Well, if you do not manage to get that tree question right, then you have no solid foundation in algorithms. That means you probably can code simple business-logic, but nothing else. That tree question is practically relevant, for example, when searching through that tree. This has a large number of real-world applications and can be done in a number of different ways. Some of these ways are massively less efficient for some problems and a competent coder understands why that is.
I am fully aware that most of today's moron-coders never have implemented a tree. Which is utterly pathetic. We urgently need formal qualification levels for coders, the current state of affairs is intolerable.
Fascinating. No, I did a CISSP and 5 days preparation (not full time, more like 50%). Finished the exam in 2h and passed (would not have wasted time on a 2nd try). I do _not_ list it on my CV, because a CISSP does not even remotely make you a security expert. It is far, far too shallow for that. Somebody that lists a CISSP as security qualification is somebody to be wary of.
And there you have demonstrated again that you do not understand Science at all. Because you just predicted that Dragons do not exist, and you have done so without a shred of proof. Pathetic.
You are kidding yourself. You have closed this question with a pseudo-answer. Very likely you are one of the many people that cannot stand an open question. Incidentally, listing options is completely scientific, even if you do not like them.
If the law works, they will go to prison. However "the law" is a tool to keep the masses under control, it does not implement justice, even though that is the cover story. My guess: Slap on the wrist, i.e. fine that is too low to balance the gains they made.
Very much so. Mistakes can happen, but ignoring a relevant CVE for months will not happen with halfway competent security people. The problem, however, is that no competent security people were hired and the CEO should lose his job immediately and be prosecuted for criminal negligence for that.
And there you do exactly what is _not_ done in Science. In Science, a question remains _open_ until there is evidence to close it. You are doing the opposite thing and that is pure belief and has nothing at all to do with Science. Fail.
Well. "CISO" is ancient Geek for "the lamb that is slaughtered first". I know a guy that resigned from a really well paying CISO position after a few months, because they would not let him look at anything or have any information or impact at all.
Well, a lot of people here have a lot to lose. But the abysmally bad state that most current software is in is due to the abysmally bad skills of most coders. And this cannot continue.
I fully agree. It is pathetic. I just recently had to explain to some 5-year web application developers at a really large company where they write mission-critical software, what an HTTP-header looks like. These people have zero understanding what they do. They can use some frameworks for implementing simple business logic, but ask them whether a variable is actually stored on client or server side and they just look at you without any understanding at all.
What we need in software creation is _engineers_. You know, people that have a clue how things work and how to build things so that they work and can be maintained. All those unqualified cretins that cannot even use a different text-editor or are clueless when asked how the things they build actually works need to go. They would have more worth for society if they were retired at full wages immediately. Then they would at least stop doing massive damage.
Coders are routinely bad at security. It is a different skill. Also, self-taught coders usually suck badly as soon as the least bit of actual CS comes into it.
Certification is utterly worthless. In fact, certification makes things worse. When actual IT security experts work with people that just have "certifications", we not only have to explain how things actually work, we have to overcome all those wrong ideas first. It is utterly pathetic.
Bullshit. To be any good at IT security, you need 10-20 years of experience on top of a relevant degree (MA or PhD) that already included IT security. If you do not have that degree, you cannot, in a human lifetime, acquire enough experience to compensate for that. This stuff is hard.
The CISSP is a joke. I did with 5 days of preparation in the first try and I could realistically have done it with far less. I have removed it since from my resume, because the things asked are just extremely shallow and worthless.
And very likely none of them will have what it takes to be a reasonable CISO. That job is a bit more difficult than just being able to write good software. I also doubt that "brilliant" qualifier very much. In a pool of massive underperformers, somebody somewhat average will look "brilliant". (And yes, I have reviewed software created by supposedly "brilliant" people that did not have an IT related degree. It was functional but not good at all beyond that. And yes, this was critical software in about the same size of company.)
The real conclusion here is that _you_ do not have what it takes to recognize relevant skill.
Well, if you do not want the security person stand in your way, use somebody unqualified or very junior. They will not cause problems, because they will not dare to speak up. I have seen that principle in action several times. The IT security problems at those companies were impressive.
The same is true for brain-surgery. Sure, there may be the one exceptional talent that can do it without a specific degree and years of training, but does that claim make sense? No, it does not.
