i don't think he was implying that there aren't intelligent people where development is being outsourced.. but only that the ease of outsourcing software development shows that is a 'skilled labor' job, not a research job. If coding was such a highly intellectual activity, then simply moving over bulks of it would not be such a trivial manner.
And before you start wantonly insulting random people, I have been to India, I have many friends there and here who are Indian, and I know that their educational system is on par with ours in the software field right now.
i am beginning to think coding is easier with less brains; then again it might be because i have spent the last year working with c#
As a note to the original parent, though, coding is about the most insignificant thing i learned in my cs degree. Coding without a solid background in math, science, physics, and ample skills in the humanities, is no different than being a draftsman or accountant. Not to say that being the 'application' builder is bad, but it ain't a science
The fascist capitalist bolshevik corporate overlords are yet again conspiring to encroach on my freedom to record all that I see, even though i happen to be in a movie theater that is privately owned and even though that couple in front of me is totally unaware that i am filming them more than the movie and plan to distribute videos of them making out on emule; But they have no right to film me! Those communist fbi Hoover-worshipping hippies think they can just go around filming whatever they see, even me in the theater, uh, itching myself, while filming the couple in front of, i mean the movie.. oh jebus.. i mean Privacy Forever!!
Personally, I take comfort in my mail being sifted by google's algorithms. With the sheer volume of email going back and forth, and the limited capability of parsing and sorting it, I don't see email monitoring as having any future in anything 'dangerous'. If i was for some reason discussing i thought to be worthy of privacy, i would encrypt it..
I mean c'mon, if someone was interested in 'monitoring' for political activity, or blackmail potential, they would be making their task significantly greater by adding all the trite email conversations into their processing. I highly doubt that the FBI is curious as to me and my friends discussion of Bush's incompetence, or Al Qaeda's tactics. That requires an analyst to read my email, valuable resources saved for confirmed danger. If i was really discussing something secret.. well, its my own damn fault for thinking that the internet is a secure medium. The only people concerned about this are the ones who have little understanding of the actual Volume of email that is sent/received, and the real nature of security.
I think (but i am no expert), that setting up a wifi network is substantially easier than a mobile phone network; specifically for those who are not directly in the communications industry. Wifi requires standard, serviceable off the shelf hardware, and there is alot more free online info on how to setup wifi networks than how to set up a cell tower in your backyard.
Being currently in Berlin, when i first saw the headline i did a double-take, and steroid/blood doping came to mind in a mental image not unlike Rocky IV (where the Russian boxer was working out).
I was in India in the fall of 2002, and I remember buying a full version of warez'd Windows XP, Office XP, and a host of other warez programs on cd on the streets of Bombay. For 150 rupees a cd (about 3 dollars, and i probably overpaid!).
The most amusing part was that the clearly pirated cds had 'copyright 2002' writen on them. There is almost no visible copyright enforcement in India that i have noticed, and the very notion of it does not seem to be very prevalent in Indian culture. For an example of this, i have found that many c# articles have been plagarized, usually following a scheme of 1 western author to n Indian authors. I am not implying that the majority of Indian developers disregard copyrights, but in my experience a disproportionate minority do
Not to extend this engaging (albeit mildly redundant) thread, but i would argue my example is quite applicable, not in a direct sense to what you may be proposing, but once again as an analogy to the fallacy in thinking there can be a direct solution to this problem. I think these grey areas will surely come out, but not until such a system is actually in widespread use.
Although i must stress that i personally am all for such biometric/smart card type systems as I think they can be done right. However I still resist anyone putting 'faith' into them rather than rationally seeing their limits. This is a prerequisite i feel must exist if these cards are to succeed.
heh, by 'deep', i mean several levels down, and i have run into some recently that dealt with topics in depth.
no, i am not an expert, i have only a few classes from the latter half of my undergrad on cryptography and security/privacy at R.I.T. I have read a number of books, but by no means claim to have anything more than a fairly good understanding of the basics of the field.
I agree with you that alot of worries voiced on/. are meaningless, but don't overestimate the technologies. There are plenty of examples of consumer level, well distributed 'secure' systems that have been fairly effectively breached (the adobe secure document debacle an comes to mind).
