Provide the exact links to what you are referring to and I'll give them a read, I'm not searching through the links to 'everything' that you provided and taking you at your word. Having served in the Military we were trained to say "I was shooting at gear" if anyone was killed by a.50 caliber round. Yet a 7.62mm round required no such justification.
Which is a fully thought out opinion based on the fact that "Tweets" are restricted to so few characters that hashtags are the only way to try and organize things. *that is sarcasm and not directed at you* Personally I perceive the whole Twitter thing as more pointless than Facebook, at least for what people are trying to use it for. It is impossible to express complex thoughts in 1024 characters, you can only point people to well thought out posts in that few characters.
It's not whitehouse.gov so I refuse to sign this petition on the grounds that it won't work. Slashdot has taken no action on this guy, so my guess is that it will take a Presidential EO to achieve.
The last I heard, weapons that blind are banned by the current "laws of war" as recognized by the western powers - and that's been the major impeidment so far to deploying laser (and other directed energy) weapons. Has something changed? Or did the current administration just decide to play with the new toy despite past promises to the other kids?
The US does not honor International Law on banned weapons, nor does any other country in reality. Weapons that are "banned" are normally relabeled to make them look good, but does not change what they are. As long as you are on the winning side who is going to prosecute you? As a prime example, cluster bombs are against the law yet the main artillery round of the MLRS fires a warhead packed with 1001 "grenadelets". See that? By renaming "cluster bomb" to be "grenadelets" you have not broken the law. Firing a weapon at a "person" with a round of.50 caliber or higher is illegal by international law. The main sniper rifle used by all troops in the Middle East has become a.50 caliber, and look at the video of the Reuters reporter killed by the 30MM chain gun on an Apache.
Countries today use what they think they can get away with, and in the case of Western countries that is quite a lot. Look at all the depleted uranium dumped in the middle east causing serious health problems for over a decade.
I never claimed I was right or wrong. I asked like 10 posts ago for your definition of solve and where or not you believed that your example of "rebooting a server" was actually a solution. You have still not answered the question. The closest you came is to provide two analogies that don't match. You have since then fabricated quotes that were never made and made plenty of accusations. All to avoid a simple goddamn question. Grats on trolling for that long, asshole.
I'm not being obtuse, I don't believe you looked at the definition for that word. I stated very clearly that technical solutions are solving the mystery, not having a work around.
What you have in quotes is a fabricated quote, I never stated that the CEO not sending mail is not a problem. I stated very clearly that the person who rebooted a router did not solve a technical problem.
I didn't respond to your car analogy because it's a path to a solution and does not match "rebooting a router/server" in any fashion. The car analogy you know what the problem is. It could also be a final solution because you know what the problem is/was, and have a work around in place which was to replace the motor. There is no mystery in that analogy.
So it seems that we agree on the technical merits of "solve", but disagree on whether or not "reboot the box" is actually a solution. I refuse to accept that as a solution from any SA I work with, at least until some time is spent on the mystery. On rare occasions, "reboot it" ends up being the accepted answer because the actual problem was not worth investing in the time required to actually "solve" the problem.
Where we differ is I don't believe anything was solved in your scenario. A symptom of a problem was removed, but nothing was solved. I do not accept that as a solution to a problem and would put someone to work. Making someone happy is not problem solving a technical issue, it's covering your ass and work avoidance.
The first half of the definition is what I consider a technical solution. Solving the mystery. The means of dealing with a problem does not solve anything. Kicking the tire on a car really does not do anything, but people can be duped into thinking it does. Perhaps this is the DK effect you are referring to?
I have some citations on this below, you can search the thread for those citations in the other post. There are institutional problems with our public schools, so defending teachers that are intentionally handcuffed by the institution is a poor approach at addressing the concerns of numerous people criticizing the current bureaucracy (which is the failure).
Unfortunately I have seen the gems of public school systems. My criticism comes as a parent, not a person with no exposure or experience.
For the record, I never stated that the people holding power are less intelligent than I. I would say many things, such as they are cruel, lacking empathy, lacking morality, but not stupid or ignorant. I have spent decades learning things that people hid from public view, and still seek information. These people learn it early because they are the ones that hid the information to begin with. They don't make the game impossible, because then it's not a game.
Do you consider that factory workers today are well paid for their willingness to trudge into a factory and do what needs to be done for a day? This is what the powers want, an assembly line of cheap workers that they control. And when it becomes cheaper to just ship everything elsewhere, where do these same people then turn to for jobs? That is the end game, what they make in profit along the way is icing on the cake.
