I was wondering the same thing. I once waited about 10 minutes and that was because they had to call several people to get updated information on my patient-card and they apologized for the delay and felt the need to explain. Otherwise, below 5 minutes is standard.
And that is the only way to do it right. Some theoretical warnings will either get ignored or, worse, result in people that are to afraid to try anything at all. You have to justify an warning. A warning is something that should come with some level of shame and things can only be made right by really demonstrating why the warning is necessary. Unjustified restrictions are the hallmark of a controlling, totalitarian mind-set.
Science isn't supposed to be fun. It's a method and its rigorous.
Really, you either suck at science or you do not know how to do it at all. Unless you are having fun with some parts of what you are doing as a scientist, you will never produce anything worthwhile.
That is not to say that there are not a lot of bad actors are using the claim that they are doing "science" these days to sell you things, including "philosophies". I do not dispute that and it is truly despicable and repulsive.
I am a scientist and I can assure you memorizing facts is almost completely a waste of time. Or rather, it is worse than that. The problem is that there are far too many fact for even a basic selection to be memorized. But trying detracts from the all-critical skill of critical thinking and being able to interpret facts quickly that you have looked up. Drilling kids to memorize facts at best qualifies them to be factory-workers doing repetitive things.
Why would a "warning" make any difference? They knew what they were doing. You cannot just completely change the emission profile of a motor by magic, so every competent motor designer knew the performance the VW diesel-engines where claiming to have was bogus. That alone will be up to a hundred people. Of course their bosses knew and so did the VW leadership. The really interesting thing is whether this can be proven.
My bosses and customers very much care. That is why I work for them. Not delivering good results is not an option for me, so a professional approach is absolutely mandatory. Of course, I can back that up with skill, experience and education wayyyyy above what the average (typically abysmally bad) coder brings to the table. And business is booming. Not everybody wants cheap coders that can then at best deliver some half-assed abomination.
Indeed. A pre-study is also of course what is done on said bridge and in any other engineering discipline that deserves the name.
On the Ad Hominem side of the person that just called me "not a professional", I think he is a clear example of what is wrong in the IT industry: Cretins with big egos that do not even understand the basics of solid engineering and then mess it up.
Software Engineering is hell for 99% of people doing it because most of these 99% have no business doing it in the first place, because they suck at it. People that are actual engineers with respect to skills and experience will not have that problem. (Yes, I realize some of them will not have a paper saying they are engineers, but lets face it, most people working as "Software Engineer" do not deserve to be called "engineer" at all.)
Indeed. Working under unprofessional conditions is, obviously, unprofessional. Of course, for coders that are at the lower-end of the competency spectrum (i.e. "incompetent" or worse like so many of them), this is not an option, but they are just as much part of the problem. Competent coders can always find a different job.
Yes, but "IF HOOD/BONNET is up DO NO SMOG MODE" is far too likely to be discovered by accident. This is IT security we are talking about here, not normal IT where demonstrating it works in some ideal conditions is often thought to be enough. In IT Security, you need to anticipate failures of all sorts, people that try to look closer and create adverse conditions, etc. It is no accident that verifying this required a mobile emission measurement system. If it had just been "HOOD UP", it would have been discovered at the first defective "HOOD UP" sensor and could have been verified by simply manipulating that sensor (which is likely a mechanical switch).
Not so. The second one has a correct and professional answer: "I do not know. This will require a pre-study. But adding new requirements during the process is right out, then the pre-study has to be repeated and the project reset." and on the pre-study you _can_ deliver a reasonable estimate.
It is not only bosses demanding infeasible things. It is also coders not enlightening them on what is possible and what is not.
The submitter really does not understand what is going on at all and how these things work.
First, you need to actually have all the sensor readings and detect the test situation. You may use wheel revolutions, GPS, acceleration sensors, etc. For that alone you will have a few hundred lines of code. Then you need to very reliably detect the test situation, giving you at least another hundred code lines. And then you need to make very sure things are not obvious like a strongly different engine sound, vibration, or accidental activation or deactivation under test, etc. For that you need extensive tests with each car this goes into and more optimization and even more code, some of it specific to the car model and engine and even the gasoline quality expected in a country.
