I doubt that. Massive screw-ups like these are usually a team effort. You know, "engineers" that cannot explain the feature well or do not really understand it themselves, "managers" that make decisions without a clue about what they decide on, and so on. I have seen this numerous times in action. It is really quite fascinating to watch how dysfunctional most/all corporate decision-making processes are in large corporations.
Actually, in countries with a working legal system, this _is_ a criminal offense. The problem is that the legal profession is so far behind the times (and never understood how reality works anyways) that criminals like Capcom will go free.
Where is the intrepid prosecutor that throws them all in jail?
Oh, wait, the US police state does not do that to representatives of companies, because they might be able to fight back. Better to only do it to individuals that cannot defend themselves...
While I agree that this would be the best approach, it requires one thing that we are not going to get anytime soon: A significant majority of non-stupid people. IoT has zero reasonable applications at this time. But far too many people are not mentally equipped to see that.
Ah, yes. Academia is trying to copy that "success story". In companies, at some time so much trash will have accumulated from this strategically utterly demented approach that they go down the drain or at least into a major crisis.
Please be self-destructive _without_ dragging the rest of the human race into it. While there surely is some bogus climate-change research, the whole field is not broken and the whole field has a consensus that it is going to be at least pretty bad and may well get catastrophic.
I have seen quite a bit of it and know of several CS PhDs that are based on bogus results. The tragedy is that people doing their research properly will take significantly longer and have much diminished chances at an academic career. And this effect propagates: First PhD students advance on bogus results, then they become professors on fraud and finally the whole research field is broken.
My guess would be they want to capitalize on the name, but are either too stupid or too desperate to realize that they have compromised the one core functionality of a Blockchain.
Are these people completely stupid, or are they just so utterly arrogant and full of themselves that they think they can compromise and destroy the technology, but keep the name as marketing gadget?
It is pretty unlikely this attack needed source spoofing. Far more likely each insecure IoT device only contributed a trickle, and that with a legitimate IP address.
What is needed instead is to make manufacturers of these crappy, insecure devices liable for the full damage caused. They can then try to get that money back from the attackers (good luck with that...).
Akamai was hosting him for free. Of couse, a smarter move would have been to say "We are Akamai, sites hosted by us do not go down" and exploit this for all its PR value. Of course, that takes management with a vision, MBA bean-counters do not need to apply.
Indeed. While there are plenty of devices in the same price range than the Pi that are massively better designed (the RPi design team is both incompetent and using inferior components because of their tie with Broadcom, see, e.g., the bad networking and USB and missing SATA), this one here is not even in the competition.
The root-cause is almost universally greed and stupidity among the higher-ups, leading to
- IT security people that are overworked, unappreciated and came from the pool of "cheapest possible"
(as a result, everybody hates them, because they do no good, but prevent people from doing their work) - Lack of IT security people - Developers of security-critical software being "cheapest possible" or outsources in the same quality-class - System-administration being outsourced or overworked, and again "cheapest possible" - Bad work environment, so anybody really good leaves and the rest stop caring about the company - A culture where security must never stand in the way of earning money - A policy of "shoot the messenger" often also contributes a lot.
If you think that Marissa messed this one up, then you are right on target. Of course she had help from the rest of the company "leaders" and Yahoo was in pretty bad shape even before she took over. Years back I had a domain with them, and 23 (!) different tech-support people did not understand what I meant when I wanted to run my own DNS servers. That was the last time ever I considered doing business with them.
Memorization is not a foundation for understanding. Anybody thinking that has not understood understanding. It is a common failure though, people thinking that recognizing data makes them understand anything. My guess would be they feel familiar and safe with that data, but understanding is not in the picture.
You really do not get it? It is pretty simple: That you are fully clueless and at the same time completely unaware of it is one thing. (Look up the "Dunning-Kruger effect at some time.) The other is that you are _not_ the only person reading here (talk about extreme ego...)
It is really no surprise that you are hiding even your pseudonym. But you seem to be unaware that this cowardly act removes all credibility (ego again), because nobody can look up what you said before and see your karma.
I was somewhat in a similar role, but fortunately I had a lot of freedom to fill my time with things that interest me. The absolute worst thing you can do in teaching is to focus on rote memorization, and that is what cramming more and more things into a curriculum does: It eliminates understanding and replaces it with memory, which is a very, very bad substitute.
