You reasoning is faulty. This is not intelligence tactics. This is PR. (Also, I do not hold a security clearance, so I can post whatever my pertaining observations are, unlike the about 5 million US citizens that have been muzzled that way...)
It works like this: Have a known former employee or close associate to who you maintain close ties spread some information or statement. Most people will see it as coming from you, but if it causes a stir, it will just be their "private opinion".
No, I am not. Historically, with CFLs you are right. With LED backlights that became unworkable as reliable self-destruct. Hence OLED (which has a lot lower lifetimes than standard LEDs used in backlights) to the rescue.
This is likely by intent: Planned obsolescence can simply be implemented a lot better with OLED than with LCD. LCD was designed from the start as a long-lifetime technology. OELD is now correcting that mistake.
People are generally stupid and have no clue about things they talk about that. Add fear to this and the stupidity gets amplified to epic proportions. The comments you refer to are just a textbook example of that effect.
So you think that dangerous and criminal enemies of the constitution should not be hurt at all but protected from the results of their despicable acts? Is that what you are saying?
So you are saying all this snooping is worthless? Because "intel" gotten by snooping is by its very definition a lot _less_ reliable than tip-offs like the ones in question.
And make sure business has signed off on their own stupidity. That way, when the unlikely happens and your company actually gets attacked by somebody both competent and destructive (a lot rarer than either competent or destructive but not both), you can always point to the document trail.
Sure, in many cases accepting a risk is sensible, but what I have seen in the last few years goes way beyond stupid.
You seem to have zero real-world project experience. The type of project requirement you want is basically more expensive to create than doing the project as it needs to be a full detail-spec and you need to do it without knowing exactly what is possible. That is why you never encounter these kinds of project requirements in the real world. In the real world it is always a judgment call, and the quality of that call depends on the skills, insights and experience of the one making that call.
It is project management 101 that your approach leads to certain failure because the project has unattainable goals even before implementation starts. My SW Engineering professor has a nice example of this: Some (probably military, he did not say) control syste, that had spec that would have allowed to measure without a judgment component. Unfortunately, it was about 1.5m of shelf-space of formal specification. Possibly costs a few 10 millions to create and was completely useless.
Indeed. And if you want fast interrupts, reliability and real-time performance, using an Arduino and custom code is far better, as it is massively simpler ans still possible to understand in its details.
I think you are fundamentally wrong. Or you only work in low-insight environments. Meeting a target or project requirement is a judgment call, and that is not at all a black/white thing. Use of absolute metrics is usually a sign of incompetence. (Not that that is not widespread, but so is incompetence....)
A lot of not very good engineers like these absolute answers and like things to be black or white. I run into them frequently. The worst is probably the IT security field, where things are often viewed as secure or not, with nothing in between. That is an epic fail in the real world, of course.
Good engineers are not like that at all, they understand things like risk management, redundancy, real-world aspects, human factors and cost. But they are a minority, unfortunately.
That other kid did not "detect Ebola". She merely found a cheaper and more effective way to ship samples. Nice, but a small incremental step only, like most research.
Slashdot Mirror
You reasoning is faulty. This is not intelligence tactics. This is PR. (Also, I do not hold a security clearance, so I can post whatever my pertaining observations are, unlike the about 5 million US citizens that have been muzzled that way...)
It works like this: Have a known former employee or close associate to who you maintain close ties spread some information or statement. Most people will see it as coming from you, but if it causes a stir, it will just be their "private opinion".
I completely agree.
They do. But too slowly.
No, I am not. Historically, with CFLs you are right. With LED backlights that became unworkable as reliable self-destruct. Hence OLED (which has a lot lower lifetimes than standard LEDs used in backlights) to the rescue.
My condolences on that. Can you at least connect an external display?
This is likely by intent: Planned obsolescence can simply be implemented a lot better with OLED than with LCD. LCD was designed from the start as a long-lifetime technology. OELD is now correcting that mistake.
And who in their right mind would buy such a defective product?
Ah, a bullshit-artist. Should have guessed.
You have obviously not the least clue how this works.
People are generally stupid and have no clue about things they talk about that. Add fear to this and the stupidity gets amplified to epic proportions. The comments you refer to are just a textbook example of that effect.
So you think that dangerous and criminal enemies of the constitution should not be hurt at all but protected from the results of their despicable acts? Is that what you are saying?
So you are saying all this snooping is worthless? Because "intel" gotten by snooping is by its very definition a lot _less_ reliable than tip-offs like the ones in question.
Sounds to me like SOMEONE at the CIA's got brains.
And that many, many people outside of it don't.
And make sure business has signed off on their own stupidity. That way, when the unlikely happens and your company actually gets attacked by somebody both competent and destructive (a lot rarer than either competent or destructive but not both), you can always point to the document trail.
Sure, in many cases accepting a risk is sensible, but what I have seen in the last few years goes way beyond stupid.
"Epic" is a "shade of gray".
You know, it can possibly be described by fairies and dragons as well. That would just be a fantasy as much as your "description" is.
Indeed. And quite often you need to create the target result with a high level of accuracy before you can actually write exact requirements.
You seem to have zero real-world project experience. The type of project requirement you want is basically more expensive to create than doing the project as it needs to be a full detail-spec and you need to do it without knowing exactly what is possible. That is why you never encounter these kinds of project requirements in the real world. In the real world it is always a judgment call, and the quality of that call depends on the skills, insights and experience of the one making that call.
It is project management 101 that your approach leads to certain failure because the project has unattainable goals even before implementation starts. My SW Engineering professor has a nice example of this: Some (probably military, he did not say) control syste, that had spec that would have allowed to measure without a judgment component. Unfortunately, it was about 1.5m of shelf-space of formal specification. Possibly costs a few 10 millions to create and was completely useless.
Indeed. And if you want fast interrupts, reliability and real-time performance, using an Arduino and custom code is far better, as it is massively simpler ans still possible to understand in its details.
While it may bring performance enhancement, it also brings new bugs. The compass in Fallout 4, for example, becomes unusable.
I think you are fundamentally wrong. Or you only work in low-insight environments. Meeting a target or project requirement is a judgment call, and that is not at all a black/white thing. Use of absolute metrics is usually a sign of incompetence. (Not that that is not widespread, but so is incompetence....)
Indeed. And "who wants to attack this and what capabilities do they have?".
A lot of not very good engineers like these absolute answers and like things to be black or white. I run into them frequently. The worst is probably the IT security field, where things are often viewed as secure or not, with nothing in between. That is an epic fail in the real world, of course.
Good engineers are not like that at all, they understand things like risk management, redundancy, real-world aspects, human factors and cost. But they are a minority, unfortunately.
That other kid did not "detect Ebola". She merely found a cheaper and more effective way to ship samples. Nice, but a small incremental step only, like most research.
Poor, misunderstood cloud computing. As it turns out, most Americans have no idea what it actually is. (Hint: it has nothing to do with the sky.)
Huh? I thought cloud computing was basically "Hot Vapor", i.e. promising people the sky and then not delivering?