... did not have any real change of getting anything out of it? That is tragic, and makes the actions of those that have hacked the site and then published the data even more evil.
And the stupid thing is that for mental work, not even a 50h work-week increases productivity compared to 40, at least after you have been doing it for 2-3 weeks. Everything above 50 _decreases_ productivity. This has also been known for a long, long time (Henry Ford and contemporaries found it), making managers that demand more than 40h weeks long-term utterly incompetent.
There is criminal energy involved in sabotaging mechanisms such as the hosts-file in order to deceive users. Even thinking of it requires significant criminal energy, and the strong intent to harm users.
It actually is that big a deal. It is just that the MS PR department managed to convince some clueless people that what they do is harmless. It is not.
Reportedly, at least part of the addresses are hard-coded in the software in a way that bypasses the hosts-file. There are confirmed reports for the latest 4 snooping updates for Win7/8 of this, so I suspect it can be true for Win10 as well. Of course, in order to get past the hosts-file, you have to bypass parts of the networking stack, i.e. a lot of criminal energy is involved.
But that is just it: You do not learn to do the things, you learn about the things. That is entirely different.
The OP asked about "technical resources" to get knowledgeable "in the relevant technologies", and continued to make it clear that this was about learning to actually use the technologies. That is the wrong approach.
This is about understanding, not yet about a cure. With more understanding comes a higher probability of finding something that can actually cure cancer. I don't know what you complain about here, not even the title is misleading.
He cannot learn enough to understand more than a small part of the technology available. What invariably happens then is that people focus on the part they (think they) understand and ignore the rest. It takes an exceptionally good manager to not make that mistake when having some half-knowledge.
Look at this like brain-surgery: You as the customer (patient) do not tell the surgeon what to do, you tell him the desired outcome and he tells you the chances for that. If you do not trust that brain surgeon, you get another one or if you have to use him, you get a consultant to do fact-checking for you and explain things to you. But you do not start to learn how to do brain surgery.
Indeed. I knew this one. Problem is, by now we have sort-of a "super-Poe" effect, where distinguishing parody and reality becomes impossible or is a matter of guessing. It might also have contributed that I had a fight with a really stupid anti-vaxxer some place else not long ago.
And on the technological side, get somebody that really knows this stuff, and in particular understands security aspects. Can be a consultant. The problem is that there is a ton of web-technology out there, and most of it is bad or at least not very good. Using the wrong tech can easily kill the project, either by never delivering or by delivering something that is not fit to be used.
If your friend were to develop semi- (or worse) skills, the only thing he could do is give bad technological input and make bad technological decisions. Either get somebody that has the required insights, skills, and, most importantly, experience (and experience can only be replaced by more experience) or refrain from giving technological input and making technological decisions. A good option is to get a consulting firm with respective expertise to fill that role, especially, when no full-time person is required.
That was satiric? In that case, I apologize. The problem is, satire about human behavior becomes hard to distinguish when it is done very close to the actual level of stupidity quite a few people display.
And this has been known for several years now. The evidence of fraud was hard enough that they removed the persons PhD. Why people keep repeating that nonsense is beyond me.
Depends on the amount of variance in the experiment. If 100% mortality is not only observed, but also expected from other research, then 6 not dying is a pretty significant deviation.
Actually, as rewards go, this is a lot of money. If there is somebody that knows who did it and is pretty sure they are not hanging with the scum that did this, they will now be thinking very carefully on how to get that money.
And there is the little thing that really skilled hacker do not pull pranks like these and destroy lives. They can earn far more money on the white-hat or grey-hat side without the risks. And once you made sure all the not-so-good to terrible hackers do not get in, you are pretty secure. The reality these days is that even amateurs have a chance to hack well-known sites. That has to stop.
That is pretty unlikely, but the whole thing is a worthless stunt anyways. The problem is that they have to use some hardware model and that will have errors. Hence the assurances they claim are purely theoretical, and in practice their thing may well be less reliable than a well-tested file system with data-journal, like ext3.
Slashdot Mirror
... did not have any real change of getting anything out of it? That is tragic, and makes the actions of those that have hacked the site and then published the data even more evil.
And the stupid thing is that for mental work, not even a 50h work-week increases productivity compared to 40, at least after you have been doing it for 2-3 weeks. Everything above 50 _decreases_ productivity. This has also been known for a long, long time (Henry Ford and contemporaries found it), making managers that demand more than 40h weeks long-term utterly incompetent.
