To be fair, even in recent history two of the largest auto makers in the US went through bankruptcy in GM and Chrysler. They are doing just fine. Ford would have as well if they hadn't gotten lucky (or prescient) and took out a massive multi-billion dollar loan shortly before the whole crisis.
I think Tesla has a lot going for it really. As others have mentioned, given the facts about how the market reacted (blip), this story more looks like a bunch of investors shorting the stock, and trying to influence public opinion so that they make money (or not lose so much when successful). So yeah I can kinda appreciate where Musk might be a little pissed when he is forced into having a phone conversation with a bunch of people who are obviously betting on your failure and using the opportunity to try to influence that to happen. I'd probably publicly snub them also.
Well there is only so much you can do with solar and batteries, particularly with an absence of light. There are a ton of non-mars space applications it could be used for. RTG's which have been used in the past are the other option, but their power output is much smaller.
Exactly. I use it constantly every day for testing applications and user troubleshooting. Had a colleague point it out to me as I was oblivious that it even existed. I still have to print screen and paint certain things like menus that close when you try to select the tool, so that would be a nice option but other than that it is pretty complete, though being able to insert text would also be good (you can hand write using pen, but messy).
As someone who deals with hunting statistics and have talked to long time hunting regulators insofar as hunting goes the biggest threat to big game is the advent of ATV's and the like over the last 30 years or so. Hunters have far more ease of access to areas they normally would not. It takes a certain kind of hunter to manually tromp many many hours (even days) into the back country for the opportunity to hunt. Now with ATV's and more access roads, it is much easier for more hunters to range much wider than ever before...
So while habitat loss due to various factors is a thing, there is also the loss of more less inaccessible habitat that big game were more less safe. The actual habitat is still there, and more less undamaged, but hunters are more successful at hunting in the past mostly because they can get to places they could not in recent history.
I initially agreed when the first 16:9 screens first starting coming out and becoming popular. I poo poo'd them, and instead bought a nice 4:3 for my previous build. However obviously since then everything is 16:9, as is my newer build, and now I have a nice 4:3 collecting dust, and multi-monitor setup is not only hard, but also weird to try and have a 4:3 and a 16:9 at the same time... I'm usually pretty good at guessing trends, but I got that one wrong. I figured it was really only good for movies, and I don't really watch movies on my computer. 16:9 had some relevance when I had to physically link my computer monitor and flat screen TV together along with a IR remote for media center... However now that is even obsolete as there are a ton of other options like Plex out there now.... Seems the defacto now for video games as well, which I thought would initially be reluctant to move off the normal resolution range...
Though I know you posted this in jest, the difference is to replace a gas tank is what a couple hundred dollars? To replace a Tesla battery would be what 5 or 10k to replace?
The spice must flow. The empire doesn't need to occupy the source, only install someone that will make sure to produce. Should they fail, install someone else.
While I don't disagree with the general idea of the summary, the example use (Carbon Tax) seems to be a rather poor idea.
The reason I think this isn't because I am for or against a carbon tax in general, it is because long term it isn't really sustainable. The basic premise being that a carbon tax and it's intent is to push industry at it's own rate to produce less carbon. So should it actually be successful, your tax revenues will drop, and then your fund for UBI will fall short...
Basically unless you support UBI through normal revenues (i.e. income tax more less), you need to be able to have a sustainable funding source. This could be like Denmark (or was it Norway) that has a huge resource based fund that you can literally just draw upon the dividends without impacting the pot of funds, or you need a source of reoccurring funding through a tax or a service that isn't going to diminish over time by design.
Also the reason why union votes fail is because Walmart is very anti-union. When a store does unionize successfully, they simply shut it down and move elsewhere. This happened in Quebec, Canada. Walmart made up some BS reason to do so, but it was ultimately to break the union, and send a message to anyone else thinking about it.
There was a court case where the union and employees took Walmart to court about doing this illegally, which they won in 2014. However Walmart is able to drag out the proceedings, so the actually case took like 10 years to complete. On top of that, the next phase is to determine the damages to be awarded, which I believe is currently still in court and will be probably dragged out as long.
Bottom line meaning that Walmart is sending the message that if you unionize you will all lose you jobs, and while you might take it to court and win, you wan't get anything for decades, which isn't going to exactly help out your immediate needs for you and your family.
