No joke, but there was a plastic surgeon in Texas who had the same first and last name as I. He specialized in breast augmentation. It's a while ago now, but right around the year 2000 or 2001, I got an email inquiring about his services. Apparently, the young woman writing thought I was he. I was sorely tempted to say that I would need to see what I would be working with, before I could give my "professional opinion," but my conscience got the best of me.
If you go to the DisruptJ20 website and look around a bit, you'll see that they distribute publications that include how to fight with riot police and armored vehicles—I suppose in case enthusiasts want research to write a screenplay or something.
For example, the "Egyptian Tactical Pamphlet." https://www.indybay.org/newsit...
I have to say, I used to be all for civil liberties; but now that I'm told that these devious Russians are trying to influence our elections, well then obviously what we need is strict controls in place to shutdown all that FAKE NEWS and ensure that our news sources publish only Real News! Why isn't anybody talking about this!!!!!
With respect to the electrical grid, we deserve what we get. Our entire civilization rests on electricity. If ever there was cause for an air gap or private network, this is it. It goes beyond irresponsible to have hooked our power stations up to the Internet. It is simply moronic.
You're absolutely right in your characterization of things, but this is what a lot of people fail to get. What we have here are two separate moral standards going on.
Human beings have lived most of their existence in groups of no more than 150 individuals. Even for most of recorded history, most people lived in villages or in neighborhoods in cities where they knew just about every face they saw during the day, every day of their lives. Whatever kind of innate moral sense we have and whatever moral codes we have developed have all developed within this context of face-to-face interactions and persistent relationships. So, human beings have a hard time doing anything that isn't "nice." It's not "nice" to quit without giving notice. What "decent" person does a thing like that?
Companies, by contrast, operate on a system of profit and loss. I am not saying that's a bad thing. What I'm saying is that people shouldn't kid themselves. When a company decides to show you the door, that's excused as being "nothing personal, just business." In other words, they are doing solely what is the interest of the company: most particularly, their bottom line.
People need to understand that these are the rules. By all means, when you're interacting with friends, family, neighbors, or even strangers on the subway, do the right thing—the thing that human interactions have relied on for millennia. But when you're dealing with a company—when it's business—think first what's in your best interest, and then do that without a qualm.
Maybe giving notice is right for you, then and there. Then, go ahead. But, maybe walking right out the door is the best thing for you. In that case then, by all means, don't let the door hit you in the ass.
It's wrong to presume that there was a legal way for Snowden to do what he did, because several previous whistle blowers who went by the book were targeted and prosecuted by the government. The intelligence agencies, and the politicians who support them, do not tolerate leaks—even well-intentioned ones that follow protocol and seek only to expose wrongdoing to the "proper" authorities.
Let's not talk about Edward Snowden being brought to trial. Rather, the people in our intelligence agencies and their allies in elected offices who subvert our laws, or who downright break our laws, and who vindictively attack anyone who tries to expose their unlawful, un-democratic, and anti-social behavior are the ones who need to be brought to trial. Hold them accountable first—and then we can talk about Edward Snowden.
The sad thing is that, from the video I saw, the cop who got pulled over by the woman handled it in a reasonably professional manner. The head crybaby over at the union started the "We'll show her" nonsense. All that aside though, I agree with you about what police work seems to do the mind.
Don't the Iranian powers that be have something to say about this? When people began writing apps to publicize checkpoints here in the U.S., our morality police threw a hissy fit.
[...] the very next thing that would happen is that China et al will ask for the same solution.
I think this is actually backwards compared to how it may actually play out. This month's *Harper's Magazine* has an interesting essay about American businesses operating in China. (*Harper's* is paywalled, but you get a few free views per month.) The essay can be found here:
The gist of the essay is that China's authoritarian government strong-arms American businesses, using all of the tools at its command, including outright arrest of business executives, and that this is only going to get worse, to the point where China will be setting U.S. policy by proxy, via business lobbying. After reading that essay yesterday, my guess is that China may someday soon pressure businesses for a backdoor, be granted that backdoor, and that the U.S. government may then get its wish based on China's precedent.