When I design a course (currently doing that again, for advanced CS students), I first make a list of what should be in there. Then I throw out what is not really necessary and reduce a lot of the rest to just giving the students the idea. Some things are so important or serve well as example that I go into more detail, but knowing what to leave out or treat only briefly is, IMO, even more important than knowing what to put in. Nothing sabotages learning effort more efficiently than putting in too many things or too many details. The learners will come out of that completely confused.
Good teaching is hard. You have to know and understand those you teach to. You have to be flexible. You have to select a small set of things to do really thorough and a larger set to just touch on the surface. And then, if that was not hard enough (and apparently already impossible for the people that create these courses), you have to engage your students and earn their respect. You have to give them a lot of freedom to find out whether what you taught them actually works or not. You have to allow them to find their own styles of learning and understanding things. None of that is possible in a drill-based system that is aimed at conformity and at weeding out troublemakers. Sure, such a system is the wet dream of all the people that desire a totalitarian system and abhor personal freedoms. But these systems are the very worst things humans have ever created.
Hahahaha, funny. The 50% number is from an "elite" technical university. Others are worse. The state of things is so abysmally bad that people without a clue about actual reality (like you) are unable to grasp it. And no, it is not teaching quality, as then (quite obviously to anybody with the slightest understanding what a "cause" is and what an "effect"), the the results would be different for the students of different teachers. The problem is far too many students without the required aptitude. As these students already _are_ selected for aptitude, the only valid conclusion is that the aptitude is rare and hence teaching this to even more people is a really stupid thing.
Oh, and stop blaming others for your own incompetence.
Funny. Not in any way connected to reality, but funny nonetheless. And from somebody that does not even have the minimal stones needed to use a pseudonym.
BTW, I am not "throwing credentials around". If I did that, you would probably do what the last person did when he found out who I was: He accused me of being the janitor that had broken into my office and was posting from my computer, because his small mind could not deal with what he found. Still makes me smile when I think of it.
That is bullshit. Next you will be claiming that authors are coding because they type text into a machine. Or that everybody is a surgeon because they can apply a band-aid.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt that. Massive screw-ups like these are usually a team effort. You know, "engineers" that cannot explain the feature well or do not really understand it themselves, "managers" that make decisions without a clue about what they decide on, and so on. I have seen this numerous times in action. It is really quite fascinating to watch how dysfunctional most/all corporate decision-making processes are in large corporations.
Actually, in countries with a working legal system, this _is_ a criminal offense. The problem is that the legal profession is so far behind the times (and never understood how reality works anyways) that criminals like Capcom will go free.
Where is the intrepid prosecutor that throws them all in jail?
Oh, wait, the US police state does not do that to representatives of companies, because they might be able to fight back. Better to only do it to individuals that cannot defend themselves...
Well, possibly.
While I agree that this would be the best approach, it requires one thing that we are not going to get anytime soon: A significant majority of non-stupid people. IoT has zero reasonable applications at this time. But far too many people are not mentally equipped to see that.
Ah, yes. Academia is trying to copy that "success story". In companies, at some time so much trash will have accumulated from this strategically utterly demented approach that they go down the drain or at least into a major crisis.
Please be self-destructive _without_ dragging the rest of the human race into it. While there surely is some bogus climate-change research, the whole field is not broken and the whole field has a consensus that it is going to be at least pretty bad and may well get catastrophic.
I have seen quite a bit of it and know of several CS PhDs that are based on bogus results. The tragedy is that people doing their research properly will take significantly longer and have much diminished chances at an academic career. And this effect propagates: First PhD students advance on bogus results, then they become professors on fraud and finally the whole research field is broken.
My guess would be they want to capitalize on the name, but are either too stupid or too desperate to realize that they have compromised the one core functionality of a Blockchain.
Are these people completely stupid, or are they just so utterly arrogant and full of themselves that they think they can compromise and destroy the technology, but keep the name as marketing gadget?
Excuse me? This will not even help one bit. The biggest danger to the Internet are morons that have no clue how it works.
It is pretty unlikely this attack needed source spoofing. Far more likely each insecure IoT device only contributed a trickle, and that with a legitimate IP address.
What is needed instead is to make manufacturers of these crappy, insecure devices liable for the full damage caused. They can then try to get that money back from the attackers (good luck with that...).
Akamai was hosting him for free. Of couse, a smarter move would have been to say "We are Akamai, sites hosted by us do not go down" and exploit this for all its PR value. Of course, that takes management with a vision, MBA bean-counters do not need to apply.
