As a developer, I agree; I don't need, want or care to have root on a live production machine that I am not 100% completely responsible.
However, on my personal desktop system, if IT doesn't give me the tools I need to do my job, I'm going to get it done, and that usually means getting root access (I have physical access - there's not much you can do to stop me). At one job it took the IT department 6 MONTHS to respond to my request to upgrade the video drivers for my graphics card so that I could use something better than 640x480 60Hz (this was 2 yrs ago). Needless to say, after 2 days, I fixed the problem myself with no adverse effects, and if the IT department had not taken so long to get to me, I would not have rooted my box.
Lesson Learned: Most developers don't care if they have root or not, but if the IT department can't or won't support them, they WILL subvert your attempts at security. To ensure that your systems stay secure, make sure you respond to the developers and users in a timely manner.
It's more like, "Sorry, I didn't realize I put this candy bar in my pocket and forgot to pay for it. Here's the money for it, and it won't happen again." You're not going to jail for 10 years for shoplifting; it's just not that big of a deal.
I also read some of Mr. Stern's other articles, and as well as being obsessed with STDs and his ass, I think he might be a little schizophrenic. From his articles:
"Big Google is much worse than Big Oil":
Another part of the problem here is that Google pitches this whole open source love thing.... It pays people to love Firefox and does something or other with OpenOffice.
"Fears rise as Google tries to emulate Microsoft" :
Having Google dominate the browser is just like Microsoft dominating the desktop. Let's get an open source search engine going right now.
So let me get this straight. We should be mad that Google pays people to create software to be used by anybody for free, and we need to take over because Google is a big, evil corporation by creating an open source search engine?
I know that it's probably taken a bit out of context, but I'm really having a hard time reading any of his articles and discerning a cohesive thought, much less a consistent one.
Hand counting EVERY vote isn't absolutely necessary, and it can be time-consuming, especially if you get people who can't count or add (then you get recounts forever)
The trick is to have a verifiable electronic voting system, and it's not that difficult. Here's how I see it happening in the ideal case:
- You vote at an electronic terminal. Your vote is then printed on a piece of paper with both a machine-readable bar code AND a plaintext version of who you voted for. - You deposit this slip of paper into a box FOR THAT MACHINE. This way, there are two separate tallies for the votes, the machine votes and the paper votes. - A sample of machines are selected to have their voted verified. A machine reads the bar codes and tallies the grand totals for that machine. If the numbers don't match, you have a problem. - A sample of the above sample is counted by hand. (just to make sure the bar codes are not lying). If those tallies don't match the above two, you have a problem.
Now, I know that this only deals with the individual machines, but you can design similar systems inductively for every level of when the votes get added together, assuring that there is always a paper trail.
Sure, this would cost a little more in terms of development cost and verification of the votes, but it's still a heck of a lot faster than counting every vote by hand, is completely verifiable, and protects us against those programmers that always mess up some mundane detail like a decimal point.
I don't think that the calculators themselves are the problem here; it's the fact that many professors don't know how to teach with the help of a calculator.
For some background, I was a math major in a university that actually provided TI-89's (yes, not only were they allowed, they were required), then transferred to a school that rarely allowed calculators, and I feel more prepared to use my math skills in an applied setting than most of my colleagues.
However, the teachers at my first school were prepared for students that had calculators, and they taught the classes in such a manner that emphasized the the reasons for doing calculations rather than rote memorization, which is what I was taught at my second school. At my second school, I actually had tests where 50% of the test was your ability to reguritate, from memory, a theorem from the textbook.
If you use calculators in class, you need to emphasize the reasons behind the calculations, rather than "push this button, then this one, then enter. Voila! Answer!" And creating tests that actually measure a student's reasoning is HARD when you have a very powerful tool at your disposal. However, when done correctly, it provides the student with a much greater understanding of the basic mathematic concepts and their applications.
In summary, calculators are not inherently evil; however, many people are not properly instructed with them.
Slashdot Mirror
As a developer, I agree; I don't need, want or care to have root on a live production machine that I am not 100% completely responsible.
However, on my personal desktop system, if IT doesn't give me the tools I need to do my job, I'm going to get it done, and that usually means getting root access (I have physical access - there's not much you can do to stop me). At one job it took the IT department 6 MONTHS to respond to my request to upgrade the video drivers for my graphics card so that I could use something better than 640x480 60Hz (this was 2 yrs ago). Needless to say, after 2 days, I fixed the problem myself with no adverse effects, and if the IT department had not taken so long to get to me, I would not have rooted my box.
Lesson Learned: Most developers don't care if they have root or not, but if the IT department can't or won't support them, they WILL subvert your attempts at security. To ensure that your systems stay secure, make sure you respond to the developers and users in a timely manner.
It's more like, "Sorry, I didn't realize I put this candy bar in my pocket and forgot to pay for it. Here's the money for it, and it won't happen again." You're not going to jail for 10 years for shoplifting; it's just not that big of a deal.
"Big Google is much worse than Big Oil": ... It pays people to love Firefox and does something or other with OpenOffice.
Another part of the problem here is that Google pitches this whole open source love thing.
"Fears rise as Google tries to emulate Microsoft" :
Having Google dominate the browser is just like Microsoft dominating the desktop. Let's get an open source search engine going right now.
So let me get this straight. We should be mad that Google pays people to create software to be used by anybody for free, and we need to take over because Google is a big, evil corporation by creating an open source search engine?
I know that it's probably taken a bit out of context, but I'm really having a hard time reading any of his articles and discerning a cohesive thought, much less a consistent one.
Hand counting EVERY vote isn't absolutely necessary, and it can be time-consuming, especially if you get people who can't count or add (then you get recounts forever)
The trick is to have a verifiable electronic voting system, and it's not that difficult. Here's how I see it happening in the ideal case:
- You vote at an electronic terminal. Your vote is then printed on a piece of paper with both a machine-readable bar code AND a plaintext version of who you voted for.
- You deposit this slip of paper into a box FOR THAT MACHINE. This way, there are two separate tallies for the votes, the machine votes and the paper votes.
- A sample of machines are selected to have their voted verified. A machine reads the bar codes and tallies the grand totals for that machine. If the numbers don't match, you have a problem.
- A sample of the above sample is counted by hand. (just to make sure the bar codes are not lying). If those tallies don't match the above two, you have a problem.
Now, I know that this only deals with the individual machines, but you can design similar systems inductively for every level of when the votes get added together, assuring that there is always a paper trail.
Sure, this would cost a little more in terms of development cost and verification of the votes, but it's still a heck of a lot faster than counting every vote by hand, is completely verifiable, and protects us against those programmers that always mess up some mundane detail like a decimal point.
I don't think that the calculators themselves are the problem here; it's the fact that many professors don't know how to teach with the help of a calculator.
For some background, I was a math major in a university that actually provided TI-89's (yes, not only were they allowed, they were required), then transferred to a school that rarely allowed calculators, and I feel more prepared to use my math skills in an applied setting than most of my colleagues.
However, the teachers at my first school were prepared for students that had calculators, and they taught the classes in such a manner that emphasized the the reasons for doing calculations rather than rote memorization, which is what I was taught at my second school. At my second school, I actually had tests where 50% of the test was your ability to reguritate, from memory, a theorem from the textbook.
If you use calculators in class, you need to emphasize the reasons behind the calculations, rather than "push this button, then this one, then enter. Voila! Answer!" And creating tests that actually measure a student's reasoning is HARD when you have a very powerful tool at your disposal. However, when done correctly, it provides the student with a much greater understanding of the basic mathematic concepts and their applications.
In summary, calculators are not inherently evil; however, many people are not properly instructed with them.