I hate to be so harsh, but the amount of irrational bullshit that people spread deserves harsh responses and heavy criticism. Don't worry, citations are provided at the end of this post.
If this was really and truly "for the children" as you claim I want you to demonstrate that today's kids are smarter than kids 100 years ago. You can't, because facts do not back this at all. On average our IQ is 4-14 points lower today than it was 60 years ago. That is not a small measure, that is a huge measure. This is even though when Radio came out we were told that Radio would make everyone smarter, and when TV came out we were told TV would make everyone smarter, and when home video came out we were told that home video would make everyone smarter, and when computers came out we were told that computers would make everyone smarter. THOSE THINGS NEVER HAPPENED!
Taking your claim at face value, the "coders" have to somehow believe that all of the knowledge they were required to have to become world changing coders is not relevant to who they are or what they do for a living. They must believe that somehow you can circumvent all educational requirements and shit coders right out of high school that can not only understand the world, but extremely complex problems, and further be able to begin mapping out solutions to these complex problems. That is right! Taking you at your word these "coders" must believe that they have no education to back their abilities and _anyone_ can do their job with minimal education and a minimal coding skills.
I am not taking you at your word because history and facts do not back your word. Lets look at reality shall we? You can't teach physics without teaching them math first, and you can't teach someone to write novels without teaching them grammar and composition. You can't teach someone to be a mechanical engineer by simply giving them a drag and drop CAD program, and you can't teach chemistry by giving someone a drag and drop periodical table of elements. These are things we know so well that we don't even question them. We can argue semantics after the fact like what CAD program is better, but we don't expect a kid to be able to find the area of a rectangle without being able to multiply _FIRST_.
Based on what we know, there is a rational conclusion that "You can't make someone a competent programmer by giving them a drag and drop program to "develop code" in either. This is such a basic premise that I'm astounded that people like you will claim "but it's for the children" when all empirical evidence shows that it's NOT for the children. It's to make cheap obedient servants for the masters!
References for IQ here and here. Reference for intentional institutionalized education problems here. The issue of institutional attempts to shortcut education is here.
Instead of teaching people a specific programming language then, why not teach them everything else that they should be learning in school anyway which makes a good programmer. Want a list? Okay smartass here is a list.
1. Language - More is better so that people can freely share and exchange ideas but at least English Grammar and Composition in the US.
2. Rhetoric and Logic - Logic teaches critical thinking skills as well as morality, and rhetoric further improves communication skills and rational discourse and debate (both of these things are painfully absent from academia today)
3. Math - Again more is better. Algebra and variables are the basis for simple programming language skills. This teaches the use of variables without locking someone into a restricted interface for coding in a specific language.
4. Supplement this curriculum with history economics which extends language and provides ample material for debate and discourse.
5. Further supplement the curriculum with Music theory to better learn Trig, and sciences to further their abilities with math and critical thinking.
Wow, sounds just about like classes we had in the US until the 1930s when we adopted the Prussian designed "Industrial Education system" which made people smart enough to calculate artillery range but too damn stupid to question orders doesn't it? Oh, you may not know this part of history since it's buried in piles of bureaucratic shit to hide it.. but it's there!
So why are we teaching very special bits of information and ignoring a classical education system which produced every single well known scientist in history? Still does really, because the best and brightest today go to private schools which do use the classical methods and not what public schools have become. Cui Bono. Well, large businesses that currently control everything benefit because people will be smart enough to follow instructions to make some piece of code work, but not smart enough to question why they make the code or question their economic status for doing so. Government institutions will do the same thing for the same reasons.
If what you said is true, "it's only for the children" I'll say prove it! Not one piece of public education today has been institutionalized "for the children" so why would you claim this piece is different? I believe it's just another appeal to emotion fantasy and has no connection with reality. I have history on my side, you have nothing but a delusion.
Solve as in the dictionary definition. I don't think I should have to quote it, but will because you don't seem to agree with the dictionary.
solve
sälv/
verb
verb: solve; 3rd person present: solves; past tense: solved; past participle: solved; gerund or present participle: solving
find an answer to, explanation for, or means of effectively dealing with (a problem or mystery).
Rebooting does not "solve" problems, rebooting removes a symptom. You claimed that a person solving a problem can suffer from DK syndrome, and I'm saying it's not possible using the definition of solve to have DK syndrome.
I think I get what you meant early on, but am in disagreement with the terminology that was used. It's quite confusing that you are going to such extraordinary lengths to avoid clarifying your position with accurate terminology which would match the definition of a word.
Always keep a dictionary handy, it saves looking foolish.
oligarchy
[ol-i-gahr-kee]
Examples
Word Origin
noun, plural oligarchies.
