"Except companies do not think and do not figure anything out.
Then why do some companies go out of business, while others succeed?"
What are you implying? that turtles or sharks think? Because, you see, they have been around much, really much longer than any company.
"A company obviously can't be successful if it doesn't have intelligent people in charge"
Are you sure? Why the same can't be said about turtles and sharks, then? And then again, what does it mean "intelligent" within this context and, if these people are so intelligent, whose interest are they supposed to put in front?
"Because he has no money.
What nonsense. The fact that he's posting on a tech forum on the internet suggests he probably personally makes above the median U.S. household income"
That's "no money" for the context of this conversation. That's why entrepeneurs require VC money -because they don't have it. And depending on VC means you are to make happy VC owners, not consumers. Heck, look at all those companies valued in the billions: how many of them are making hard cash? -even Amazon is making about a meagre 1%, and that's after billions have been sunk on it.
"I don't think this will happen in the U.S. as people are generally free to find new enterprises to engage in and ways to create wealth. You only see this starvation in places like Venezuela where failed socialist policies have punished success"
Now I see where you are coming.
"If 100% of the U.S. is out of work and starving and willing to work for anything at all, wouldn't it be far cheaper for this rich people who have supposedly taken all of the wealth for themselves to pay people in the U.S. to fill the same roles that they would be paying other people in foreign markets to fill?"
Yes. For that to happen USA would just need to be liminary above current average China levels (or not even that: South America and, specially, Africa come before). And the 0.001% trillionaires (or even less, remember, right now just 8, like in E-I-G-H-T, persons amass as much wealth as the bottom 50%; thats like 1 against 400.000.000) would be so much happy.
"If you think the problem exists on a meta-level where it's individuals tanking businesses for their own short-term game, then eventually companies will start to figure this out and adapt to prevent this from happening."
Except companies do not think and do not figure anything out. People do. Executives do. And can do it -and will do it, all across the board.
"if you think all of these companies are just acting for short-term gains, why not try to identify the pattern and invest your own money"
Because he has no money. The execs and their partners do, and they do benefit from this behaviour. Imagine the worst has already happened and USA is finally a devastated territory with 100% unemployment, not a single company producing anything and not a single dime on its citizens' starved pockets (except for half a dozen of them that amass trillions). So what? They still can go to the (foreign) market to live la vida loca with their profits.
"KÃlmÃn DabÃczi was the manager of BKK. You are correct though that he might not have personal been apart of this. It could have just been employees of BKK and this never filtered up to him."
Sure. The employees call the police over a non-urgent company issue without before rising it to management.
"So availability of applications have what do to with support window?"
Everything. Neither people nor companies "run" operating systems. They run applications and services built upon those applications. That's why operating systems with strong implantation on corporate environments expend quite a lot of effort making sure the most popular applications and services' support windows match theirs.
"Exactly! We had a new policy put in place around 1 year ago that allows employees to work from home 2 days per month."
And that exactly what the problem is. There are times when something that is good, when going below a threshold is even worse than nothing.
You don't have the culture, nor the tools, to support working out from office, so those two days are a nuisance. You should try more or less the other way around: about a day a week in the office, all the others from home. That *is* where the advantages come from.
"When I'm a fan of something (art, music, or any sort of creativity) part of what makes the experience pleasant is showing your appreciation to the human artist that created it."
Good luck trying that with Homer, Velazquez, Michelangelo, Bach...
If *really* not being able to show your appreciation to the author ruins your experience, I have to say you are already losing a bit too much of what people generally considers as art.
"There are still 0-day exploits in the wild and they will be guarded well by those who discover them. Intelligence agencies will vaccinate their own systems to the exploit"
They probably shouldn't, except for their most valuable targets (if any: they most probably should let the systems go unpatched but look for a remediation elsewhere).
You don't think our enemies are hand on hand, right? They probably (but not surely) will have developed their own hacks and the one way to be sure if the enemies have found them is trying to attack them and see their response: if they are protected, then as sure as hell they know about the vulnerability and how to exploit it too.
And just like the old saying goes, they are reinventing it because they forgot of it, so they are doomed to reinvent it... poorly.
For the most part, the described "advantages" come not because of microservices but because they understand better *now* what's the realm of the problem at hand. They could have done it better even with sticks and carrots for ones and zeroes and the fact that they need to invent "a new paradigm" for that, is a heavy hint that they will bring their whole own set of big problems and since the system is bigger now, they will be bigger, bigger problems too.
No. The problem is that, with time, the company has built a large, unmaintenable ball of hair.