Thanks. This makes me think of Plato's Cave. In other words, we live here in the "big" part of the universe. That's what we observe, and in terms of concepts, that's our frame of reference. And Newtonian physics applies really well in describing what goes on here, and in a way that appeals to our everyday concepts. But, as we turn our attention to what goes on in the "smaller" corners of the universe, and try to understand what we observe using the concepts from the frame of reference we live in, our analogies break down. Is that sort of what you're saying?
A person could use this app to run a blog of sorts, and as popular as it became the blogger would be hosting it on the cheap. You host the app and tweet the shortened URL's. The content is hosted, but not by you. The URL shortener hosts the content. But unlike LiveJournal or Wordpress.com, the URL shortener never agreed to hosting your content. You've essentially repurposed its functionality and subverted its intent.
I'm guessing the various URL shorteners will respond to this very quickly. The hack will end up being as short-lived as it is cool.
This isn't an exact analogy, but calculus is more than 250 years old, and it's not like everyone is doing calculus. In fact, never mind calculus: there are plenty of people who, though they have sat in an algebra class, don't get even rudimentary algebra. So, why are we imagining that someday everyone is going to code?
Certainly, not every programmer with a strong background in math is like this. But I've worked with people who are proud of their math ability, and who would be the first to tell you how critical math is to programming, who write terrible code. And I think their math ability may be at the root of the problem. I've decided that the kindest thing I can assume about them is that they're, perhaps, math savants.
They pride themselves on their "uncommon" ability to keep lots and lots abstract details "in their heads," and in their "analytical" skills. Their ability, I imagine, encourages them to write their programs as one big ticker tape, and their programming suggests they have no idea of how to name variables, much less compartmentalize. Next, they "debug," which translates to running their coughed up hairball of code through the debugger, iteration after iteration, until they've finally straightened it out and "got something working." And, then, that's the end of it for them—program, done.
I would much rather work with someone of either more modest math ability, or someone who, in addition to their math ability, had some idea of how to communicate (which, I think, is a critically important skill to a good programmer). That person might actually have a chance of writing maintainable code, instead of producing a "class" that's 5,000 lines long with 30 instance variables, and a 7 or 8 methods all marked "static."
I work for a "mom and pop" shop, as you call it, and I can sympathize with what you're saying. But it goes both ways. We built an application for a company that I am sure you heard of. Let's call it "Acme Inc." One of the application's requirements was that it support SAML authentication. That's fine, we could handle that. All we asked for was some particulars about Acme Inc's environment.
Could we have a sample SAML token, to see what kind of assertions Acme would be requiring? Could we have the SAML version, 1 or 2, that Acme uses? The responsibility for providing us with any of this was "delegated" to people who already have too much on their plate, don't really know what is going on themselves, and who lack the mojo to get a quick response from the various systems administrators at Acme who could help. A couple of weeks later, the stakeholders at Acme are crying, "Come on, come on, come on! We want the product!" Of course, none of these preliminaries have been attended to.
Then, when the product is finally delivered, the guy at Acme charged with putting the product through its paces has no idea how SAML works, and is asking me to walk him through it. (Remember, this was their idea.) We come to find out that he has no test server to use as an "Identity Provider" (don't ask!), and he wants to know if can I help him there.
Granted, this is all ultimately a managerial screw-up. But, my point is that even if a mom-and-pop does code up an LDAP, who's to say the customer has it together on its end?
Seriously, the scary thing here is that you could quite innocently find yourself the subject of an investigation, and have your whole life spiral out of control from there. The FBI has manufactured "terrorists" by leveraging their criminal informants, and innocent people have gotten caught up in the agency's overzealous and amoral crusade to "catch bad guys."
What I would like to see is someone give it the old college try and write up a "compare and contrast" essay: The FBI vs. the Stasi, KGB, et cetera. I worry things are getting that bad in this country. Now we have to worry about what we might re-tweet!
Slashdot Mirror
No joke, but there was a plastic surgeon in Texas who had the same first and last name as I. He specialized in breast augmentation. It's a while ago now, but right around the year 2000 or 2001, I got an email inquiring about his services. Apparently, the young woman writing thought I was he. I was sorely tempted to say that I would need to see what I would be working with, before I could give my "professional opinion," but my conscience got the best of me.