Down here in actual reality, you need that degree and that decade or two of on-topic training and experience to be any good in that role.
Ah, yes, Minsky the moron. That guy never understood what computers can and cannot do. Probably became too important too fast and never got a grasp on reality. I am really glad he is dead, his massive disservice to the field is impressive.
That said, most of the "AI community" is actually doing good work. Most of it is also not called "AI" though. For example, robotics was smart and made sure they did not get lumped in with the "visionaries".
We might never have AI. Or we might eventually get AI, and it turns out to be no better than what humans can do. Despite that, weak AI ("automation") is not a joke, but very useful. As it turns out, many things we though required intelligence, actually do not. And hence many tasks are open to automation.
Well, "God" is a transparent pseudo-explanation for those weak of mind, but the physicalists (fundamentalists that believe everything is just matter and energy) are not much better. Both use belief-based strategies of dealing with the unknown and both are anti-science.
When it comes to consciousness, intelligence and free will, the scientific state-of-the art is "nobody has a clue". Anybody actually thinking scientifically is able to live with that, but that approach is beyond a great many people. Hence they invent stupid pseudo-explanations.
If you think that, then you have no clue what the limits on software complexity that can still be handled are. Sure, we are hardware-limited and we will be that for the foreseeable future. But the little overlooked fact here is that we have no clue what the software actually should do in order to simulate a brain, so even if we had the hardware, we would not be any closer to the result.
Also, why assume that just scaling the thing up makes it suddenly be intelligent? That is a baseless assumption as that has never been experimentally verified and there is no theory that has been verified and could be applied either.
At this time, the workings of intelligence, consciousness and free will are "magic", i.e. nobody has a clue how they work. Assuming a purely physical apparatus could attain all these is neither supported by our current understanding of Physics nor does it have any scientific base. It is a belief. And, as it turns out, the follower of this belief ("physicalists") use pretty much the same faulty argumentation techniques so common with religious fanatics. A pathetic fail on their part.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, fizzbuzz gives you a rating of "not fully incompetent", but nothing more.
Well, if you do not manage to get that tree question right, then you have no solid foundation in algorithms. That means you probably can code simple business-logic, but nothing else. That tree question is practically relevant, for example, when searching through that tree. This has a large number of real-world applications and can be done in a number of different ways. Some of these ways are massively less efficient for some problems and a competent coder understands why that is.
I am fully aware that most of today's moron-coders never have implemented a tree. Which is utterly pathetic. We urgently need formal qualification levels for coders, the current state of affairs is intolerable.
Fascinating. No, I did a CISSP and 5 days preparation (not full time, more like 50%). Finished the exam in 2h and passed (would not have wasted time on a 2nd try). I do _not_ list it on my CV, because a CISSP does not even remotely make you a security expert. It is far, far too shallow for that. Somebody that lists a CISSP as security qualification is somebody to be wary of.
And there you have demonstrated again that you do not understand Science at all. Because you just predicted that Dragons do not exist, and you have done so without a shred of proof. Pathetic.
You are kidding yourself. You have closed this question with a pseudo-answer. Very likely you are one of the many people that cannot stand an open question. Incidentally, listing options is completely scientific, even if you do not like them.
Claiming something is "obvious" and hence must be true is not Science. It is wishful thinking. Care to prove your assertion? Oh, right, you cannot.
Fascinating. The dumbing-down is in full swing when on gets moderated down to -1, Troll for pointing out the scientific state-of-the-art.
If the law works, they will go to prison. However "the law" is a tool to keep the masses under control, it does not implement justice, even though that is the cover story. My guess: Slap on the wrist, i.e. fine that is too low to balance the gains they made.
Very much so. Mistakes can happen, but ignoring a relevant CVE for months will not happen with halfway competent security people. The problem, however, is that no competent security people were hired and the CEO should lose his job immediately and be prosecuted for criminal negligence for that.
Seriously? Read at least an introductory text before disgracing yourself utterly.
And there you do exactly what is _not_ done in Science. In Science, a question remains _open_ until there is evidence to close it. You are doing the opposite thing and that is pure belief and has nothing at all to do with Science. Fail.
Well. "CISO" is ancient Geek for "the lamb that is slaughtered first". I know a guy that resigned from a really well paying CISO position after a few months, because they would not let him look at anything or have any information or impact at all.