And then, the proposed solution has been: "hey, let's forget that large, unmaintenable ball of hair and let's substitute it with a myriad of not so big, unmaintenable (and unmaintained) balls of hair. Oh, and now that we are at it, let's add the complexity of a myriad of unmaintenable network calls!"
You can bet this is new people about to fall in all the old mistakes.
"This attitude is why companies no longer train people."
No. Companies no longer train people because they are myopic beyond salvation.
"Paying people a large salary for months while they're not productive then having them backstab you is why companies stop training people."
No. It is paying peanuts while training them and then pretending to continue paying peanuts once they are trained why they flee.
You can: 1) Pay them peanuts while on training and automatically rise their wages to current market value once they get their training. 2) Pay them average or a bit below average while on training with a clause that makes them work for you for a reasonable period at that level, then rise their wages to their new market value.
You see, changing jobs is always a risk, higher for the employee than the employer, and still your people prefer taking that risk even knowing your company will continue training them? you, sir, are paying peanuts.
How is it that a company paying the lowest it can come with is "free market, offer and demand" and then the employee getting the highest wages they can command is "backstabbing"?
Finally, you think training is expensive? Try incompetence!
"Even in the best of setups, you need someone to monitor the intrusion detection"
What requires that the ones monitoring (or getting alerts) to be different people than the ones getting the operating envelope ones?
"test patches and updates"
That's what QA is for (if even QA is required instead of being part of a developer's or system administrator duty: you coded/designed/deployed it? You make sure it fits the requirements).
"Effective 'ground up security' requires extra granularity of permissions."
Which is part of the architecture role's duties.
"This has a cost as well, even done efficiently"
No doubt it has a cost, and then is product management the one to set the sweet spot and architecture to design it, etc. No "security guys" involved.
"And it's all worthless if someone lets a stranger tailgate past a card reader"
If no tailgating it is required, then it's an architecture concern.
"Don't forget that background checking the janitorial staff isn't free."
Don't forget you are answering to a comment that didn't enter into cost consideration, only that "security staff" has no place in any healthy organization.
"And this is why you should never talk about "Intellectual Rights" or "Intellectual Property". The terms were invented for the very purpose of blurring the distinctions"
That, or to make the distinction even among similar things.
It is not that the physical property is a single entity either: you have use leases, you have nuda proprietas, you have limited partnership, you have ownership by usucapione, you have rights of easement...
But I agree with you in that "intellectual Property/Rights" is a misleading expression for what is in fact "privileges on intellectual production". Just by calling it by what it is, privilege instead of right, how the perception changes.
"That's just a left handed way of asking that all candidates be good bullshitters."
Which exactly the kind of people required for "cybersecurity" anyway.
There are only two kinds of "cybersecurity": 1) Passive, after the fact, which you will find on Microsoft shops. this kind of "security" is based on buying and more or less implementing the "securi-crap" programs and appliances from the vendor with the highest marketing budget. For that you don't need "cybersecurity experts"; any windows monkey with a bit of specific training will do that. 2) Effective ground-up security. For this you don't need "cybersecurity experts" either, as security is built from the blueprints on. Then you need just "seasoned professionals" that know their stuff.
In any case, the cybersecurity dedicated staff is nothing more than dead weight that strives by being good bullshitters so no wonder recruitment is specifically looking for them.
"Part (b)'s "limited times" is not necessary to achieve part (a)'s "progress of science and useful arts," "
No, it isn't (while it is arguably). Nevertheless that's the Constitution's wording so, unless you change it, as I already said, that's it what it is.
"Both copyright law and patent laws' "limited times" are designed screw the working class creative people"
Maybe, but not the way you seem to imply. The problem is on the legal definition of "authors and inventors" since, as of now, it extends to whomever they sell their copy-rights.
"It's designed to prevent the poor but brilliant creative people from becoming very rich"
An affirmation without substantiation. How is that the case?
"You still have to pay for cost+profit to buy a simple invention like a paperclip, long after its inventor is dead"
No, you don't. You pay cost+profit to *produce* a paperclip, not for its shape and ingeniousness which are, long ago, freely available. And then, you are confusing patents with copyrights. Patents extend just 20 years from description full stop. It is copyrights which go "for as long as the author lives and then more".
And then again, main problem with current copyright laws is not the copy of an item on itself but that it goes against the "promotion of progress" clause as it limits the ability of others of building on top of what's already available. As it's been already told, if Disney were entered the market under the copyright laws Disney itself promotes, it would have been impossible for it to success as no Cinderella, Whitesnow, Pinoccio... would have been possible -and the arts would have suffered as those films are in fact worthy contributions built on top of others'.