This is the argument currently being made in Ontario Canada in regards to the proposed increase of minimum wage to 15$. What is being said is since the increase to 14$, the employment of special needs people is way down, so by increasing the wage you are putting some of the most vulnerable out of work.
While they might right as to the result, I think I would argue back they perhaps you shouldn't treat anyone, let alone people with special needs like slaves.
A similar argument is about cheap child labor in foreign countries. The argument has been made that by not allowing it to happen, you are further impoverishing those children and their families because that was the only work they could get. Again, the counter argument is that it is morally wrong to treat people like slaves.
Anyway, as I said, I don't fundamentally disagree in the result, but at the same time I don't think those kinds of arguments really hold much water.
Well to be fair, that isn't an Agile specific issue. That is a Management and/or Project Management issue.
I've had plenty of examples where a project manager is constantly asking me about my progress on various fronts where I felt like screaming at them that I have done nothing because I have literally been in meetings with you all day, when did you expect me to do the actually work, and then they will schedule some more meetings with me for "updates"... I think I have at several times pointed out that I can get work done on a project or I can sit in meetings with you, but not at the same time... Choose one.
I think in some cases it is a matter of justifying existence, and others it is just poor organizational or PM... Though to be also fair sometimes it is simply a resource issue, where you are the only resource, but then again, that would fall under management issue.
Definitely not Agile though management might have called it that.
We've been adopting more and more Agile.
As it turns out, I've been doing more less a modified waterfall (with Agile components) for years before I even knew Agile was a thing, or it gained in popularity.
Like a lot of management buzzwords, I think Agile it is often misunderstood, and misapplied. From my limited experience with the Agile training and associated projects, I would say that not all projects are really appropriate for Agile (I'd say many in fact). Not only that, but I don't think it is particularly effective at what it is supposed to do, and can only be if controlled very tightly, which in I'd say most cases it isn't.
I'd say it does lend itself to more rapid application development (when controlled and interference kept to a minimum), however the cost seems to be incomplete and buggy systems. However this is by design rather than oversight, in that they *know* that it isn't complete, and that those 100's of bugs exist, but they are pushing what they have to production, and will fix the rest later so to speak. Always in the next sprint, to which other stuff comes up, and then it is the next, and so on. In the end you never really get completed, stable, solid software, but rather a living document that constantly needs development more less forever (which in a sense is also true for any system, but at least it isn't constant). It is a good way to keep developers busy and projects continually going.
Anyway as you've probably guessed, so far my opinion of Agile isn't all that high. I have seen it work in very specific circumstances, but I have seen some messes as well. I think I prefer a modified waterfall myself, where you detail out as much as you can, though perhaps leaving some requirements less so because you are uncertain if some of the lower priority stuff is actually going to get done, while at the same time working closely with the developers to remain flexible about issues that come up that require adjustments and changes to the plan, which as mentioned may have an impact on proceeding or not with some of the items.
One thing in the whole system life-cycle that Agile pretty much ignores (other than possible feedback and more work), are the users and the frustration they have with the partial buggy systems. They just want something that works, and constantly having them deal with it is going to frustrate them, and really make them not want to use it, which then can compound problems when they don't or try all sorts of "creative" workarounds that cause all sorts of strife later on.
Anyway as someone else mentioned, the trouble with Agile is most don't do it properly because it is too hard (like Managers not butting out), and as such isn't very effective as a result. Also trying to apply it to all projects equally is just as silly as trying to force a round peg into a square hole... for the sake of "ITS AGILE!"
First what he did is in no way shape or form of "Hacking". I'm sorry, but even the most unknowledgeable judge or jury is going to raise a serious eyebrow when the prosecution tries to argue that the changing of a public facing URL equates to "unauthorized use of a computer" i.e. Hacking.
Second the government of NS literally did the stupidest most ill advised thing I can think of by raiding and chaging the guy.
About the only thing actually criminal here is the breach of personal information by the NS government who has a responsibility to reasonably safeguard said information within their custody. I'm pretty sure what this kid did pretty much says that they were negligent in that regard. So instead of quietly fixing the issue, and dealing with the kid about the data loss, they now just made it a public news spectacle.