The problem is this: If you have even only 1 in 1000 cars behave differently during test, or if you have too many activations of this mechanism in non-test situations, the presence of the mechanism will become obvious relatively fast. That _must_ _not_ happen.
This is not "inserting a single line" at all. This is more like initial development and test of the mechanism with something like 10 experts working on it for two years and then continued maintenance and adjustment to different cars keeping said 10 experts busy permanently. Say 10 Million for initial development and then another 5 Million per year.
This was not a small project. As this cannot be done in the usual hierarchy, the team responsible likely had one dedicated lead and that lead must have reported directly to top management, i.e. those guys now claiming they knew nothing.
I do laser-print on good-quality paper, directly onto photo-resist (no oil, film, etc.) and what takes longest is the exposure and quality is very good. Sure, double-sided or multi-layer or large and complex I would have manufactured fore me, and standard-things like SOP/SSOP adapters I have on stock, they are just so cheap on Ebay. The other alternative for more complicated circuitry is to use transformer wire and proto-boards and I made very good experiences with that for all sorts of circuits.
Still, PCB-making is a valid skill to have in ones toolbox.
One should add that nobody that bothered to find out was ever in doubt about the lack of anonymity. People just assumed it was anonymous without good reason.
And that would work how? Apparently, you have no idea how scientific publishing works. Faked results are a real possibility, but stealing is actually quite hard.
Really, if it looks far, far too god to be true, then it is. However these things find their victims time ans again. Truly fascinating and explains a lot of other things that go wrong. Incidentally, Ponzi did this US-wide in 1920, but the idea is significantly older. So victims are not only stupid, but also ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, they learned that from the US. Always learn from the best!
I was wondering the same thing. I once waited about 10 minutes and that was because they had to call several people to get updated information on my patient-card and they apologized for the delay and felt the need to explain. Otherwise, below 5 minutes is standard.
And that is the only way to do it right. Some theoretical warnings will either get ignored or, worse, result in people that are to afraid to try anything at all. You have to justify an warning. A warning is something that should come with some level of shame and things can only be made right by really demonstrating why the warning is necessary. Unjustified restrictions are the hallmark of a controlling, totalitarian mind-set.
Science isn't supposed to be fun. It's a method and its rigorous.
Really, you either suck at science or you do not know how to do it at all. Unless you are having fun with some parts of what you are doing as a scientist, you will never produce anything worthwhile.
That is not to say that there are not a lot of bad actors are using the claim that they are doing "science" these days to sell you things, including "philosophies". I do not dispute that and it is truly despicable and repulsive.
I am a scientist and I can assure you memorizing facts is almost completely a waste of time. Or rather, it is worse than that. The problem is that there are far too many fact for even a basic selection to be memorized. But trying detracts from the all-critical skill of critical thinking and being able to interpret facts quickly that you have looked up. Drilling kids to memorize facts at best qualifies them to be factory-workers doing repetitive things.
Indeed. We can be pretty sure that was by design.
Why would a "warning" make any difference? They knew what they were doing. You cannot just completely change the emission profile of a motor by magic, so every competent motor designer knew the performance the VW diesel-engines where claiming to have was bogus. That alone will be up to a hundred people. Of course their bosses knew and so did the VW leadership. The really interesting thing is whether this can be proven.
The human capacity for self-delusion never fails to amaze....
You should cut back on the drugs. You are posting complete bullshit here.
My bosses and customers very much care. That is why I work for them. Not delivering good results is not an option for me, so a professional approach is absolutely mandatory. Of course, I can back that up with skill, experience and education wayyyyy above what the average (typically abysmally bad) coder brings to the table. And business is booming. Not everybody wants cheap coders that can then at best deliver some half-assed abomination.
Indeed. A pre-study is also of course what is done on said bridge and in any other engineering discipline that deserves the name.
On the Ad Hominem side of the person that just called me "not a professional", I think he is a clear example of what is wrong in the IT industry: Cretins with big egos that do not even understand the basics of solid engineering and then mess it up.