"Real estate rights are forever, then why not copyright?"
I will answer from a USA point of view (despite me not being USA citizen myself. The argument can be generalized, but I find the USA example makes for a magnificent example, both because of its clarity and high visibility).
Because the USA Constitution doesn't enact real state rights "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
That means: 1) This should be enacted for as long as it secures the goal it was created for: if it doesn't promote the progress of science and useful arts, then it is unconstitutional. 2) If it goes beyond the constitutional mandate, by doing it by other ways than securing to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries, then it is also unconstitutional. 3) If it secures those rights for anything else than limited times, then it is also unconstitutional.
Of course you don't need to agree with those terms and you could call for an amendment for the constitution but, in the meantime, that's it what it is.
"Probably isn't legal, but that has never stopped Japanese companies pushing the boundaries of labour laws, and bullying their employees."
I can understand they don't want you to leave, what I fail to understand is what's the strenght they have to bully someone?
Can they really succesfully demand you not to put you were there in your resume? Can they really go to their competition asking for not hiring you with any chance of success?
"a former Konami executive was forced to close his business due to pressure from the gaming giant"
Well, yeah... But *how*!? -Pretty please, close your business, close your business, close your business, close your business, close your... -OK, OK, I'll do it but just shut up!
Finally a joint endeavour between public and private entities to put an end to this modern day scourge. Once again the waters off Somalia and other hot spots will be peaceful without pirates.
Slashdot Mirror
"Except companies do not think and do not figure anything out.
Then why do some companies go out of business, while others succeed?"
What are you implying? that turtles or sharks think? Because, you see, they have been around much, really much longer than any company.
"A company obviously can't be successful if it doesn't have intelligent people in charge"
Are you sure? Why the same can't be said about turtles and sharks, then? And then again, what does it mean "intelligent" within this context and, if these people are so intelligent, whose interest are they supposed to put in front?
"Because he has no money.
What nonsense. The fact that he's posting on a tech forum on the internet suggests he probably personally makes above the median U.S. household income"
That's "no money" for the context of this conversation. That's why entrepeneurs require VC money -because they don't have it. And depending on VC means you are to make happy VC owners, not consumers. Heck, look at all those companies valued in the billions: how many of them are making hard cash? -even Amazon is making about a meagre 1%, and that's after billions have been sunk on it.
"I don't think this will happen in the U.S. as people are generally free to find new enterprises to engage in and ways to create wealth. You only see this starvation in places like Venezuela where failed socialist policies have punished success"
Now I see where you are coming.
"If 100% of the U.S. is out of work and starving and willing to work for anything at all, wouldn't it be far cheaper for this rich people who have supposedly taken all of the wealth for themselves to pay people in the U.S. to fill the same roles that they would be paying other people in foreign markets to fill?"
Yes. For that to happen USA would just need to be liminary above current average China levels (or not even that: South America and, specially, Africa come before). And the 0.001% trillionaires (or even less, remember, right now just 8, like in E-I-G-H-T, persons amass as much wealth as the bottom 50%; thats like 1 against 400.000.000) would be so much happy.
"If you think the problem exists on a meta-level where it's individuals tanking businesses for their own short-term game, then eventually companies will start to figure this out and adapt to prevent this from happening."
Except companies do not think and do not figure anything out. People do. Executives do. And can do it -and will do it, all across the board.
"if you think all of these companies are just acting for short-term gains, why not try to identify the pattern and invest your own money"
Because he has no money. The execs and their partners do, and they do benefit from this behaviour. Imagine the worst has already happened and USA is finally a devastated territory with 100% unemployment, not a single company producing anything and not a single dime on its citizens' starved pockets (except for half a dozen of them that amass trillions). So what? They still can go to the (foreign) market to live la vida loca with their profits.
"KÃlmÃn DabÃczi was the manager of BKK. You are correct though that he might not have personal been apart of this. It could have just been employees of BKK and this never filtered up to him."
Sure. The employees call the police over a non-urgent company issue without before rising it to management.
In Hungary.
"So availability of applications have what do to with support window?"
Everything. Neither people nor companies "run" operating systems. They run applications and services built upon those applications. That's why operating systems with strong implantation on corporate environments expend quite a lot of effort making sure the most popular applications and services' support windows match theirs.
"Exactly! We had a new policy put in place around 1 year ago that allows employees to work from home 2 days per month."