If you go to the DisruptJ20 website and look around a bit, you'll see that they distribute publications that include how to fight with riot police and armored vehicles—I suppose in case enthusiasts want research to write a screenplay or something. For example, the "Egyptian Tactical Pamphlet." https://www.indybay.org/newsit...
I have to say, I used to be all for civil liberties; but now that I'm told that these devious Russians are trying to influence our elections, well then obviously what we need is strict controls in place to shutdown all that FAKE NEWS and ensure that our news sources publish only Real News! Why isn't anybody talking about this!!!!!
With respect to the electrical grid, we deserve what we get. Our entire civilization rests on electricity. If ever there was cause for an air gap or private network, this is it. It goes beyond irresponsible to have hooked our power stations up to the Internet. It is simply moronic.
Wouldn't Trump just start his own Twitter?
You're absolutely right in your characterization of things, but this is what a lot of people fail to get. What we have here are two separate moral standards going on.
Human beings have lived most of their existence in groups of no more than 150 individuals. Even for most of recorded history, most people lived in villages or in neighborhoods in cities where they knew just about every face they saw during the day, every day of their lives. Whatever kind of innate moral sense we have and whatever moral codes we have developed have all developed within this context of face-to-face interactions and persistent relationships. So, human beings have a hard time doing anything that isn't "nice." It's not "nice" to quit without giving notice. What "decent" person does a thing like that?
Companies, by contrast, operate on a system of profit and loss. I am not saying that's a bad thing. What I'm saying is that people shouldn't kid themselves. When a company decides to show you the door, that's excused as being "nothing personal, just business." In other words, they are doing solely what is the interest of the company: most particularly, their bottom line.
People need to understand that these are the rules. By all means, when you're interacting with friends, family, neighbors, or even strangers on the subway, do the right thing—the thing that human interactions have relied on for millennia. But when you're dealing with a company—when it's business—think first what's in your best interest, and then do that without a qualm.
Maybe giving notice is right for you, then and there. Then, go ahead. But, maybe walking right out the door is the best thing for you. In that case then, by all means, don't let the door hit you in the ass.
If I'm paying for the car, it had better be looking out for me.
It's wrong to presume that there was a legal way for Snowden to do what he did, because several previous whistle blowers who went by the book were targeted and prosecuted by the government. The intelligence agencies, and the politicians who support them, do not tolerate leaks—even well-intentioned ones that follow protocol and seek only to expose wrongdoing to the "proper" authorities.
Let's not talk about Edward Snowden being brought to trial. Rather, the people in our intelligence agencies and their allies in elected offices who subvert our laws, or who downright break our laws, and who vindictively attack anyone who tries to expose their unlawful, un-democratic, and anti-social behavior are the ones who need to be brought to trial. Hold them accountable first—and then we can talk about Edward Snowden.
Liberal Arts majors need no longer restrict their job search to McDonald's, Burger King, etc.
There's an old joke that goes: "The Internet: where men are men, women are men, and children are FBI agents—and they're men!"
(I heard it years ago, right hear on Slashdot.)
Apple could just buy its own city, the same way Walt Disney did, and leave Cupertino in the lurch.
The sad thing is that, from the video I saw, the cop who got pulled over by the woman handled it in a reasonably professional manner. The head crybaby over at the union started the "We'll show her" nonsense. All that aside though, I agree with you about what police work seems to do the mind.
Don't the Iranian powers that be have something to say about this? When people began writing apps to publicize checkpoints here in the U.S., our morality police threw a hissy fit.
Is it too much to ask for a "And why this is a big deal" in the summary, or do I have to turn in my nerd card?
No Congress can pass a law that a subsequent Congress can't repeal. There is no such thing as "permanent."
I think this is actually backwards compared to how it may actually play out. This month's *Harper's Magazine* has an interesting essay about American businesses operating in China. (*Harper's* is paywalled, but you get a few free views per month.) The essay can be found here:
"The New China Syndrome: American business meets its new master"
The gist of the essay is that China's authoritarian government strong-arms American businesses, using all of the tools at its command, including outright arrest of business executives, and that this is only going to get worse, to the point where China will be setting U.S. policy by proxy, via business lobbying. After reading that essay yesterday, my guess is that China may someday soon pressure businesses for a backdoor, be granted that backdoor, and that the U.S. government may then get its wish based on China's precedent.