1.
a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few./quote?
I don't believe so, I was making a claim that solutions are dynamic as are problems. Your logic works only if I change "solve" to be something other than the dictionary defines the word. I was not fishing for a specific answer, I was asking if your definition of "solve" matches the dictionary.
You also need to be very careful about other tools, as for example TCC can compile and execute C code without writing it to disk first. The point is that the privilege system is concerned with read and write access, execution restrictions are just a side-effect of that and an imperfect one.
I was not defending the original post, but attempting to correct the bad response. Sockets are files, and I can create a socket in any directory I have write access to./tmp is a safe "default" location because all users can write to/tmp, but there is no restriction on where I can create a socket in *nix by default.
I agree that the original logic is bad, but the explanation is wrong for why that logic is bad. As written, it claims that the only protections in *nix are at the file level.
You neglected my question. Does a "fix" like "reboot" solve a problem or remove a symptom? I think there is a rare exception where this can be true, but in most cases this would not be problem solving. There is surely a DK connection when a group of people claim that this is problem solving, but I would not work with that type of person for very long if other options exist, and fortunately have never been forced to do so.
No they can't, and I gave the example. A socket is a file, so go ahead and open up a socket on port 99 as a user. After you figure out you are wrong come back and tell me so. I don't want to rub your nose in you being incorrect, I want others to see that you are incorrect.
If you want another example, go ahead and write and compile a piece of code that executes a shell with UID=0. This is 2 system calls, yet you won't be able execute the shell by running your code without root access, even though you can write the source and compile the binary. The system calls are "suid()" and system() just in case you are lost. Another example would be to copy the su command to what ever location you want and lets see how quickly you can su root. The protection in this case has absolutely nothing to do with what files you can read and where you can write.
File system protection is only 1 layer of *nix security, there is also process protection and memory protection. This does not even consider add on or additional tuning available in limits and SE *nix kernels.
Bullshit! You stated if you can read it, you can execute it and that statement is patently false.
Your claim of a process being free to write memory fails to consider a process that already has claimed memory and it's protections. Yeah, forty fucking years ago I had to worry about a user reading and writing to my memory space as a Kernel, but that has been fixed for decades. I can also easily set limits to prevent you from having free reign to wipe a system out of memory because of memory protection built in to the kernel.
You claimed that a read is enough permission to execute, and that is absolutely false. If being wrong hurts your feelings ask mommy for a hug, not me. Go cry victim to someone who may actually give you sympathy, I'm not going to console you for making false statements.
Are you saying that the tests shouldn't allow them to pas (but may do today), or that the tests don't allow them to pass without basic networking knowledge?
Both.
There's a very large Dunning-Kruger with problem solving. Give someone a problem, and they'll treat it like their last problem, until proven otherwise. Reboot try again. I've seen server admins try that with networking gear. I've never seen it work for anything other than a home router. Or if he knows the last problem was a duplex mismatch, he'll check the duplex on every server and every switch in the network before looking at anything else. God forbid a server admin has heard of a packet capture. He'll capture everything, usually in a place that won't get what he's looking for, and then hands it to you, like he gave you the solution, and waits for you to read it to him like a bedtime story.
Uh, no! If you give a person a problem to solve and they solve the problem there is no Dunning-Kruger effect to be found. I'm taking "solving" at it's literal definition, where you are actually solving the problem and not rebooting to remove a symptom of a problem as you describe.
I would agree that people can fall into a Dunning-Kruger effect in removing symptoms, but do you believe that this is really solving a problem? Example: We may have a vended application that has a memory leak which requires a periodical reboot to correct. The solution however is in a separate ticket where we work with the vendor to actually solve the problem, often times submitting code samples for reproducing the error, and even source samples which may alleviate the problem.
In your second example, this is a two part problem. First, have I provided enough examples for tcpdump or wireshark for them to "get it"? If not, then I share the blame until I have done my part. Sure, some people just don't get it but this is not a Dunning-Kruger problem but a refusal to learn or confusion because they lack basic conceptual knowledge.
Currently? Well that depends, some certificates claim that once you have a certification it never expires. I have a folder full of certificates I keep in a closet I guess as personal trophies, since working at some places like the DOD required I have specific certifications. Today, I'm not asked if I have a certificate because I have a resume which demonstrates functional knowledge of architecture in a vast array of environments, sizes, scales, and business models. I have 2 degrees that I don't get asked about either, because my job is not and never has been restricted to my degrees. My degrees put me on a career path and tested a base level of knowledge at the time, nothing more. Mathematics opened the door to a CS/IT career, but I'm not a mathematician. In fact the last time I ran a differential equation was in College. Liberal arts has helped with critical thinking abilities, communication skills, etc.. but what I knew when I passed those classes was not even close to what I know today.
