But do you see what I mean about the criminal side of it? Why would a criminal care if I get my money back, thus why would they prefer to steal from a bank account? Do you know if there's anything that makes it harder to steal from a CC account vs. a bank account? The article and summary made it sound like thieves prefer bank accounts vs. credit cards for some reason.
Furthermore these criminals are increasingly targeting debit card and banking credentials rather than credit cards, because the fraud protection mechanisms there are far weaker, according to a study done at The University of California at Berkeley
But don't the criminals still get the money, regardless of which type of account from which they steal it? Why do they care either way about better consumer fraud protection (which I read as "responsibility for unknown charges")? Or is it that credit cards have better preventative measures? I RTFA, but couldn't find where Berkeley talks about why credit cards have better fraud protection.
Also, as an anecdote, my bank/debit card company did very well to prevent an instance of fraud with my account. I'd like to know what credit card companies do so much better, other than the fact that they're not able to hold you personally liable in cases of fraud and thievery for amounts over $50 (?).
I don't like the way it seems like a link is being provided for Brett Swanson's Wall Street Journal piece, but it is actually a link to the Washington Post, and isn't an article by Brett Swanson at all, but Bruce Mehlman and Larry Irving. Maybe the add'l link could be posted as well. Although grammatically ok, the use of a link in this manner is weird and confusing.
I can see it now: people will just insert stubs (or copy articles from other sources) for subjects that are likely to be popular search terms, for the sole purpose of reaping the ad revenues.
The big problem I am having here is that I can't really decide whether or not this would really be that bad an occurrence. Furthermore, how it's different than the way things currently are.
People already abuse "the system" (whatever that system may be), so it's not like this new Google schtuff would introduce a new problem into the fold. But would it amplify existing problems as you've suggested? It might indeed. But it might be valuable as well.
How would the most value be added? I would hope that any rating or ranking of it wouldn't simply be based on the popularity of the search term, as you've kind of suggested, but rather popularity of search results -- the actual content. That is, if 500 people write articles about Brie cheese or snowboarding or slashdot, the best articles on those subjects would surface to the top, leaving the content-less and purely commercial grabs far away from the top views, further pushing them away, while still giving solid, enjoyable contributors a chance to earn some coin for honest work.
Furthermore, since I would have complete editorial control over my article (would I?), it would be published as MY article, rather than the mish-mash of ego-driven, if interesting, slop that can plague Wikipedia. If my article is slop, then it's slop because I am a crappy writer or did a poor job -- not because it went through some sort of review process that churned out a Frankenstein version of what I originally intended to say. And the results, both financial and "page view", would reflect this.
All in all, perhaps this puts a bit more emphasis on the writer/author, than solely the content.
If you are good enough and you company values you, use your position as a lever to get things done better. I appreciate your response and practical look at things. You could have called me a retard or "part of the problem", but you actually responded with some practical advice. I agree that you can use your leverage to promote proper methods and approaches to getting tasks done, but you have to choose your battles carefully. Being careful can lead you to being viewed as a master resource; however, it can also lead you to being viewed as the "NO" guy that doesn't really ever want to actually do anything and adds just as little value as the sloppy coder does. A lot is also dependent on managers, as you've said. Apparently, you have some managers that are willing to look at things from a realistic, risk-reward perspective. Not all managers are like that -- especially if it's not only your butt on the line, but theirs!
Ever wondered why medicine, engineering and law are considered professions, but software development isn't?
The answer is people like you. Actually, the answer(s) could be a lot of things. But that wouldn't be a witty enough comment to post on slashdot, now would it? If you view yourself as some high-and-mighty, grand and most professional of programmers, then that's fantastic and I, in all seriousness, respect that. But to blame the fact that people don't respect you or your job (profession) as much as you'd like on the fact that I work at an imperfect company, amongst imperfect people and am myself imperfect, is silly. The reason (or one reason) those are viewed as "professions" is because they generally require more advanced degrees, which a programmer does not require. If you believe programmers should be required to have MBAs, MCSs, or Ph.Ds, and that having those degrees somehow actually improves actual work performance one iota, then you live in an alternate plane of reality. Seriously.
But I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of those types that management loves, but programmers hate. You know, the type who gets things done quickly, but in a manner so sloppy that the code maintainers curse you under their breath. No - I'm the type that lives in reality, even if that reality is annoying enough to drive someone to cast aspersions based on a simple comment. I don't disagree with anything you've said, but you're forgetting that managers make decisions, not programmers. Programmers help managers make decisions, but ultimately managers do what they want. If you've got quality managers doing and promoting all the things you've indicated, then yes, I would be the type you've labeled me as. But just as there are sloppy and poor programmers, there are sloppy and poor managers. Certainly you've got to recognize this.
Often times you can avoid a lot of this headache by spending more time in design.