About the only thing I see here is charges being dropped, and a lot of embarrassment for NS and possible legal action, not only by the kid, but by those impacted by the FOI breach.
However... that is all based on the content of the new article, which is a bit light on some information... Which may have an impact.
i.e. How was he caught? Were there some super cyber security watchdogs monitoring website activity and noting that the same IP address was seeming to access an awful lot of stuff? I seriously doubt it. Or did he like most folks that get caught for this kind of stuff bragging around chat groups etc... that happened to be monitored regularly by police... As that would sort of invalidate his innocent tale... If I had to guess, some peon in IT realized that there was a potential vulnerability in their POS FOI portal, was looking into fixing the oversight, and decided just in case to check the logs (well after the fact), saw a lot more activity than might be reasonable, looked a bit deeper, saw most the activity from one source (oh shit), and reported it starting the whole cascading snowball, but I bet management didn't ask the peon "how" (or them being the one who designed it, wasn't eager to share that information). I guess what I am getting at is the most likely event being the only way they would have caught the guy (apart from bragging), would be prior knowledge that their system wasn't secure at all in the first place which would sort of invalidate their charges. About all they have is reasonable intent (i.e. did he know what he was accessing was prohibited?), which sounds like they would have a pretty hard time to prove...
Been awhile since I saw the episode, however I think I know the one you are talking about it.
I think what was done was they installed what amounts to a jerry-rigged IoT device to the climate control system so that they could use it to destroy backup tapes. I forget how, either by making it too hot, turning on fire suppression, or some such thing.
The difference being he had to sneak in and install it himself, there was no IoT device to begin with.
They probably will, but in spite of Trump, not because of him. Bottom line is that the US is too big of a market to lose out on. Also they probably realize long term he probably won't be around in a few years, while the TPP will be.
I expect that any "negotiations" will however be icy at this point, where if the US wants in then here are the terms and if you don't like it you can eff off.
Not only are rare earths not really rare, and even if like in Mongolia this might be a "deposit" that is a bit more concentrated to make it economical, the REAL problem with the extraction of the metals is how dirty and horrible the process is, which is why it is almost exclusively done in places with little or no environmental protection as otherwise it would just be too expensive...
But sure, lets extract in a place like Japan, and lets also do it under water in the ocean, because surely that A) won't be massively more expensive environment to work in, and B) won't have any oceanic environmental impact at all...
Looking statistically China produces 90% of all production in the world, and of that 70% is from the one place in inner Mongolia. Oddly Australia seems to produce quite a bit (relatively speaking compared to the rest) which surprised me a bit. Of course they have some pretty vastly unpopulated areas also which might make it publicly tolerable.
Businesses spend money on what they think is their "core-business". All businesses are in the "core-business" or making money, hence the reason why folks in accounting will always have a job.
I once had a job competition cancelled on me because it wasn't considered "core-business". When I said without the systems I support you won't have any business, I was only left with silence and dead stares.
If you want a job forever, get into financial systems, which having a accounting background would probably be an asset. They have all sorts of very strict rules, are huge and complex, and every business needs them nor can they get rid of them easily.
Though I can't be bothered to cite it, but I recall hearing that at least per captia Canada has more guns that the US, yet doesn't have nearly the same problems. I'm not 100% sure if this is true or not, but I wouldn't doubt it. Some of that definitely points to attitudes.
1) So lets call that Attitudes
Second, is we do have stronger gun laws. Not only is it a bit more of a PITA to get a gun, but it is even more (abet slightly) to get a "restrictive" gun, and some types of guns are simply not allowed. For example getting a rifle or shotgun isn't such a big deal, but getting a handgun requires a restrictive licence. There is a training course you must take, a test to pass, a background check that goes to police, etc... Basically a bit more of a PITA than simply going to a gun show and saying "I see a gun, I want gun, gimmie gun". Finally certain types of guns just aren't allowed, so while semi-auto rifles are allowed, having a clip with more than 5 rounds is not. The idea being in the last case is while you might be able to fire off 5 shots really quickly, you're gonna be reloading a lot, which in terms of mass killings and the like probably make you a lot less effective. You also need to renew your licence every now and again.