And that exactly what the problem is. There are times when something that is good, when going below a threshold is even worse than nothing.
You don't have the culture, nor the tools, to support working out from office, so those two days are a nuisance. You should try more or less the other way around: about a day a week in the office, all the others from home. That *is* where the advantages come from.
"I think there might be the underground superhero/villain, and hopefully a profitable project, but I think it's practice for Mars."
Hummm... He'll need to practice a lot, then. It's a lot of digging to Mars.
"When I'm a fan of something (art, music, or any sort of creativity) part of what makes the experience pleasant is showing your appreciation to the human artist that created it."
Good luck trying that with Homer, Velazquez, Michelangelo, Bach...
If *really* not being able to show your appreciation to the author ruins your experience, I have to say you are already losing a bit too much of what people generally considers as art.
"There are still 0-day exploits in the wild and they will be guarded well by those who discover them. Intelligence agencies will vaccinate their own systems to the exploit"
They probably shouldn't, except for their most valuable targets (if any: they most probably should let the systems go unpatched but look for a remediation elsewhere).
You don't think our enemies are hand on hand, right? They probably (but not surely) will have developed their own hacks and the one way to be sure if the enemies have found them is trying to attack them and see their response: if they are protected, then as sure as hell they know about the vulnerability and how to exploit it too.
"Sounds exactly like UNIX"
Because it is.
And just like the old saying goes, they are reinventing it because they forgot of it, so they are doomed to reinvent it... poorly.
For the most part, the described "advantages" come not because of microservices but because they understand better *now* what's the realm of the problem at hand. They could have done it better even with sticks and carrots for ones and zeroes and the fact that they need to invent "a new paradigm" for that, is a heavy hint that they will bring their whole own set of big problems and since the system is bigger now, they will be bigger, bigger problems too.
"The problem is large, monolithic programs."
No. The problem is that, with time, the company has built a large, unmaintenable ball of hair.
And then, the proposed solution has been: "hey, let's forget that large, unmaintenable ball of hair and let's substitute it with a myriad of not so big, unmaintenable (and unmaintained) balls of hair. Oh, and now that we are at it, let's add the complexity of a myriad of unmaintenable network calls!"
You can bet this is new people about to fall in all the old mistakes.
"And both Linux and macOS"
So wannacry attacks Linux and macOS now? No? So I thought.
And then, somehow, `ls -l` is too complex for systems "in the real world".
"Correction: Microsoft made coding errors leading to an exploit"
Exactly that.
It is not "networks" that are affected. It is not "computers" that are affected.
It is operating systems. And not any operating system: Microsoft operating systems.
"Who runs backups? The receptionist?"
The backups are never the problem.
Testing them is.
And, of course, nobody runs the backups: they are automated. The results are tested by junior staff and validated by senior sysadmins.
"This attitude is why companies no longer train people."
No. Companies no longer train people because they are myopic beyond salvation.
"Paying people a large salary for months while they're not productive then having them backstab you is why companies stop training people."
No. It is paying peanuts while training them and then pretending to continue paying peanuts once they are trained why they flee.
You can:
1) Pay them peanuts while on training and automatically rise their wages to current market value once they get their training.
2) Pay them average or a bit below average while on training with a clause that makes them work for you for a reasonable period at that level, then rise their wages to their new market value.
You see, changing jobs is always a risk, higher for the employee than the employer, and still your people prefer taking that risk even knowing your company will continue training them? you, sir, are paying peanuts.
How is it that a company paying the lowest it can come with is "free market, offer and demand" and then the employee getting the highest wages they can command is "backstabbing"?
Finally, you think training is expensive? Try incompetence!
"Even in the best of setups, you need someone to monitor the intrusion detection"
What requires that the ones monitoring (or getting alerts) to be different people than the ones getting the operating envelope ones?
"test patches and updates"
That's what QA is for (if even QA is required instead of being part of a developer's or system administrator duty: you coded/designed/deployed it? You make sure it fits the requirements).
"Effective 'ground up security' requires extra granularity of permissions."
Which is part of the architecture role's duties.
"This has a cost as well, even done efficiently"
No doubt it has a cost, and then is product management the one to set the sweet spot and architecture to design it, etc. No "security guys" involved.
"And it's all worthless if someone lets a stranger tailgate past a card reader"
If no tailgating it is required, then it's an architecture concern.
"Don't forget that background checking the janitorial staff isn't free."
Don't forget you are answering to a comment that didn't enter into cost consideration, only that "security staff" has no place in any healthy organization.