Theoretically speaking, yes. Practically speaking, no. In fact, no no no no no no no. I've found that more time in the design phase means less time in the actually-doing-stuff and fighting-about-scope-creep and why-have-we-only-1-day-for-testing-and-bug-fixes? and you-didn't-ask-for-that-yes-I-did-no-you-didn't-yes-I-did-then-show-me-where-it-is-in-the-requirements phases.
You're 100% right that better design usually allows for better code; however, when you're in the real world where your actual work is interrupted every 2 or 3 hours by "status" meetings or calls from a "project manager" or some kind of "business analyst" or whatever asking if something is done, and your clients only care about it working just then and there so they can meet THEIR client's deadline (so they can then meet THEIR clients' deadlines and so and so forth), well, then you just get the project done, knowing full well that your questionable code is screwing yourself or someone like you over in the future.
You really have no choice. Principles, aside from the deeply held moral ones, don't carry much weight, especially if you work at a larger company. Calling for standards is all good and well -- until my fat, white (sometimes pimply) butt is on the line. Then I just get it done. I'd rather I get another paycheck than piss clients off and have 10 meetings (cutting into even more of my time) talking about how to implement coding standards that will, for all intents and purposes, never actually be implemented, even after we've decided to implement them!
Compared to the Trillions that our government spends I think that this is not as large of a "boost" as one would think it would be. Yeah, so they might as well not even deposit it at all and just dump it out in the street or something. Or give it to me. After all, it's really not that much compared to some other stuff.
Great that it withstands multiple explosions, but people don't. How many explosions are you expecting to be in? Isn't withstanding one explosion good enough? After the first one, should you really be in a position to get blown up again? Yeah - you're totally right. Because after an initial explosion, there'd never EVER be any subsequent explosions before you have time to replace the armor, right?
Frankly, I wouldn't mind a few states including a few weeks of basic HAM instruction as part of the standard high school curriculum so that people are more aware of an incredibly important resource in emergencies.
Are you serious?! I think it makes more sense for schools to teach students practical skills like, say, reading and writing and foundational math ("maths" for those of you over the pond). Amateur radio might end up helping someone in an emergency, but might never, ever, be used, too. Schools, especially public ones, are already too stupid with how they spend their money (i.e. "diversity" initiatives, learning to put condoms on bananas, etc.). I don't want to give the schools another excuse to try and futz with my taxes because they now need to teach students yet another thing that most of them will never use in their lives -- just because it might be handy if there are terrible floods, or as I'm sure some slashdotters believe, the fascist government forces us to communicate in a clandestine manner as we plan our rebellion.
Nothing ever happened of it...but imagine if that (presumably drunk) person turned out to be dead; you bet your bippy I'd get a visit.
OH NO! A visit!
As you say, you bet your biffy they'd call or visit you; this makes perfect sense. But I still don't understand why this is so bad. You're a witness to a dangerous situation, but you're only willing to help out if it means absolutely no inconvenience for you? Not everyone is out to get you. Life is not TV. Not every cop is corrupt, and not even the corrupt ones are going to trying to pin the theoretical murder of some drunk on you because you called it in. Could your goodwill end up being a pain in your rear end -- time in court, time dealing with police? Definitely. But that just might be worth it, especially if you end up saving some drunk from freezing to death or drowning in his own puke and/or piss in a ditch on the side of the road. So kudos for being willing to help someone out, even if it meant the potential for inconveniences great or small in your life.
Spot on. I can't believe you're the first post (I did scan quickly) to bring up the role the browser plays. All these people and their standards don't mean a thing. It's an academic, if you will, exercise void of many of the realities of the real world. Necessary? Sure. But unless the primary means for displaying/parsing/etc actually follows the standards that they're taking so long to develop, who cares?
...if my eyes and brain RTFA correctly. I recognize Google is the big(gest) player, but it's not like the purveyors of fine malware focused exclusively on Google and Google alone. It's in TFA if you're willing to take a look-see.
This is reflected in the overall quality of US collage graduates
Yes, I agree. The mural graduates and the charcoal graduates are generally still good. Shoot - even the plain old oil and watercolor graduates are good. But I too have noticed how the collage graduates have dropped in quality. It used to be that professional collages were of the utmost quality, with many different types of print media glued to a backing surface to make a single piece of art -- not just silly ransom note-type concoctions, mind you, but serious art. And this was obviously because the collage graduate was high-quality. It only makes sense. But since the collage graduate quality has dropped off, the collages suffer. A lot of them are now nothing more than Creative Memories scrapbookers. A real disgrace, those collage graduates are.
It all makes sense, if you're willing to just sit down and think about it for a short time.
Darn white man. Source of all problems. First of all, kills off all the supremely peaceful and progressive Native Americans, on which the REAL future of things like science and medicine rested. THEN, picks a poor-tasting bird to celebrate with. Can't even choose a good tasting bird, for pete's sake. Finally, invents football, which isn't even really played primarily with the feet!
I wish we could go back to those pre-usurping days in America (not even a good name! Amerigo Vespucci was an idiot), especially the parts where I could treat women as property and do as I pleased with them, where I could cower in fear of the Windigo and watch my children die of infections from simple cuts on their feet. But the stupid western europeans took that liberty away from me. Idiots.