2) Obviously Gun Laws
Lastly one of the differences I think is that of geography, or more acutely the rural/urban divide, and where guns are actually located. I think if you look at gun ownership % and gun related death rates by state in the US, and correlate that to large urban areas you start to get a picture. It is too bad the stats don't always break down by urban center, but that is the correlation I'm trying to make. In Canada there are a lot of guns yes, however I would bet that percentage wise a heck of a lot more of them are located rurally as opposed to urbanly when compared to the same statistic in the US. Anecdotally when I live in a more rural setting, I had guns and access to many more guns, I live in a city now, and have zero, because I have zero use for guns now. I used to hunt a bit and target shoot, but have little opportunity now, haven't bothered to get another licence. I recall when the registration thing came around, we had to dig through my grandfathers basement for 20 or 30 guns (all rifles and shotguns in various states of service, most just collecting dust). If later in life I lived in a more rural setting and decided to take it up again I might go through the licencing process and get some guns, but otherwise why would I bother.
3) Call it Geography, but also attitudes
Lastly, though a bit perhaps weakly associated, but also attitudes I suppose is the cultural divide in the US, the even greater wealth divide, the much larger military presence and activity, among other things all likely play a small part in influencing attitudes.
Given the protests and tragedies of the last decade, I think attitudes might finally be changing, however this is also opening a larger divide between legitimate gun owners and those that are now opposed to guns in general. Seems pretty common sense that some enhanced gun laws might make a big difference over the longer term. Although none of this stuff is going to take effect overnight, it will take years to have any real impact.
Seeing as a big chunk of viruses actually target you browser as a vector of intrusion it kind of makes sense that Chrome might integrate some modicum of virus checking as part of it's makeup. I don't think I would expect it to look for the whole spectrum of pests, but only those that might target itself. Doesn't seem all that outlandish to me.
However a part of me likes to thing perhaps its the first step to self awareness and an innate desire for survival...:)
I've seen it. While sometime personal, in most cases institutional, and is isn't really about not understanding the big picture, but rather not communicating wtf you are doing to the other specialists. The full-stack can get away from this, because they are essentially "communicating" with themselves. However as mentioned, this isn't typical a personal thing (other than specific circumstances), but largely an institutional thing that large organizations sometimes struggle with... i.e. the left hand not knowing wtf the right hand is doing. Typically if you are doing any work, someone has the big picture, it is just a matter of making sure you're not just doing your thing in a vacuum. Of course this is where non-technical issues such as structural organization, office politics etc... unfortunately come into play.
I work with some full-stack type vendors. For the most part it works well. However I would agree that the technology is largely irrelevant other than what limitations some of them have, and getting a developer who knows it enough to use it in some cases. I'd also agree that understanding the business and communication are bigger assets than any of the technical prowess. I'd rather have someone that is competent but understands the business rather than some savant that does not.
I'd say where the full-stack falls down a bit is testing and time. Generally they are busy, so I've found that what ends up being dropped is a proper amount of developer side testing, to the point where I've gotten applications to test and wondered how they did any testing, or even tried starting the application up. The second issue is likely a function of the amount of time they have to understand the system they are working on. On new builds this might not be an issue, but on existing systems it can cause problems. I had a system we had to pull out of production because the developer didn't realize that a particular table had a cascading delete constraint on it. When put into production it happily went along and started deleting records out of that table every time a record was moved out of it's parent table. The developer is no DBA, but they should have caught that.
So it is about context as to how well full-stack developers function. On brand new builds, probably quite well. In situations where they are in a company for many many years, probably also good. However when brought in as contractors, or when newly joining an organization, there may be no replacing the specialists. That said, if they are good juggling several balls in the air at once, they could be better than specialists with poor communication between themselves. I've seen probably more problems associated with poor communication rather than technical application. Backup servers being down, and not telling anyone, changes to firewall configuration with zero notice, changes to an integrated application than impacts another, etc... Everyone in the business seems to want to be some matrix like coder, however particularly in large organizations with complex systems, it's probably just better to have some competent people that understand the business and communicate well which are more considered "soft skills"...
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, even in recent history two of the largest auto makers in the US went through bankruptcy in GM and Chrysler. They are doing just fine. Ford would have as well if they hadn't gotten lucky (or prescient) and took out a massive multi-billion dollar loan shortly before the whole crisis.
https://www.investopedia.com/a...