As to the post it thing, note the "(analogy)". What i was intending to say briefly and humorously was that a secure system will at somepoint need a person to use it properly. What if someone lets their kid go get the groceries on their smart card, and the grocer who knows that kid is the child of the parent, ignores the failed biometric, or bypasses it? This is where the problem comes in, not necessarily at the system level, but at the user level. Bruce Schneier does a really good job of explaining this aspect in his book Secrets & Lies
First off, plz don't patronize me, and i would strongly advise against patronizing the/. crowd. As whimisical, annoying, obtuse, and frustrating as it is, you never know what sort of expertise you will ram heads with deep in a technical thread.
Regarding the question at hand. You make the assumption of If the system is properly implemented , which i do not accept as a valid assumption in the field of security. Even if the method of encoding the keys onto the reactive hardware (i won't ask more about this, because i am skeptical of your stringing these technologies together so easily), was totally open and exposed, there is still no way to constantly monitor every last unit made, and make sure nobody is sneaking into the process, changing the system for a couple VIP passports, then switching back. My point is only that there will always be a security flaw, and that is humanity. And there is NO way to make something absolutely secure.
Hah, i alwasy thought skiing in NY sucked.. but the day after tomorrow i heard we are gonna get dumped on! Screw Gore and Hunter, Central Park here i come!
dontgiveadamnism: Subscribers to dontgiveadamnism generally understand that wondering if there is a God is a very unnerving and unpleasant thing to do (roughly pulling off toenails to the 314157th power), and uses up hours that could be doing fun things, like riding bicycles, having sex, programming, drinking really good coffee, and of course, (my personal favorite activity) smelling fresh basil leaves.
All in all, in dontgiveadamnism its taken for granted that those who unquestioningly have faith in a vastly superior being are, quite frankly, setting themselves up to be ruled by someone else (who declares themselves an emissary to this vastly superior being, and therefore almost, but not quite, as vastly superior). At the same time those who rigidly decline the existence of a vastly superior being are just stubbornly resisting the overwhelming majority, and most likely do believe in a vastly superior being, and in their drive to be rebellious, are just as likely to be steered by those who say they are even more rigid against the existence of a vastly superior being, and therefore are vastly superior. It makes sense if you read it twice.
Basically a dontgiveadamnist can be easily identified as the one who starts to scan the room for a new conversation at a party when the existentialist conversation arises, unless of course this conversation is referring to whether the purpose of existence is to smell fresh basil leaves, which i may have already mentioned, is a really pleasant thing to do.
you are right, but any security person will tell you that you can implement all the mathematical security you can dream of, but ultimately if (analogy) the password is a on a post-it note next to the monitor, it doesn't matter.
my point being that even though this and that key system is guarding your data, the person controlling the security of the keys is...well, a person. And thats where the attack will occur.
A very small, light hearted, utterly whimsical, and funny post is assaulted by some jackass who feels the need to say something utterly pathetic in pure caps. Its like someone is yelling, and its totally stupid. I would like to apologize the the original post, and humanity on behalf of the idiot who posted as parent. If ever there was a time to delete a post...
I wouldn't be surprised if there are some pretty hefty EM fields in the ISS, which would probably impact really really small transistors running really fast (such as modern processors). After all, heavy industry often needs to worry about EM interference in factories, and thus cannot use some of the high speed transfers that consumers have. Humans, of course, are impacted by big EM fields; like all those reports of people getting cancer living under big powerlines....
Exactly, except what is so infurating about the article is that this CEO claims that it is US workers who aren't competitive due to education. Bullshit, US workers are not competitive because the US has a higher standard of living, and thus has higher costs. The only thing that keeps US workers afloat is their education.
Very cool image
on
Robosaurus
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The real trick for laptop batteries is not getting them to wither away until they can not hold a charge longer than 3 minutes. My toshiba portege is effectively a mini-desktop with lots of cables draped about because its battery is essentially useless now.
its subversive in that the new decentralized network formed is not running over the backbones owned by major corporations and/or the US dept of defense. A citizen's internet if you will, made even more dynamic by the constant motion of each node.
nono, decentralize, not destabilize. Destabilization comes from coups in highly concentrated power.. decentralization is when you take a minor thing (like one person's connectivity) and build up on it, until ultimately it overcomes the existing
I am almost certain that made no sense due it being friday at 4:23 pm
Slashdot Mirror
i don't think he was implying that there aren't intelligent people where development is being outsourced.. but only that the ease of outsourcing software development shows that is a 'skilled labor' job, not a research job. If coding was such a highly intellectual activity, then simply moving over bulks of it would not be such a trivial manner.