Thanks. This makes me think of Plato's Cave. In other words, we live here in the "big" part of the universe. That's what we observe, and in terms of concepts, that's our frame of reference. And Newtonian physics applies really well in describing what goes on here, and in a way that appeals to our everyday concepts. But, as we turn our attention to what goes on in the "smaller" corners of the universe, and try to understand what we observe using the concepts from the frame of reference we live in, our analogies break down. Is that sort of what you're saying?
Thank you.
Don't we have an intractable Chicken-and-Egg problem here?
A person could use this app to run a blog of sorts, and as popular as it became the blogger would be hosting it on the cheap. You host the app and tweet the shortened URL's. The content is hosted, but not by you. The URL shortener hosts the content. But unlike LiveJournal or Wordpress.com, the URL shortener never agreed to hosting your content. You've essentially repurposed its functionality and subverted its intent.
I'm guessing the various URL shorteners will respond to this very quickly. The hack will end up being as short-lived as it is cool.
This isn't an exact analogy, but calculus is more than 250 years old, and it's not like everyone is doing calculus. In fact, never mind calculus: there are plenty of people who, though they have sat in an algebra class, don't get even rudimentary algebra. So, why are we imagining that someday everyone is going to code?
Certainly, not every programmer with a strong background in math is like this. But I've worked with people who are proud of their math ability, and who would be the first to tell you how critical math is to programming, who write terrible code. And I think their math ability may be at the root of the problem. I've decided that the kindest thing I can assume about them is that they're, perhaps, math savants.
They pride themselves on their "uncommon" ability to keep lots and lots abstract details "in their heads," and in their "analytical" skills. Their ability, I imagine, encourages them to write their programs as one big ticker tape, and their programming suggests they have no idea of how to name variables, much less compartmentalize. Next, they "debug," which translates to running their coughed up hairball of code through the debugger, iteration after iteration, until they've finally straightened it out and "got something working." And, then, that's the end of it for them—program, done.
I would much rather work with someone of either more modest math ability, or someone who, in addition to their math ability, had some idea of how to communicate (which, I think, is a critically important skill to a good programmer). That person might actually have a chance of writing maintainable code, instead of producing a "class" that's 5,000 lines long with 30 instance variables, and a 7 or 8 methods all marked "static."
I work for a "mom and pop" shop, as you call it, and I can sympathize with what you're saying. But it goes both ways. We built an application for a company that I am sure you heard of. Let's call it "Acme Inc." One of the application's requirements was that it support SAML authentication. That's fine, we could handle that. All we asked for was some particulars about Acme Inc's environment.
Could we have a sample SAML token, to see what kind of assertions Acme would be requiring? Could we have the SAML version, 1 or 2, that Acme uses? The responsibility for providing us with any of this was "delegated" to people who already have too much on their plate, don't really know what is going on themselves, and who lack the mojo to get a quick response from the various systems administrators at Acme who could help. A couple of weeks later, the stakeholders at Acme are crying, "Come on, come on, come on! We want the product!" Of course, none of these preliminaries have been attended to.
Then, when the product is finally delivered, the guy at Acme charged with putting the product through its paces has no idea how SAML works, and is asking me to walk him through it. (Remember, this was their idea.) We come to find out that he has no test server to use as an "Identity Provider" (don't ask!), and he wants to know if can I help him there.
Granted, this is all ultimately a managerial screw-up. But, my point is that even if a mom-and-pop does code up an LDAP, who's to say the customer has it together on its end?
What Oracle fucked up on in the mid-Aughts was not copying Apple's iPhone innovation.
Don't talk to cops.
Seriously, the scary thing here is that you could quite innocently find yourself the subject of an investigation, and have your whole life spiral out of control from there. The FBI has manufactured "terrorists" by leveraging their criminal informants, and innocent people have gotten caught up in the agency's overzealous and amoral crusade to "catch bad guys."
But, don't take my word for it:
What I would like to see is someone give it the old college try and write up a "compare and contrast" essay: The FBI vs. the Stasi, KGB, et cetera. I worry things are getting that bad in this country. Now we have to worry about what we might re-tweet!