I think Tesla has a lot going for it really. As others have mentioned, given the facts about how the market reacted (blip), this story more looks like a bunch of investors shorting the stock, and trying to influence public opinion so that they make money (or not lose so much when successful). So yeah I can kinda appreciate where Musk might be a little pissed when he is forced into having a phone conversation with a bunch of people who are obviously betting on your failure and using the opportunity to try to influence that to happen. I'd probably publicly snub them also.
Well there is only so much you can do with solar and batteries, particularly with an absence of light. There are a ton of non-mars space applications it could be used for. RTG's which have been used in the past are the other option, but their power output is much smaller.
Exactly. I use it constantly every day for testing applications and user troubleshooting. Had a colleague point it out to me as I was oblivious that it even existed. I still have to print screen and paint certain things like menus that close when you try to select the tool, so that would be a nice option but other than that it is pretty complete, though being able to insert text would also be good (you can hand write using pen, but messy).
As someone who deals with hunting statistics and have talked to long time hunting regulators insofar as hunting goes the biggest threat to big game is the advent of ATV's and the like over the last 30 years or so. Hunters have far more ease of access to areas they normally would not. It takes a certain kind of hunter to manually tromp many many hours (even days) into the back country for the opportunity to hunt. Now with ATV's and more access roads, it is much easier for more hunters to range much wider than ever before...
So while habitat loss due to various factors is a thing, there is also the loss of more less inaccessible habitat that big game were more less safe. The actual habitat is still there, and more less undamaged, but hunters are more successful at hunting in the past mostly because they can get to places they could not in recent history.
I initially agreed when the first 16:9 screens first starting coming out and becoming popular. I poo poo'd them, and instead bought a nice 4:3 for my previous build. However obviously since then everything is 16:9, as is my newer build, and now I have a nice 4:3 collecting dust, and multi-monitor setup is not only hard, but also weird to try and have a 4:3 and a 16:9 at the same time... I'm usually pretty good at guessing trends, but I got that one wrong. I figured it was really only good for movies, and I don't really watch movies on my computer. 16:9 had some relevance when I had to physically link my computer monitor and flat screen TV together along with a IR remote for media center... However now that is even obsolete as there are a ton of other options like Plex out there now.... Seems the defacto now for video games as well, which I thought would initially be reluctant to move off the normal resolution range...
Though I know you posted this in jest, the difference is to replace a gas tank is what a couple hundred dollars? To replace a Tesla battery would be what 5 or 10k to replace?
Because in essence you did.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/h...
The spice must flow. The empire doesn't need to occupy the source, only install someone that will make sure to produce. Should they fail, install someone else.
While I don't disagree with the general idea of the summary, the example use (Carbon Tax) seems to be a rather poor idea.
The reason I think this isn't because I am for or against a carbon tax in general, it is because long term it isn't really sustainable. The basic premise being that a carbon tax and it's intent is to push industry at it's own rate to produce less carbon. So should it actually be successful, your tax revenues will drop, and then your fund for UBI will fall short...
Basically unless you support UBI through normal revenues (i.e. income tax more less), you need to be able to have a sustainable funding source. This could be like Denmark (or was it Norway) that has a huge resource based fund that you can literally just draw upon the dividends without impacting the pot of funds, or you need a source of reoccurring funding through a tax or a service that isn't going to diminish over time by design.
Also the reason why union votes fail is because Walmart is very anti-union. When a store does unionize successfully, they simply shut it down and move elsewhere. This happened in Quebec, Canada. Walmart made up some BS reason to do so, but it was ultimately to break the union, and send a message to anyone else thinking about it.
There was a court case where the union and employees took Walmart to court about doing this illegally, which they won in 2014. However Walmart is able to drag out the proceedings, so the actually case took like 10 years to complete. On top of that, the next phase is to determine the damages to be awarded, which I believe is currently still in court and will be probably dragged out as long.
Bottom line meaning that Walmart is sending the message that if you unionize you will all lose you jobs, and while you might take it to court and win, you wan't get anything for decades, which isn't going to exactly help out your immediate needs for you and your family.
This is the argument currently being made in Ontario Canada in regards to the proposed increase of minimum wage to 15$. What is being said is since the increase to 14$, the employment of special needs people is way down, so by increasing the wage you are putting some of the most vulnerable out of work.