As I stated originally, I don't put much stock in any particular certificate unless someone lacks work experience. A certificate does not, and has never really demonstrated a persons ability to adapt and learn what's needed to perform and excel at their job. I know people who did well in a particular environment and flopped in others, and I also know people that have certificates that I would not trust to open a car door, let alone architect a solution. In other words, a certificate is not a valid measure of anything except a persons desire to take a test.
At an entry level, sure I put some faith in knowing that a person at least took the time to take a test. I don't delude myself into believing this automatically makes a good worker or a well of knowledge..
I don't believe someone should be able to pass a RHCE or even a higher level MCSE without understanding something so basic as a netmask and broadcast address. I have seen plenty of Junior level admins stuff a/24 netmask into a/25 and have network problems that they can't explain. A "good" SA should be able to catch and correct this without need to find the network team to debug the issue for them. And yes, I have seen many MSCE holders have to traverse that path and bother their Network team for a simple SA error.
I happened to pick the Netmask and calculation as an easy target, but there are plenty of low level concepts that I believe all SAs should know. I don't care if you can give me all 7 layers of the OSI model by rote, I care that you can at least debug your area of responsibility as a SA.
Reading TFA I see no mention of Linux at all, it mentions Windows and PHP. Perhaps the author is confused and believes that anything with.PHP must exist in Linux, but I'm skeptical. They spend lots of time talking about the various.exe files, "Administrator" privileges, and "Network Shares" which are exclusive terminology to the Windows OS. Nobody can be that ignorant as a technical writer.
Reading from disk is only one portion of a process and process protection, the actual execution occurs in memory and is _ALSO_ protected in *nix.. An easy example is to open a socket on a specific port as a user. A non privileged user can not open a port below 1024 because this is in protected space, but you can open a socket on 1025->64K without issues.
There is no point in attempting to explain SUID/SGID in addition to normal execution, because you don't even have the normal execution correct. I will however state that this is another dynamic to review after you figure out the difference between reading and executing.
The multiple guess tests show no practical application for knowledge. I have met plenty of people with certifications that are worthless, and the people with them were just as useless.. sometimes with dozens of these tests. These people were duped into spending tons of cash to get these certificates and had no practical knowledge. Knowing how to enter a netmask in someone's GUI does not mean you understand what a netmask is, or what a broadcast address is, or how to calculate either from the other.
RHCE, CEH, etc.. require practical knowledge. Having work experience can be, and usually is, enough to compensate for the lack of a certificate. The more experience you have the less essential a certification is. I have been in the business for nearly 3 decades, and quite honestly I'm never asked about certificates. Go back even 15 years and people did ask, and I did have some certificates. Today, I'm never asked and have a steady stream of requests to review job offers and even suggest candidates.
Uber likes to try to frame this discussion of how it's trying to compete with the big bad taxi lobby. What they are actually doing is running unlicensed cabs operated by people who aren't very accountable, and if something goes wrong they'll claim "well, we just dispatch, we're not a cab company".
Two separate arguments so keep them separate. First, Uber is fighting lobbyists from large firms that make a fortune paying drivers poor wages and historically not giving a rats ass about consumers. This _IS_ a real issue, and it should take about 2 minutes of investigation to determine that the cab monopolies have been harmful to both consumers and employees. It has only benefited large corporations who can afford the "fee" to Government offices, who have been the other beneficiary.
They are not a cab company, and have never every claimed to be a cab company. They are a ride sharing service which does not do anything like a cab company.
That one out of the way, your second point has some merit. People are not telling the truth on Uber applications, which is leading to some bad things. Worse than you get with a taxi or bus service? Hell no, in fact TFA reports an incident that occurred on the anniversary of a woman getting gang raped on a public bus. The "Uber" issue is played up however, because Uber is not paying off enough politicians. Proof that it's played up is in the same article, because if not for the Uber incident nobody in the US would know about the public bus gang rape incident. Of course most people won't read past the first paragraph either, so there is little harm in them printing the information in the last goddamn line of the story (and watch for this to be redacted in later versions, BBC has a history of doing just this.
On point, the second issue is a concern but it has to be dealt with rationally. Uber has many more benefits than down sides. Introduce legislation and petition Uber to do more checking for background/insurance/ anything else you think they lack.
Consider this: The bus driver that was driving when the woman was gang raped faced no charges, this driver is going to jail. Who is more accountable?