And before you start wantonly insulting random people, I have been to India, I have many friends there and here who are Indian, and I know that their educational system is on par with ours in the software field right now.
i am beginning to think coding is easier with less brains; then again it might be because i have spent the last year working with c#
As a note to the original parent, though, coding is about the most insignificant thing i learned in my cs degree. Coding without a solid background in math, science, physics, and ample skills in the humanities, is no different than being a draftsman or accountant. Not to say that being the 'application' builder is bad, but it ain't a science
wow thanks for the info (and physics link). Always wondered why exactly blue lights were 'night lights' in the military.
The fascist capitalist bolshevik corporate overlords are yet again conspiring to encroach on my freedom to record all that I see, even though i happen to be in a movie theater that is privately owned and even though that couple in front of me is totally unaware that i am filming them more than the movie and plan to distribute videos of them making out on emule; But they have no right to film me! Those communist fbi Hoover-worshipping hippies think they can just go around filming whatever they see, even me in the theater, uh, itching myself, while filming the couple in front of, i mean the movie.. oh jebus.. i mean Privacy Forever!!
I agree.. I have a gmail account and I love it
Personally, I take comfort in my mail being sifted by google's algorithms. With the sheer volume of email going back and forth, and the limited capability of parsing and sorting it, I don't see email monitoring as having any future in anything 'dangerous'. If i was for some reason discussing i thought to be worthy of privacy, i would encrypt it..
I mean c'mon, if someone was interested in 'monitoring' for political activity, or blackmail potential, they would be making their task significantly greater by adding all the trite email conversations into their processing. I highly doubt that the FBI is curious as to me and my friends discussion of Bush's incompetence, or Al Qaeda's tactics. That requires an analyst to read my email, valuable resources saved for confirmed danger. If i was really discussing something secret.. well, its my own damn fault for thinking that the internet is a secure medium. The only people concerned about this are the ones who have little understanding of the actual Volume of email that is sent/received, and the real nature of security.
I think (but i am no expert), that setting up a wifi network is substantially easier than a mobile phone network; specifically for those who are not directly in the communications industry. Wifi requires standard, serviceable off the shelf hardware, and there is alot more free online info on how to setup wifi networks than how to set up a cell tower in your backyard.
Being currently in Berlin, when i first saw the headline i did a double-take, and steroid/blood doping came to mind in a mental image not unlike Rocky IV (where the Russian boxer was working out).
"We're stripping the soldier down to his skin, and building out from there," said Jean-Louis "Dutch" DeGay
That says Hoax all the way
This is very true.
I was in India in the fall of 2002, and I remember buying a full version of warez'd Windows XP, Office XP, and a host of other warez programs on cd on the streets of Bombay. For 150 rupees a cd (about 3 dollars, and i probably overpaid!).
The most amusing part was that the clearly pirated cds had 'copyright 2002' writen on them. There is almost no visible copyright enforcement in India that i have noticed, and the very notion of it does not seem to be very prevalent in Indian culture. For an example of this, i have found that many c# articles have been plagarized, usually following a scheme of 1 western author to n Indian authors. I am not implying that the majority of Indian developers disregard copyrights, but in my experience a disproportionate minority do
you are relying on proper implementation again.
Not to extend this engaging (albeit mildly redundant) thread, but i would argue my example is quite applicable, not in a direct sense to what you may be proposing, but once again as an analogy to the fallacy in thinking there can be a direct solution to this problem. I think these grey areas will surely come out, but not until such a system is actually in widespread use.
Although i must stress that i personally am all for such biometric/smart card type systems as I think they can be done right. However I still resist anyone putting 'faith' into them rather than rationally seeing their limits. This is a prerequisite i feel must exist if these cards are to succeed.
heh, by 'deep', i mean several levels down, and i have run into some recently that dealt with topics in depth.
/. are meaningless, but don't overestimate the technologies. There are plenty of examples of consumer level, well distributed 'secure' systems that have been fairly effectively breached (the adobe secure document debacle an comes to mind).
no, i am not an expert, i have only a few classes from the latter half of my undergrad on cryptography and security/privacy at R.I.T. I have read a number of books, but by no means claim to have anything more than a fairly good understanding of the basics of the field.