While they might right as to the result, I think I would argue back they perhaps you shouldn't treat anyone, let alone people with special needs like slaves.
A similar argument is about cheap child labor in foreign countries. The argument has been made that by not allowing it to happen, you are further impoverishing those children and their families because that was the only work they could get. Again, the counter argument is that it is morally wrong to treat people like slaves.
Anyway, as I said, I don't fundamentally disagree in the result, but at the same time I don't think those kinds of arguments really hold much water.
Well to be fair, that isn't an Agile specific issue. That is a Management and/or Project Management issue.
I've had plenty of examples where a project manager is constantly asking me about my progress on various fronts where I felt like screaming at them that I have done nothing because I have literally been in meetings with you all day, when did you expect me to do the actually work, and then they will schedule some more meetings with me for "updates"... I think I have at several times pointed out that I can get work done on a project or I can sit in meetings with you, but not at the same time... Choose one.
I think in some cases it is a matter of justifying existence, and others it is just poor organizational or PM... Though to be also fair sometimes it is simply a resource issue, where you are the only resource, but then again, that would fall under management issue.
Definitely not Agile though management might have called it that.
We've been adopting more and more Agile.
As it turns out, I've been doing more less a modified waterfall (with Agile components) for years before I even knew Agile was a thing, or it gained in popularity.
Like a lot of management buzzwords, I think Agile it is often misunderstood, and misapplied. From my limited experience with the Agile training and associated projects, I would say that not all projects are really appropriate for Agile (I'd say many in fact). Not only that, but I don't think it is particularly effective at what it is supposed to do, and can only be if controlled very tightly, which in I'd say most cases it isn't.
I'd say it does lend itself to more rapid application development (when controlled and interference kept to a minimum), however the cost seems to be incomplete and buggy systems. However this is by design rather than oversight, in that they *know* that it isn't complete, and that those 100's of bugs exist, but they are pushing what they have to production, and will fix the rest later so to speak. Always in the next sprint, to which other stuff comes up, and then it is the next, and so on. In the end you never really get completed, stable, solid software, but rather a living document that constantly needs development more less forever (which in a sense is also true for any system, but at least it isn't constant). It is a good way to keep developers busy and projects continually going.
Anyway as you've probably guessed, so far my opinion of Agile isn't all that high. I have seen it work in very specific circumstances, but I have seen some messes as well. I think I prefer a modified waterfall myself, where you detail out as much as you can, though perhaps leaving some requirements less so because you are uncertain if some of the lower priority stuff is actually going to get done, while at the same time working closely with the developers to remain flexible about issues that come up that require adjustments and changes to the plan, which as mentioned may have an impact on proceeding or not with some of the items.
One thing in the whole system life-cycle that Agile pretty much ignores (other than possible feedback and more work), are the users and the frustration they have with the partial buggy systems. They just want something that works, and constantly having them deal with it is going to frustrate them, and really make them not want to use it, which then can compound problems when they don't or try all sorts of "creative" workarounds that cause all sorts of strife later on.
Anyway as someone else mentioned, the trouble with Agile is most don't do it properly because it is too hard (like Managers not butting out), and as such isn't very effective as a result. Also trying to apply it to all projects equally is just as silly as trying to force a round peg into a square hole... for the sake of "ITS AGILE!"
First what he did is in no way shape or form of "Hacking". I'm sorry, but even the most unknowledgeable judge or jury is going to raise a serious eyebrow when the prosecution tries to argue that the changing of a public facing URL equates to "unauthorized use of a computer" i.e. Hacking.
Second the government of NS literally did the stupidest most ill advised thing I can think of by raiding and chaging the guy.
About the only thing actually criminal here is the breach of personal information by the NS government who has a responsibility to reasonably safeguard said information within their custody. I'm pretty sure what this kid did pretty much says that they were negligent in that regard. So instead of quietly fixing the issue, and dealing with the kid about the data loss, they now just made it a public news spectacle.
About the only thing I see here is charges being dropped, and a lot of embarrassment for NS and possible legal action, not only by the kid, but by those impacted by the FOI breach.