Slashdot Mirror
Provide the exact links to what you are referring to and I'll give them a read, I'm not searching through the links to 'everything' that you provided and taking you at your word. Having served in the Military we were trained to say "I was shooting at gear" if anyone was killed by a .50 caliber round. Yet a 7.62mm round required no such justification.
Which is a fully thought out opinion based on the fact that "Tweets" are restricted to so few characters that hashtags are the only way to try and organize things. *that is sarcasm and not directed at you* Personally I perceive the whole Twitter thing as more pointless than Facebook, at least for what people are trying to use it for. It is impossible to express complex thoughts in 1024 characters, you can only point people to well thought out posts in that few characters.
It's not whitehouse.gov so I refuse to sign this petition on the grounds that it won't work. Slashdot has taken no action on this guy, so my guess is that it will take a Presidential EO to achieve.
The last I heard, weapons that blind are banned by the current "laws of war" as recognized by the western powers - and that's been the major impeidment so far to deploying laser (and other directed energy) weapons. Has something changed? Or did the current administration just decide to play with the new toy despite past promises to the other kids?
The US does not honor International Law on banned weapons, nor does any other country in reality. Weapons that are "banned" are normally relabeled to make them look good, but does not change what they are. As long as you are on the winning side who is going to prosecute you? As a prime example, cluster bombs are against the law yet the main artillery round of the MLRS fires a warhead packed with 1001 "grenadelets". See that? By renaming "cluster bomb" to be "grenadelets" you have not broken the law. Firing a weapon at a "person" with a round of .50 caliber or higher is illegal by international law. The main sniper rifle used by all troops in the Middle East has become a.50 caliber, and look at the video of the Reuters reporter killed by the 30MM chain gun on an Apache.
Countries today use what they think they can get away with, and in the case of Western countries that is quite a lot. Look at all the depleted uranium dumped in the middle east causing serious health problems for over a decade.
I never claimed I was right or wrong. I asked like 10 posts ago for your definition of solve and where or not you believed that your example of "rebooting a server" was actually a solution. You have still not answered the question. The closest you came is to provide two analogies that don't match. You have since then fabricated quotes that were never made and made plenty of accusations. All to avoid a simple goddamn question. Grats on trolling for that long, asshole.
I'm not being obtuse, I don't believe you looked at the definition for that word. I stated very clearly that technical solutions are solving the mystery, not having a work around.
What you have in quotes is a fabricated quote, I never stated that the CEO not sending mail is not a problem. I stated very clearly that the person who rebooted a router did not solve a technical problem.
I didn't respond to your car analogy because it's a path to a solution and does not match "rebooting a router/server" in any fashion. The car analogy you know what the problem is. It could also be a final solution because you know what the problem is/was, and have a work around in place which was to replace the motor. There is no mystery in that analogy.
So it seems that we agree on the technical merits of "solve", but disagree on whether or not "reboot the box" is actually a solution. I refuse to accept that as a solution from any SA I work with, at least until some time is spent on the mystery. On rare occasions, "reboot it" ends up being the accepted answer because the actual problem was not worth investing in the time required to actually "solve" the problem.
Where we differ is I don't believe anything was solved in your scenario. A symptom of a problem was removed, but nothing was solved. I do not accept that as a solution to a problem and would put someone to work. Making someone happy is not problem solving a technical issue, it's covering your ass and work avoidance.
The first half of the definition is what I consider a technical solution. Solving the mystery. The means of dealing with a problem does not solve anything. Kicking the tire on a car really does not do anything, but people can be duped into thinking it does. Perhaps this is the DK effect you are referring to?
I have some citations on this below, you can search the thread for those citations in the other post. There are institutional problems with our public schools, so defending teachers that are intentionally handcuffed by the institution is a poor approach at addressing the concerns of numerous people criticizing the current bureaucracy (which is the failure).
Unfortunately I have seen the gems of public school systems. My criticism comes as a parent, not a person with no exposure or experience.
For the record, I never stated that the people holding power are less intelligent than I. I would say many things, such as they are cruel, lacking empathy, lacking morality, but not stupid or ignorant. I have spent decades learning things that people hid from public view, and still seek information. These people learn it early because they are the ones that hid the information to begin with. They don't make the game impossible, because then it's not a game.
Do you consider that factory workers today are well paid for their willingness to trudge into a factory and do what needs to be done for a day? This is what the powers want, an assembly line of cheap workers that they control. And when it becomes cheaper to just ship everything elsewhere, where do these same people then turn to for jobs? That is the end game, what they make in profit along the way is icing on the cake.
