of security where none actually exists.
Once again: Having the information out there is better.
Yeah it's all the carriers' fault. Samsung are perfect in every way. Except they aren't. I'm never buying a Samsung again because they're poor quality, filled with bloatware and security bugs go unfixed.
I'm confused.
Did you simply fail to understand the part where I stated that the partner model was to ship many units at low margin, rather than a smaller number of units at higher margin? The Android partners, including Samsung, are also to blame.
Even if this is largely driven by their customers being the telcos, rather than the end users, it's Samsung's choice as to which market they want to participate in (the end users do not directly pay for the phones, except in an amortized way, and they will pay that fee regardless of whether or not they get a new phone in exchange for paying it).
Also, partner updates are trapped behind source base non-homgeneity -- this is partly the partner's fault, since they want to maintain secrecy -- and partly Google's fault, for not insisting that all changes to build a platform image be upstreamed to the Android source base -- and partly Linux's fault, for not taking externally generated platform support patches and beating on them into shape to make them acceptable to integrate, rather than expecting the people providing the support to do it for them. You could even blame git's architecture, somewhat, for not supporting security partitioning of versions by user ID, so that two companies secrets could live in the same repository, yet remain secret.
So plenty of economically driven blame to go around, here.
Samsung have no control over telco update deployment. And if you bothered to read, you'd have seen many were fixed long before these "hackers" found them, which means the "hackers" merely looked at the fixes to create an exploit.
This.
The bug hunting, and the 90 day public disclosure window for the bugs ... this is "version shaming", in order to try to get the partners to update their firmware, and to get the telcos to deploy the updates.
It generally costs a partner the same to do a new version of Android as it did to do the original version of Android. This is because most of the code changes needed to port the software to a device in the first place, and most of the partner productization changes, are not upstreamed back into the Android main line tree. They weren't put there in the first place, since Google and the partners have non-disclosure agreements in place so that Samsung doesn't get to know what another Android phone maker is about to release, and they don't know what Samsung is about to release.
This makes the process very messy, and it makes updating the version actually running on the phone very very messy, and if a kernel change is necessary because the user space uses new or altered user/kernel interfaces, it makes things even more difficult, since it means kernel changes which have to be upstreamed as well, and that usually means making them available to, but not "cleaning up to the point of acceptability to upstream Linux" for those.
The telco business model has been to get you locked into a 2 year contract at initial signup, and then cause you to re-up the contract every 18 months by offering a new phone with the new OS to get the new features, and to be compatible with the new "store" offerings in apps, in order to *keep* you perpetually locked into the two year window.
The partner model has been to create low margin OEM phones, with the understanding that they will make up for the low margin on volume, by having a rolling inventory of the new model going into those 18 month renewal window pipeline themselves.
In both cases, these are not "buy once, use forever" devices. Neither are iPhones (try to find a 2G service area on either coast for AT&T to use the first generation iPhone; AT&T is actively ripping out 2G capacity, since that's the only way to force someone off a grandfathered unlimited data contract).
Practically speaking, it's in no one's interest, but Google, since they've been eating the bad press on the update situation whenever there's a bug found, and a security flaw is generally the most convenient can opener. Effectively they are using this as judo, to try and version shame both the partners and the telcos: the partners into the development effort for an update, and the telco for the deployment of those updates.
In other words, they are trying to mimic the Apple model, without the hardware or iOS source base homogeneity that allows it to work.
It will be quite interesting to see how long this goes on before something cracks. My personal prediction on what will crack is that the telcos will start offering updated phones earlier, with a prorated valuation on the old phones, and roll the costs into the hardware costs in the first place, and thus into the monthly billing cost.
While you are at it, fix the brush fires from lightning in Africa, which account for about 26.3% of annual CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere.
Even if that were true, where do you think the brush came from? Digging carbon out of the ground and burning it is going to have a different net effect than extracting carbon from the atmosphere into a plant and releasing it back into the atmosphere.
The brush came from the ground. The brush fires came from lightning. The uncontrolled, large area brush fires came from misguided environmental policies, which prevent the clearing of "natural brush" and the creation of fire breaks. The resulting fires are called "fire use" or "let burn" fires. It came out of some misguided philosophies from the 1960's and 1970's. It was first instituted by the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) in 1968.
Here's a history, if you care to read it; sadly other countries have adopted the U.S. policy as well:
http://www.nps.gov/fire/wildla...
According to Climate Action Tracker, Bhutan is leading the way. Also, China, India, the EU and Mexico are all doing a better job at emission reduction than the United States.
According to NY Times: China Burns Much More Coal Than Reported, Complicating Climate Talks, China is increasing emissions, not reducing them.
Which fails to speak to my original point, which is that as goes California, so the rest of the U.S., and California isn't going anywhere, despite talking a good game. So you are basically agreeing with me (but disagreeing with me and the NY Times on the slope of China's vector relative to the slope of the U.S.'s vector).
So in other words, it's a politically motivated investigation which will go nowhere, for the same reason manufacturers of aluminum ladders are not required to disclose that you could grind them up to manufacture thermite.