However... that is all based on the content of the new article, which is a bit light on some information... Which may have an impact.
i.e. How was he caught? Were there some super cyber security watchdogs monitoring website activity and noting that the same IP address was seeming to access an awful lot of stuff? I seriously doubt it. Or did he like most folks that get caught for this kind of stuff bragging around chat groups etc... that happened to be monitored regularly by police... As that would sort of invalidate his innocent tale... If I had to guess, some peon in IT realized that there was a potential vulnerability in their POS FOI portal, was looking into fixing the oversight, and decided just in case to check the logs (well after the fact), saw a lot more activity than might be reasonable, looked a bit deeper, saw most the activity from one source (oh shit), and reported it starting the whole cascading snowball, but I bet management didn't ask the peon "how" (or them being the one who designed it, wasn't eager to share that information). I guess what I am getting at is the most likely event being the only way they would have caught the guy (apart from bragging), would be prior knowledge that their system wasn't secure at all in the first place which would sort of invalidate their charges. About all they have is reasonable intent (i.e. did he know what he was accessing was prohibited?), which sounds like they would have a pretty hard time to prove...
Been awhile since I saw the episode, however I think I know the one you are talking about it.
I think what was done was they installed what amounts to a jerry-rigged IoT device to the climate control system so that they could use it to destroy backup tapes. I forget how, either by making it too hot, turning on fire suppression, or some such thing.
The difference being he had to sneak in and install it himself, there was no IoT device to begin with.
They probably will, but in spite of Trump, not because of him. Bottom line is that the US is too big of a market to lose out on. Also they probably realize long term he probably won't be around in a few years, while the TPP will be.
I expect that any "negotiations" will however be icy at this point, where if the US wants in then here are the terms and if you don't like it you can eff off.
Not only are rare earths not really rare, and even if like in Mongolia this might be a "deposit" that is a bit more concentrated to make it economical, the REAL problem with the extraction of the metals is how dirty and horrible the process is, which is why it is almost exclusively done in places with little or no environmental protection as otherwise it would just be too expensive...
But sure, lets extract in a place like Japan, and lets also do it under water in the ocean, because surely that A) won't be massively more expensive environment to work in, and B) won't have any oceanic environmental impact at all...
Looking statistically China produces 90% of all production in the world, and of that 70% is from the one place in inner Mongolia. Oddly Australia seems to produce quite a bit (relatively speaking compared to the rest) which surprised me a bit. Of course they have some pretty vastly unpopulated areas also which might make it publicly tolerable.
Businesses spend money on what they think is their "core-business". All businesses are in the "core-business" or making money, hence the reason why folks in accounting will always have a job.
I once had a job competition cancelled on me because it wasn't considered "core-business". When I said without the systems I support you won't have any business, I was only left with silence and dead stares.
If you want a job forever, get into financial systems, which having a accounting background would probably be an asset. They have all sorts of very strict rules, are huge and complex, and every business needs them nor can they get rid of them easily.
A Tralfamadorian test pilot presses a starter button, and the whole Universe disappears. So it goes.
I mean it's in Canadian dollars after all...
Though I can't be bothered to cite it, but I recall hearing that at least per captia Canada has more guns that the US, yet doesn't have nearly the same problems. I'm not 100% sure if this is true or not, but I wouldn't doubt it. Some of that definitely points to attitudes.
1) So lets call that Attitudes
Second, is we do have stronger gun laws. Not only is it a bit more of a PITA to get a gun, but it is even more (abet slightly) to get a "restrictive" gun, and some types of guns are simply not allowed. For example getting a rifle or shotgun isn't such a big deal, but getting a handgun requires a restrictive licence. There is a training course you must take, a test to pass, a background check that goes to police, etc... Basically a bit more of a PITA than simply going to a gun show and saying "I see a gun, I want gun, gimmie gun". Finally certain types of guns just aren't allowed, so while semi-auto rifles are allowed, having a clip with more than 5 rounds is not. The idea being in the last case is while you might be able to fire off 5 shots really quickly, you're gonna be reloading a lot, which in terms of mass killings and the like probably make you a lot less effective. You also need to renew your licence every now and again.