I hate to be so harsh, but the amount of irrational bullshit that people spread deserves harsh responses and heavy criticism. Don't worry, citations are provided at the end of this post.
If this was really and truly "for the children" as you claim I want you to demonstrate that today's kids are smarter than kids 100 years ago. You can't, because facts do not back this at all. On average our IQ is 4-14 points lower today than it was 60 years ago. That is not a small measure, that is a huge measure. This is even though when Radio came out we were told that Radio would make everyone smarter, and when TV came out we were told TV would make everyone smarter, and when home video came out we were told that home video would make everyone smarter, and when computers came out we were told that computers would make everyone smarter. THOSE THINGS NEVER HAPPENED!
Taking your claim at face value, the "coders" have to somehow believe that all of the knowledge they were required to have to become world changing coders is not relevant to who they are or what they do for a living. They must believe that somehow you can circumvent all educational requirements and shit coders right out of high school that can not only understand the world, but extremely complex problems, and further be able to begin mapping out solutions to these complex problems. That is right! Taking you at your word these "coders" must believe that they have no education to back their abilities and _anyone_ can do their job with minimal education and a minimal coding skills.
I am not taking you at your word because history and facts do not back your word. Lets look at reality shall we? You can't teach physics without teaching them math first, and you can't teach someone to write novels without teaching them grammar and composition. You can't teach someone to be a mechanical engineer by simply giving them a drag and drop CAD program, and you can't teach chemistry by giving someone a drag and drop periodical table of elements. These are things we know so well that we don't even question them. We can argue semantics after the fact like what CAD program is better, but we don't expect a kid to be able to find the area of a rectangle without being able to multiply _FIRST_.
Based on what we know, there is a rational conclusion that "You can't make someone a competent programmer by giving them a drag and drop program to "develop code" in either. This is such a basic premise that I'm astounded that people like you will claim "but it's for the children" when all empirical evidence shows that it's NOT for the children. It's to make cheap obedient servants for the masters!
References for IQ here and here. Reference for intentional institutionalized education problems here. The issue of institutional attempts to shortcut education is here.
Instead of teaching people a specific programming language then, why not teach them everything else that they should be learning in school anyway which makes a good programmer. Want a list? Okay smartass here is a list.
1. Language - More is better so that people can freely share and exchange ideas but at least English Grammar and Composition in the US.
2. Rhetoric and Logic - Logic teaches critical thinking skills as well as morality, and rhetoric further improves communication skills and rational discourse and debate (both of these things are painfully absent from academia today)
3. Math - Again more is better. Algebra and variables are the basis for simple programming language skills. This teaches the use of variables without locking someone into a restricted interface for coding in a specific language.
4. Supplement this curriculum with history economics which extends language and provides ample material for debate and discourse.
5. Further supplement the curriculum with Music theory to better learn Trig, and sciences to further their abilities with math and critical thinking.
Wow, sounds just about like classes we had in the US until the 1930s when we adopted the Prussian designed "Industrial Education system" which made people smart enough to calculate artillery range but too damn stupid to question orders doesn't it? Oh, you may not know this part of history since it's buried in piles of bureaucratic shit to hide it.. but it's there!
So why are we teaching very special bits of information and ignoring a classical education system which produced every single well known scientist in history? Still does really, because the best and brightest today go to private schools which do use the classical methods and not what public schools have become. Cui Bono. Well, large businesses that currently control everything benefit because people will be smart enough to follow instructions to make some piece of code work, but not smart enough to question why they make the code or question their economic status for doing so. Government institutions will do the same thing for the same reasons.
If what you said is true, "it's only for the children" I'll say prove it! Not one piece of public education today has been institutionalized "for the children" so why would you claim this piece is different? I believe it's just another appeal to emotion fantasy and has no connection with reality. I have history on my side, you have nothing but a delusion.
Solve as in the dictionary definition. I don't think I should have to quote it, but will because you don't seem to agree with the dictionary.
solve
sälv/
verb
verb: solve; 3rd person present: solves; past tense: solved; past participle: solved; gerund or present participle: solving
find an answer to, explanation for, or means of effectively dealing with (a problem or mystery).
Rebooting does not "solve" problems, rebooting removes a symptom. You claimed that a person solving a problem can suffer from DK syndrome, and I'm saying it's not possible using the definition of solve to have DK syndrome.
I think I get what you meant early on, but am in disagreement with the terminology that was used. It's quite confusing that you are going to such extraordinary lengths to avoid clarifying your position with accurate terminology which would match the definition of a word.
Always keep a dictionary handy, it saves looking foolish.
oligarchy
/quote?
[ol-i-gahr-kee]
Examples
Word Origin
noun, plural oligarchies.