"And this is why you should never talk about "Intellectual Rights" or "Intellectual Property". The terms were invented for the very purpose of blurring the distinctions"
That, or to make the distinction even among similar things.
It is not that the physical property is a single entity either: you have use leases, you have nuda proprietas, you have limited partnership, you have ownership by usucapione, you have rights of easement...
But I agree with you in that "intellectual Property/Rights" is a misleading expression for what is in fact "privileges on intellectual production". Just by calling it by what it is, privilege instead of right, how the perception changes.
"We've thought about training, but the three guys we did hire and train all left for higher paying jobs immediately after taking advantage of us."
Taking advantage of yours!!!???
You mean, they used your systems to find a new employer and hacking their systems so they got more than they deserved'
Why didn't you sue them to hell!!!???
Or was it that, as you was paying quite below market rates, your trainees didn't had any problem to find someone other paying better than you?
"That's just a left handed way of asking that all candidates be good bullshitters."
Which exactly the kind of people required for "cybersecurity" anyway.
There are only two kinds of "cybersecurity":
1) Passive, after the fact, which you will find on Microsoft shops. this kind of "security" is based on buying and more or less implementing the "securi-crap" programs and appliances from the vendor with the highest marketing budget. For that you don't need "cybersecurity experts"; any windows monkey with a bit of specific training will do that.
2) Effective ground-up security. For this you don't need "cybersecurity experts" either, as security is built from the blueprints on. Then you need just "seasoned professionals" that know their stuff.
In any case, the cybersecurity dedicated staff is nothing more than dead weight that strives by being good bullshitters so no wonder recruitment is specifically looking for them.
"Part (b)'s "limited times" is not necessary to achieve part (a)'s "progress of science and useful arts," "
No, it isn't (while it is arguably). Nevertheless that's the Constitution's wording so, unless you change it, as I already said, that's it what it is.
"Both copyright law and patent laws' "limited times" are designed screw the working class creative people"
Maybe, but not the way you seem to imply. The problem is on the legal definition of "authors and inventors" since, as of now, it extends to whomever they sell their copy-rights.
"It's designed to prevent the poor but brilliant creative people from becoming very rich"
An affirmation without substantiation. How is that the case?
"You still have to pay for cost+profit to buy a simple invention like a paperclip, long after its inventor is dead"
No, you don't. You pay cost+profit to *produce* a paperclip, not for its shape and ingeniousness which are, long ago, freely available. And then, you are confusing patents with copyrights. Patents extend just 20 years from description full stop. It is copyrights which go "for as long as the author lives and then more".
And then again, main problem with current copyright laws is not the copy of an item on itself but that it goes against the "promotion of progress" clause as it limits the ability of others of building on top of what's already available. As it's been already told, if Disney were entered the market under the copyright laws Disney itself promotes, it would have been impossible for it to success as no Cinderella, Whitesnow, Pinoccio... would have been possible -and the arts would have suffered as those films are in fact worthy contributions built on top of others'.
Throne of Blood.
Shakespeare was not happy?
"Real estate rights are forever, then why not copyright?"
I will answer from a USA point of view (despite me not being USA citizen myself. The argument can be generalized, but I find the USA example makes for a magnificent example, both because of its clarity and high visibility).
Because the USA Constitution doesn't enact real state rights "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
That means:
1) This should be enacted for as long as it secures the goal it was created for: if it doesn't promote the progress of science and useful arts, then it is unconstitutional.
2) If it goes beyond the constitutional mandate, by doing it by other ways than securing to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries, then it is also unconstitutional.
3) If it secures those rights for anything else than limited times, then it is also unconstitutional.
Of course you don't need to agree with those terms and you could call for an amendment for the constitution but, in the meantime, that's it what it is.
"Probably isn't legal, but that has never stopped Japanese companies pushing the boundaries of labour laws, and bullying their employees."
I can understand they don't want you to leave, what I fail to understand is what's the strenght they have to bully someone?
Can they really succesfully demand you not to put you were there in your resume?
Can they really go to their competition asking for not hiring you with any chance of success?
"a former Konami executive was forced to close his business due to pressure from the gaming giant"
Well, yeah... But *how*!?
-Pretty please, close your business, close your business, close your business, close your business, close your...
-OK, OK, I'll do it but just shut up!
"You can change your oil every 10 to 15000 km"
More like 25.000Km, even for some cars as old as the century.
"And work closely with law enforcement"
All this is certainly great news.
Finally a joint endeavour between public and private entities to put an end to this modern day scourge. Once again the waters off Somalia and other hot spots will be peaceful without pirates.