2) Obviously Gun Laws
Lastly one of the differences I think is that of geography, or more acutely the rural/urban divide, and where guns are actually located. I think if you look at gun ownership % and gun related death rates by state in the US, and correlate that to large urban areas you start to get a picture. It is too bad the stats don't always break down by urban center, but that is the correlation I'm trying to make. In Canada there are a lot of guns yes, however I would bet that percentage wise a heck of a lot more of them are located rurally as opposed to urbanly when compared to the same statistic in the US. Anecdotally when I live in a more rural setting, I had guns and access to many more guns, I live in a city now, and have zero, because I have zero use for guns now. I used to hunt a bit and target shoot, but have little opportunity now, haven't bothered to get another licence. I recall when the registration thing came around, we had to dig through my grandfathers basement for 20 or 30 guns (all rifles and shotguns in various states of service, most just collecting dust). If later in life I lived in a more rural setting and decided to take it up again I might go through the licencing process and get some guns, but otherwise why would I bother.
3) Call it Geography, but also attitudes
Lastly, though a bit perhaps weakly associated, but also attitudes I suppose is the cultural divide in the US, the even greater wealth divide, the much larger military presence and activity, among other things all likely play a small part in influencing attitudes.
Given the protests and tragedies of the last decade, I think attitudes might finally be changing, however this is also opening a larger divide between legitimate gun owners and those that are now opposed to guns in general. Seems pretty common sense that some enhanced gun laws might make a big difference over the longer term. Although none of this stuff is going to take effect overnight, it will take years to have any real impact.
Yeah I saw that a few years ago. You know the cheeky bastards don't even care when they call it "Landwind"...
Seeing as a big chunk of viruses actually target you browser as a vector of intrusion it kind of makes sense that Chrome might integrate some modicum of virus checking as part of it's makeup. I don't think I would expect it to look for the whole spectrum of pests, but only those that might target itself. Doesn't seem all that outlandish to me.
However a part of me likes to thing perhaps its the first step to self awareness and an innate desire for survival... :)
I was going to say, it looks more like erosion, or subsurface erosion and collapse, rather than some cataclysmic rift to the bowels of the earth.
As you say, probably more likely a natural process when a rift creates an opportunity for water to wash away sediment.
Less exciting I suppose.
I've seen it. While sometime personal, in most cases institutional, and is isn't really about not understanding the big picture, but rather not communicating wtf you are doing to the other specialists. The full-stack can get away from this, because they are essentially "communicating" with themselves. However as mentioned, this isn't typical a personal thing (other than specific circumstances), but largely an institutional thing that large organizations sometimes struggle with... i.e. the left hand not knowing wtf the right hand is doing. Typically if you are doing any work, someone has the big picture, it is just a matter of making sure you're not just doing your thing in a vacuum. Of course this is where non-technical issues such as structural organization, office politics etc... unfortunately come into play.
I work with some full-stack type vendors. For the most part it works well. However I would agree that the technology is largely irrelevant other than what limitations some of them have, and getting a developer who knows it enough to use it in some cases. I'd also agree that understanding the business and communication are bigger assets than any of the technical prowess. I'd rather have someone that is competent but understands the business rather than some savant that does not.
I'd say where the full-stack falls down a bit is testing and time. Generally they are busy, so I've found that what ends up being dropped is a proper amount of developer side testing, to the point where I've gotten applications to test and wondered how they did any testing, or even tried starting the application up. The second issue is likely a function of the amount of time they have to understand the system they are working on. On new builds this might not be an issue, but on existing systems it can cause problems. I had a system we had to pull out of production because the developer didn't realize that a particular table had a cascading delete constraint on it. When put into production it happily went along and started deleting records out of that table every time a record was moved out of it's parent table. The developer is no DBA, but they should have caught that.
So it is about context as to how well full-stack developers function. On brand new builds, probably quite well. In situations where they are in a company for many many years, probably also good. However when brought in as contractors, or when newly joining an organization, there may be no replacing the specialists. That said, if they are good juggling several balls in the air at once, they could be better than specialists with poor communication between themselves. I've seen probably more problems associated with poor communication rather than technical application. Backup servers being down, and not telling anyone, changes to firewall configuration with zero notice, changes to an integrated application than impacts another, etc... Everyone in the business seems to want to be some matrix like coder, however particularly in large organizations with complex systems, it's probably just better to have some competent people that understand the business and communicate well which are more considered "soft skills"...