I am trained in gorilla warfare
Hehehehehe, nice!
Software Engineering is hell for 99% of people doing it because most of these 99% have no business doing it in the first place, because they suck at it. People that are actual engineers with respect to skills and experience will not have that problem. (Yes, I realize some of them will not have a paper saying they are engineers, but lets face it, most people working as "Software Engineer" do not deserve to be called "engineer" at all.)
Indeed. Working under unprofessional conditions is, obviously, unprofessional. Of course, for coders that are at the lower-end of the competency spectrum (i.e. "incompetent" or worse like so many of them), this is not an option, but they are just as much part of the problem. Competent coders can always find a different job.
Yes, but "IF HOOD/BONNET is up DO NO SMOG MODE" is far too likely to be discovered by accident. This is IT security we are talking about here, not normal IT where demonstrating it works in some ideal conditions is often thought to be enough. In IT Security, you need to anticipate failures of all sorts, people that try to look closer and create adverse conditions, etc. It is no accident that verifying this required a mobile emission measurement system. If it had just been "HOOD UP", it would have been discovered at the first defective "HOOD UP" sensor and could have been verified by simply manipulating that sensor (which is likely a mechanical switch).
Not so. The second one has a correct and professional answer: "I do not know. This will require a pre-study. But adding new requirements during the process is right out, then the pre-study has to be repeated and the project reset." and on the pre-study you _can_ deliver a reasonable estimate.
It is not only bosses demanding infeasible things. It is also coders not enlightening them on what is possible and what is not.
The submitter really does not understand what is going on at all and how these things work.
First, you need to actually have all the sensor readings and detect the test situation. You may use wheel revolutions, GPS, acceleration sensors, etc. For that alone you will have a few hundred lines of code. Then you need to very reliably detect the test situation, giving you at least another hundred code lines. And then you need to make very sure things are not obvious like a strongly different engine sound, vibration, or accidental activation or deactivation under test, etc. For that you need extensive tests with each car this goes into and more optimization and even more code, some of it specific to the car model and engine and even the gasoline quality expected in a country.
The problem is this: If you have even only 1 in 1000 cars behave differently during test, or if you have too many activations of this mechanism in non-test situations, the presence of the mechanism will become obvious relatively fast. That _must_ _not_ happen.
This is not "inserting a single line" at all. This is more like initial development and test of the mechanism with something like 10 experts working on it for two years and then continued maintenance and adjustment to different cars keeping said 10 experts busy permanently. Say 10 Million for initial development and then another 5 Million per year.
This was not a small project. As this cannot be done in the usual hierarchy, the team responsible likely had one dedicated lead and that lead must have reported directly to top management, i.e. those guys now claiming they knew nothing.
I do laser-print on good-quality paper, directly onto photo-resist (no oil, film, etc.) and what takes longest is the exposure and quality is very good. Sure, double-sided or multi-layer or large and complex I would have manufactured fore me, and standard-things like SOP/SSOP adapters I have on stock, they are just so cheap on Ebay. The other alternative for more complicated circuitry is to use transformer wire and proto-boards and I made very good experiences with that for all sorts of circuits.
Still, PCB-making is a valid skill to have in ones toolbox.
One should add that nobody that bothered to find out was ever in doubt about the lack of anonymity. People just assumed it was anonymous without good reason.
No. Bitcoin was never designed to be anonymous. It is sort-of pseudonymous only, but even that is mostly history.
Anonymity is quite real, you just need to make tacking harder than the enemy can afford to do.
And if you had the fist idea what you are talking about, you would not make such bogus statements.
And that would work how? Apparently, you have no idea how scientific publishing works. Faked results are a real possibility, but stealing is actually quite hard.
Really, if it looks far, far too god to be true, then it is. However these things find their victims time ans again. Truly fascinating and explains a lot of other things that go wrong. Incidentally, Ponzi did this US-wide in 1920, but the idea is significantly older. So victims are not only stupid, but also ignorant.
What you wrote is not even possible in the situation at hand. In your case, I do only see ordinary stupidity though.