Indeed. While there are plenty of devices in the same price range than the Pi that are massively better designed (the RPi design team is both incompetent and using inferior components because of their tie with Broadcom, see, e.g., the bad networking and USB and missing SATA), this one here is not even in the competition.
The root-cause is almost universally greed and stupidity among the higher-ups, leading to
- IT security people that are overworked, unappreciated and came from the pool of "cheapest possible"
(as a result, everybody hates them, because they do no good, but prevent people from doing their work)
- Lack of IT security people
- Developers of security-critical software being "cheapest possible" or outsources in the same quality-class
- System-administration being outsourced or overworked, and again "cheapest possible"
- Bad work environment, so anybody really good leaves and the rest stop caring about the company
- A culture where security must never stand in the way of earning money
- A policy of "shoot the messenger" often also contributes a lot.
If you think that Marissa messed this one up, then you are right on target. Of course she had help from the rest of the company "leaders" and Yahoo was in pretty bad shape even before she took over. Years back I had a domain with them, and 23 (!) different tech-support people did not understand what I meant when I wanted to run my own DNS servers. That was the last time ever I considered doing business with them.
Memorization is not a foundation for understanding. Anybody thinking that has not understood understanding. It is a common failure though, people thinking that recognizing data makes them understand anything. My guess would be they feel familiar and safe with that data, but understanding is not in the picture.
You really do not get it? It is pretty simple: That you are fully clueless and at the same time completely unaware of it is one thing. (Look up the "Dunning-Kruger effect at some time.) The other is that you are _not_ the only person reading here (talk about extreme ego...)
It is really no surprise that you are hiding even your pseudonym. But you seem to be unaware that this cowardly act removes all credibility (ego again), because nobody can look up what you said before and see your karma.
I was somewhat in a similar role, but fortunately I had a lot of freedom to fill my time with things that interest me. The absolute worst thing you can do in teaching is to focus on rote memorization, and that is what cramming more and more things into a curriculum does: It eliminates understanding and replaces it with memory, which is a very, very bad substitute.
When I design a course (currently doing that again, for advanced CS students), I first make a list of what should be in there. Then I throw out what is not really necessary and reduce a lot of the rest to just giving the students the idea. Some things are so important or serve well as example that I go into more detail, but knowing what to leave out or treat only briefly is, IMO, even more important than knowing what to put in. Nothing sabotages learning effort more efficiently than putting in too many things or too many details. The learners will come out of that completely confused.
Good teaching is hard. You have to know and understand those you teach to. You have to be flexible. You have to select a small set of things to do really thorough and a larger set to just touch on the surface. And then, if that was not hard enough (and apparently already impossible for the people that create these courses), you have to engage your students and earn their respect. You have to give them a lot of freedom to find out whether what you taught them actually works or not. You have to allow them to find their own styles of learning and understanding things. None of that is possible in a drill-based system that is aimed at conformity and at weeding out troublemakers. Sure, such a system is the wet dream of all the people that desire a totalitarian system and abhor personal freedoms. But these systems are the very worst things humans have ever created.
And the really sad thing is that all this does not benefit them one bit. Instead, it harms them.
Keep kidding yourself. Hint: "Bragging" looks quite a bit differently.
Hahahaha, funny. The 50% number is from an "elite" technical university. Others are worse. The state of things is so abysmally bad that people without a clue about actual reality (like you) are unable to grasp it. And no, it is not teaching quality, as then (quite obviously to anybody with the slightest understanding what a "cause" is and what an "effect"), the the results would be different for the students of different teachers. The problem is far too many students without the required aptitude. As these students already _are_ selected for aptitude, the only valid conclusion is that the aptitude is rare and hence teaching this to even more people is a really stupid thing.
Oh, and stop blaming others for your own incompetence.
Funny. Not in any way connected to reality, but funny nonetheless. And from somebody that does not even have the minimal stones needed to use a pseudonym.
BTW, I am not "throwing credentials around". If I did that, you would probably do what the last person did when he found out who I was: He accused me of being the janitor that had broken into my office and was posting from my computer, because his small mind could not deal with what he found. Still makes me smile when I think of it.
Well, keep kidding yourself. Your "criticism" does not touch me, because none of it has any relation to reality.
That is bullshit. Next you will be claiming that authors are coding because they type text into a machine. Or that everybody is a surgeon because they can apply a band-aid.