1.
a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
I don't believe so, I was making a claim that solutions are dynamic as are problems. Your logic works only if I change "solve" to be something other than the dictionary defines the word. I was not fishing for a specific answer, I was asking if your definition of "solve" matches the dictionary.
You also need to be very careful about other tools, as for example TCC can compile and execute C code without writing it to disk first. The point is that the privilege system is concerned with read and write access, execution restrictions are just a side-effect of that and an imperfect one.
I was not defending the original post, but attempting to correct the bad response. Sockets are files, and I can create a socket in any directory I have write access to. /tmp is a safe "default" location because all users can write to /tmp, but there is no restriction on where I can create a socket in *nix by default.
I agree that the original logic is bad, but the explanation is wrong for why that logic is bad. As written, it claims that the only protections in *nix are at the file level.
You neglected my question. Does a "fix" like "reboot" solve a problem or remove a symptom? I think there is a rare exception where this can be true, but in most cases this would not be problem solving. There is surely a DK connection when a group of people claim that this is problem solving, but I would not work with that type of person for very long if other options exist, and fortunately have never been forced to do so.
No they can't, and I gave the example. A socket is a file, so go ahead and open up a socket on port 99 as a user. After you figure out you are wrong come back and tell me so. I don't want to rub your nose in you being incorrect, I want others to see that you are incorrect.
If you want another example, go ahead and write and compile a piece of code that executes a shell with UID=0. This is 2 system calls, yet you won't be able execute the shell by running your code without root access, even though you can write the source and compile the binary. The system calls are "suid()" and system() just in case you are lost. Another example would be to copy the su command to what ever location you want and lets see how quickly you can su root. The protection in this case has absolutely nothing to do with what files you can read and where you can write.
File system protection is only 1 layer of *nix security, there is also process protection and memory protection. This does not even consider add on or additional tuning available in limits and SE *nix kernels.
Bullshit! You stated if you can read it, you can execute it and that statement is patently false.
Your claim of a process being free to write memory fails to consider a process that already has claimed memory and it's protections. Yeah, forty fucking years ago I had to worry about a user reading and writing to my memory space as a Kernel, but that has been fixed for decades. I can also easily set limits to prevent you from having free reign to wipe a system out of memory because of memory protection built in to the kernel.
You claimed that a read is enough permission to execute, and that is absolutely false. If being wrong hurts your feelings ask mommy for a hug, not me. Go cry victim to someone who may actually give you sympathy, I'm not going to console you for making false statements.
Are you saying that the tests shouldn't allow them to pas (but may do today), or that the tests don't allow them to pass without basic networking knowledge?
Both.
There's a very large Dunning-Kruger with problem solving. Give someone a problem, and they'll treat it like their last problem, until proven otherwise. Reboot try again. I've seen server admins try that with networking gear. I've never seen it work for anything other than a home router. Or if he knows the last problem was a duplex mismatch, he'll check the duplex on every server and every switch in the network before looking at anything else. God forbid a server admin has heard of a packet capture. He'll capture everything, usually in a place that won't get what he's looking for, and then hands it to you, like he gave you the solution, and waits for you to read it to him like a bedtime story.
Uh, no! If you give a person a problem to solve and they solve the problem there is no Dunning-Kruger effect to be found. I'm taking "solving" at it's literal definition, where you are actually solving the problem and not rebooting to remove a symptom of a problem as you describe.
I would agree that people can fall into a Dunning-Kruger effect in removing symptoms, but do you believe that this is really solving a problem? Example: We may have a vended application that has a memory leak which requires a periodical reboot to correct. The solution however is in a separate ticket where we work with the vendor to actually solve the problem, often times submitting code samples for reproducing the error, and even source samples which may alleviate the problem.
In your second example, this is a two part problem. First, have I provided enough examples for tcpdump or wireshark for them to "get it"? If not, then I share the blame until I have done my part. Sure, some people just don't get it but this is not a Dunning-Kruger problem but a refusal to learn or confusion because they lack basic conceptual knowledge.
Are you a Certified Architect?
Currently? Well that depends, some certificates claim that once you have a certification it never expires. I have a folder full of certificates I keep in a closet I guess as personal trophies, since working at some places like the DOD required I have specific certifications. Today, I'm not asked if I have a certificate because I have a resume which demonstrates functional knowledge of architecture in a vast array of environments, sizes, scales, and business models. I have 2 degrees that I don't get asked about either, because my job is not and never has been restricted to my degrees. My degrees put me on a career path and tested a base level of knowledge at the time, nothing more. Mathematics opened the door to a CS/IT career, but I'm not a mathematician. In fact the last time I ran a differential equation was in College. Liberal arts has helped with critical thinking abilities, communication skills, etc.. but what I knew when I passed those classes was not even close to what I know today.