I agree with you that alot of worries voiced on
As to the post it thing, note the "(analogy)". What i was intending to say briefly and humorously was that a secure system will at somepoint need a person to use it properly. What if someone lets their kid go get the groceries on their smart card, and the grocer who knows that kid is the child of the parent, ignores the failed biometric, or bypasses it? This is where the problem comes in, not necessarily at the system level, but at the user level. Bruce Schneier does a really good job of explaining this aspect in his book Secrets & Lies
First off, plz don't patronize me, and i would strongly advise against patronizing the /. crowd. As whimisical, annoying, obtuse, and frustrating as it is, you never know what sort of expertise you will ram heads with deep in a technical thread.
Regarding the question at hand. You make the assumption of If the system is properly implemented , which i do not accept as a valid assumption in the field of security. Even if the method of encoding the keys onto the reactive hardware (i won't ask more about this, because i am skeptical of your stringing these technologies together so easily), was totally open and exposed, there is still no way to constantly monitor every last unit made, and make sure nobody is sneaking into the process, changing the system for a couple VIP passports, then switching back. My point is only that there will always be a security flaw, and that is humanity. And there is NO way to make something absolutely secure.
hehe, yah i guess a little imitiation is flattery going on there. .reread the guide last week :)
Hah, i alwasy thought skiing in NY sucked.. but the day after tomorrow i heard we are gonna get dumped on! Screw Gore and Hunter, Central Park here i come!
hmm how about
dontgiveadamnism: Subscribers to dontgiveadamnism generally understand that wondering if there is a God is a very unnerving and unpleasant thing to do (roughly pulling off toenails to the 314157th power), and uses up hours that could be doing fun things, like riding bicycles, having sex, programming, drinking really good coffee, and of course, (my personal favorite activity) smelling fresh basil leaves.
All in all, in dontgiveadamnism its taken for granted that those who unquestioningly have faith in a vastly superior being are, quite frankly, setting themselves up to be ruled by someone else (who declares themselves an emissary to this vastly superior being, and therefore almost, but not quite, as vastly superior). At the same time those who rigidly decline the existence of a vastly superior being are just stubbornly resisting the overwhelming majority, and most likely do believe in a vastly superior being, and in their drive to be rebellious, are just as likely to be steered by those who say they are even more rigid against the existence of a vastly superior being, and therefore are vastly superior. It makes sense if you read it twice.
Basically a dontgiveadamnist can be easily identified as the one who starts to scan the room for a new conversation at a party when the existentialist conversation arises, unless of course this conversation is referring to whether the purpose of existence is to smell fresh basil leaves, which i may have already mentioned, is a really pleasant thing to do.
you are right, but any security person will tell you that you can implement all the mathematical security you can dream of, but ultimately if (analogy) the password is a on a post-it note next to the monitor, it doesn't matter.
my point being that even though this and that key system is guarding your data, the person controlling the security of the keys is...well, a person. And thats where the attack will occur.
A very small, light hearted, utterly whimsical, and funny post is assaulted by some jackass who feels the need to say something utterly pathetic in pure caps. Its like someone is yelling, and its totally stupid. I would like to apologize the the original post, and humanity on behalf of the idiot who posted as parent. If ever there was a time to delete a post...
I wouldn't be surprised if there are some pretty hefty EM fields in the ISS, which would probably impact really really small transistors running really fast (such as modern processors). After all, heavy industry often needs to worry about EM interference in factories, and thus cannot use some of the high speed transfers that consumers have. Humans, of course, are impacted by big EM fields; like all those reports of people getting cancer living under big powerlines....
Exactly, except what is so infurating about the article is that this CEO claims that it is US workers who aren't competitive due to education. Bullshit, US workers are not competitive because the US has a higher standard of living, and thus has higher costs. The only thing that keeps US workers afloat is their education.
cool pic from 'robosaurus in action'..
Now game-playing psychologists would be another story...
The real trick for laptop batteries is not getting them to wither away until they can not hold a charge longer than 3 minutes. My toshiba portege is effectively a mini-desktop with lots of cables draped about because its battery is essentially useless now.
its subversive in that the new decentralized network formed is not running over the backbones owned by major corporations and/or the US dept of defense. A citizen's internet if you will, made even more dynamic by the constant motion of each node.
nono, decentralize, not destabilize. Destabilization comes from coups in highly concentrated power.. decentralization is when you take a minor thing (like one person's connectivity) and build up on it, until ultimately it overcomes the existing
I am almost certain that made no sense due it being friday at 4:23 pm
Is it easier to speak dangerous words when your face isn't on the screen?
About as easy as cloaking serious and incisive criticism in humor, i.e. satire.