Indeed. And that is the issue here: The deception used.
There is criminal energy involved in sabotaging mechanisms such as the hosts-file in order to deceive users. Even thinking of it requires significant criminal energy, and the strong intent to harm users.
It actually is that big a deal. It is just that the MS PR department managed to convince some clueless people that what they do is harmless. It is not.
Reportedly, at least part of the addresses are hard-coded in the software in a way that bypasses the hosts-file. There are confirmed reports for the latest 4 snooping updates for Win7/8 of this, so I suspect it can be true for Win10 as well. Of course, in order to get past the hosts-file, you have to bypass parts of the networking stack, i.e. a lot of criminal energy is involved.
I had a feeling those with cars that hackers could not take over at will may have felt left out. Ain't technology great?
But that is just it: You do not learn to do the things, you learn about the things. That is entirely different.
The OP asked about "technical resources" to get knowledgeable "in the relevant technologies", and continued to make it clear that this was about learning to actually use the technologies. That is the wrong approach.
This is about understanding, not yet about a cure. With more understanding comes a higher probability of finding something that can actually cure cancer. I don't know what you complain about here, not even the title is misleading.
In that case, get a consultant to select a consultant. And if you are not competent to select that either, forget about the project.
He cannot learn enough to understand more than a small part of the technology available. What invariably happens then is that people focus on the part they (think they) understand and ignore the rest. It takes an exceptionally good manager to not make that mistake when having some half-knowledge.
Look at this like brain-surgery: You as the customer (patient) do not tell the surgeon what to do, you tell him the desired outcome and he tells you the chances for that. If you do not trust that brain surgeon, you get another one or if you have to use him, you get a consultant to do fact-checking for you and explain things to you. But you do not start to learn how to do brain surgery.
This is excellent advice. It costs more up-front to do it this way, but in the longer run, it saves a ton of money.
Indeed. I knew this one. Problem is, by now we have sort-of a "super-Poe" effect, where distinguishing parody and reality becomes impossible or is a matter of guessing. It might also have contributed that I had a fight with a really stupid anti-vaxxer some place else not long ago.
And on the technological side, get somebody that really knows this stuff, and in particular understands security aspects. Can be a consultant. The problem is that there is a ton of web-technology out there, and most of it is bad or at least not very good. Using the wrong tech can easily kill the project, either by never delivering or by delivering something that is not fit to be used.
If your friend were to develop semi- (or worse) skills, the only thing he could do is give bad technological input and make bad technological decisions. Either get somebody that has the required insights, skills, and, most importantly, experience (and experience can only be replaced by more experience) or refrain from giving technological input and making technological decisions. A good option is to get a consulting firm with respective expertise to fill that role, especially, when no full-time person is required.
That was satiric? In that case, I apologize. The problem is, satire about human behavior becomes hard to distinguish when it is done very close to the actual level of stupidity quite a few people display.
This is not about hard findings that can be turned directly into a product. This is about determining whether a research direction is promising.
And this has been known for several years now. The evidence of fraud was hard enough that they removed the persons PhD. Why people keep repeating that nonsense is beyond me.
Don't worry, you are already deeply stupid. The autism will not be noticeable in your case.
Depends on the amount of variance in the experiment. If 100% mortality is not only observed, but also expected from other research, then 6 not dying is a pretty significant deviation.
I completely agree.
It is currently. Unfortunately, it has zero capabilities at the moment (at least strong/true AI), and no exponent is going to make it larger.
Actually, as rewards go, this is a lot of money. If there is somebody that knows who did it and is pretty sure they are not hanging with the scum that did this, they will now be thinking very carefully on how to get that money.
And there is the little thing that really skilled hacker do not pull pranks like these and destroy lives. They can earn far more money on the white-hat or grey-hat side without the risks. And once you made sure all the not-so-good to terrible hackers do not get in, you are pretty secure. The reality these days is that even amateurs have a chance to hack well-known sites. That has to stop.
That is pretty unlikely, but the whole thing is a worthless stunt anyways. The problem is that they have to use some hardware model and that will have errors. Hence the assurances they claim are purely theoretical, and in practice their thing may well be less reliable than a well-tested file system with data-journal, like ext3.