As I stated originally, I don't put much stock in any particular certificate unless someone lacks work experience. A certificate does not, and has never really demonstrated a persons ability to adapt and learn what's needed to perform and excel at their job. I know people who did well in a particular environment and flopped in others, and I also know people that have certificates that I would not trust to open a car door, let alone architect a solution. In other words, a certificate is not a valid measure of anything except a persons desire to take a test.
At an entry level, sure I put some faith in knowing that a person at least took the time to take a test. I don't delude myself into believing this automatically makes a good worker or a well of knowledge..
I don't believe someone should be able to pass a RHCE or even a higher level MCSE without understanding something so basic as a netmask and broadcast address. I have seen plenty of Junior level admins stuff a /24 netmask into a /25 and have network problems that they can't explain. A "good" SA should be able to catch and correct this without need to find the network team to debug the issue for them. And yes, I have seen many MSCE holders have to traverse that path and bother their Network team for a simple SA error.
I happened to pick the Netmask and calculation as an easy target, but there are plenty of low level concepts that I believe all SAs should know. I don't care if you can give me all 7 layers of the OSI model by rote, I care that you can at least debug your area of responsibility as a SA.
Reading TFA I see no mention of Linux at all, it mentions Windows and PHP. Perhaps the author is confused and believes that anything with .PHP must exist in Linux, but I'm skeptical. They spend lots of time talking about the various .exe files, "Administrator" privileges, and "Network Shares" which are exclusive terminology to the Windows OS. Nobody can be that ignorant as a technical writer.
Reading from disk is only one portion of a process and process protection, the actual execution occurs in memory and is _ALSO_ protected in *nix.. An easy example is to open a socket on a specific port as a user. A non privileged user can not open a port below 1024 because this is in protected space, but you can open a socket on 1025->64K without issues.
There is no point in attempting to explain SUID/SGID in addition to normal execution, because you don't even have the normal execution correct. I will however state that this is another dynamic to review after you figure out the difference between reading and executing.
The multiple guess tests show no practical application for knowledge. I have met plenty of people with certifications that are worthless, and the people with them were just as useless.. sometimes with dozens of these tests. These people were duped into spending tons of cash to get these certificates and had no practical knowledge. Knowing how to enter a netmask in someone's GUI does not mean you understand what a netmask is, or what a broadcast address is, or how to calculate either from the other.
RHCE, CEH, etc.. require practical knowledge. Having work experience can be, and usually is, enough to compensate for the lack of a certificate. The more experience you have the less essential a certification is. I have been in the business for nearly 3 decades, and quite honestly I'm never asked about certificates. Go back even 15 years and people did ask, and I did have some certificates. Today, I'm never asked and have a steady stream of requests to review job offers and even suggest candidates.
Uber likes to try to frame this discussion of how it's trying to compete with the big bad taxi lobby. What they are actually doing is running unlicensed cabs operated by people who aren't very accountable, and if something goes wrong they'll claim "well, we just dispatch, we're not a cab company".
Two separate arguments so keep them separate. First, Uber is fighting lobbyists from large firms that make a fortune paying drivers poor wages and historically not giving a rats ass about consumers. This _IS_ a real issue, and it should take about 2 minutes of investigation to determine that the cab monopolies have been harmful to both consumers and employees. It has only benefited large corporations who can afford the "fee" to Government offices, who have been the other beneficiary.
They are not a cab company, and have never every claimed to be a cab company. They are a ride sharing service which does not do anything like a cab company.
That one out of the way, your second point has some merit. People are not telling the truth on Uber applications, which is leading to some bad things. Worse than you get with a taxi or bus service? Hell no, in fact TFA reports an incident that occurred on the anniversary of a woman getting gang raped on a public bus. The "Uber" issue is played up however, because Uber is not paying off enough politicians. Proof that it's played up is in the same article, because if not for the Uber incident nobody in the US would know about the public bus gang rape incident. Of course most people won't read past the first paragraph either, so there is little harm in them printing the information in the last goddamn line of the story (and watch for this to be redacted in later versions, BBC has a history of doing just this.
On point, the second issue is a concern but it has to be dealt with rationally. Uber has many more benefits than down sides. Introduce legislation and petition Uber to do more checking for background/insurance/ anything else you think they lack.
Consider this: The bus driver that was driving when the woman was gang raped faced no charges, this driver is going to jail. Who is more accountable?