Well, a lot of people here have a lot to lose. But the abysmally bad state that most current software is in is due to the abysmally bad skills of most coders. And this cannot continue.
I fully agree. It is pathetic. I just recently had to explain to some 5-year web application developers at a really large company where they write mission-critical software, what an HTTP-header looks like. These people have zero understanding what they do. They can use some frameworks for implementing simple business logic, but ask them whether a variable is actually stored on client or server side and they just look at you without any understanding at all.
What we need in software creation is _engineers_. You know, people that have a clue how things work and how to build things so that they work and can be maintained. All those unqualified cretins that cannot even use a different text-editor or are clueless when asked how the things they build actually works need to go. They would have more worth for society if they were retired at full wages immediately. Then they would at least stop doing massive damage.
Coders are routinely bad at security. It is a different skill. Also, self-taught coders usually suck badly as soon as the least bit of actual CS comes into it.
Certification is utterly worthless. In fact, certification makes things worse. When actual IT security experts work with people that just have "certifications", we not only have to explain how things actually work, we have to overcome all those wrong ideas first. It is utterly pathetic.
Bullshit. To be any good at IT security, you need 10-20 years of experience on top of a relevant degree (MA or PhD) that already included IT security. If you do not have that degree, you cannot, in a human lifetime, acquire enough experience to compensate for that. This stuff is hard.
The CISSP is a joke. I did with 5 days of preparation in the first try and I could realistically have done it with far less. I have removed it since from my resume, because the things asked are just extremely shallow and worthless.
And very likely none of them will have what it takes to be a reasonable CISO. That job is a bit more difficult than just being able to write good software. I also doubt that "brilliant" qualifier very much. In a pool of massive underperformers, somebody somewhat average will look "brilliant". (And yes, I have reviewed software created by supposedly "brilliant" people that did not have an IT related degree. It was functional but not good at all beyond that. And yes, this was critical software in about the same size of company.)
The real conclusion here is that _you_ do not have what it takes to recognize relevant skill.
Well, if you do not want the security person stand in your way, use somebody unqualified or very junior. They will not cause problems, because they will not dare to speak up. I have seen that principle in action several times. The IT security problems at those companies were impressive.
The same is true for brain-surgery. Sure, there may be the one exceptional talent that can do it without a specific degree and years of training, but does that claim make sense? No, it does not.
Down here in actual reality, you need that degree and that decade or two of on-topic training and experience to be any good in that role.
Ah, yes, Minsky the moron. That guy never understood what computers can and cannot do. Probably became too important too fast and never got a grasp on reality. I am really glad he is dead, his massive disservice to the field is impressive.
That said, most of the "AI community" is actually doing good work. Most of it is also not called "AI" though. For example, robotics was smart and made sure they did not get lumped in with the "visionaries".
We might never have AI. Or we might eventually get AI, and it turns out to be no better than what humans can do. Despite that, weak AI ("automation") is not a joke, but very useful. As it turns out, many things we though required intelligence, actually do not. And hence many tasks are open to automation.
Well, "God" is a transparent pseudo-explanation for those weak of mind, but the physicalists (fundamentalists that believe everything is just matter and energy) are not much better. Both use belief-based strategies of dealing with the unknown and both are anti-science.
When it comes to consciousness, intelligence and free will, the scientific state-of-the art is "nobody has a clue". Anybody actually thinking scientifically is able to live with that, but that approach is beyond a great many people. Hence they invent stupid pseudo-explanations.
If you think that, then you have no clue what the limits on software complexity that can still be handled are. Sure, we are hardware-limited and we will be that for the foreseeable future. But the little overlooked fact here is that we have no clue what the software actually should do in order to simulate a brain, so even if we had the hardware, we would not be any closer to the result.
Also, why assume that just scaling the thing up makes it suddenly be intelligent? That is a baseless assumption as that has never been experimentally verified and there is no theory that has been verified and could be applied either.
At this time, the workings of intelligence, consciousness and free will are "magic", i.e. nobody has a clue how they work. Assuming a purely physical apparatus could attain all these is neither supported by our current understanding of Physics nor does it have any scientific base. It is a belief. And, as it turns out, the follower of this belief ("physicalists") use pretty much the same faulty argumentation techniques so common with religious fanatics. A pathetic fail on their part.