Now, scroll down a bit if necessary, choose Flamebait and have a Happy Thanksgiving! God bless!
...while you didn't post as a anonymous coward, did you post onymously? No - you posted psuedonymously, right? There's a big difference. The point being, you didn't come out and use your given or legal name or anything. You're acting as ackthpt, not who you really are, even if you say ackthpt and you are one in the same. Not only that, but on another forum or site or whatever, you may not be ackthpt, you may be someone else. And ackthpt means as much to me as Foolicious does to you. Furthermore, even though you or slashdot or whomever may find out I am Bjorn Johnson, even that probably means very little to you, nor would it give you much direction if I was to be particularly annoying in some online interaction with you and you wanted to have me banned or something like that.
All that to say, good and bad often come in the same packages. We value the supposed anonymity of the online world, but lament the drawbacks that go with it, forgetting that it is really is no different than the "real" world -- it has positives and negatives that people eventually wield (abuse) for personal satisfaction or gain. So its broadness in scope, its void of close proximity, its instant-ness and its limited regulation -- these are all both positives and negatives at the same time. You can't take away the negative parts of it to prevent abuses without completely altering it, thus impacting the positives, leaving you with a shell of what you originally appreciated about it. We should enjoy things as they last.
But now I've come full circle and am more or less repeating what you've already said, so I'll shut up.
I think GP's point was more in the direction of not using email if you want to be taken seriously. Fair enough. Although even that, I believe, is changing, though I can only speak anecdotally. The funny thing about squeaky wheels is that the politicians remember you. If you call and fax and mail a bunch of times, your email is then going to have a lot more validity in their minds that some random guy that emails once without every establishing any sort of sense of "identity" and rappoty with the politician and his staff.
Slashdot Mirror
I noticed an error in your comment. So I took the liberty of fixing it for you:
"I can't wait to paint my parent's basement with this stuff... light be damned!"
But the inner garments are fair game? Interesting. Very interesting.
"rolandagain"
...not "it's" when you're showing possession. For example "It's Christmas Eve!" as opposed to something like "Christmas Eve is here in all its glory".
I commend you ... for not using the word "dude" at any point in your response!
Thanks for the info. That is helpful.
But do you see what I mean about the criminal side of it? Why would a criminal care if I get my money back, thus why would they prefer to steal from a bank account? Do you know if there's anything that makes it harder to steal from a CC account vs. a bank account? The article and summary made it sound like thieves prefer bank accounts vs. credit cards for some reason.
But don't the criminals still get the money, regardless of which type of account from which they steal it? Why do they care either way about better consumer fraud protection (which I read as "responsibility for unknown charges")? Or is it that credit cards have better preventative measures? I RTFA, but couldn't find where Berkeley talks about why credit cards have better fraud protection.
Also, as an anecdote, my bank/debit card company did very well to prevent an instance of fraud with my account. I'd like to know what credit card companies do so much better, other than the fact that they're not able to hold you personally liable in cases of fraud and thievery for amounts over $50 (?).
I don't like the way it seems like a link is being provided for Brett Swanson's Wall Street Journal piece, but it is actually a link to the Washington Post, and isn't an article by Brett Swanson at all, but Bruce Mehlman and Larry Irving. Maybe the add'l link could be posted as well. Although grammatically ok, the use of a link in this manner is weird and confusing.
The big problem I am having here is that I can't really decide whether or not this would really be that bad an occurrence. Furthermore, how it's different than the way things currently are.
People already abuse "the system" (whatever that system may be), so it's not like this new Google schtuff would introduce a new problem into the fold. But would it amplify existing problems as you've suggested? It might indeed. But it might be valuable as well.
How would the most value be added? I would hope that any rating or ranking of it wouldn't simply be based on the popularity of the search term, as you've kind of suggested, but rather popularity of search results -- the actual content. That is, if 500 people write articles about Brie cheese or snowboarding or slashdot, the best articles on those subjects would surface to the top, leaving the content-less and purely commercial grabs far away from the top views, further pushing them away, while still giving solid, enjoyable contributors a chance to earn some coin for honest work.
Furthermore, since I would have complete editorial control over my article (would I?), it would be published as MY article, rather than the mish-mash of ego-driven, if interesting, slop that can plague Wikipedia. If my article is slop, then it's slop because I am a crappy writer or did a poor job -- not because it went through some sort of review process that churned out a Frankenstein version of what I originally intended to say. And the results, both financial and "page view", would reflect this.
All in all, perhaps this puts a bit more emphasis on the writer/author, than solely the content.
If you are good enough and you company values you, use your position as a lever to get things done better.
I appreciate your response and practical look at things. You could have called me a retard or "part of the problem", but you actually responded with some practical advice. I agree that you can use your leverage to promote proper methods and approaches to getting tasks done, but you have to choose your battles carefully. Being careful can lead you to being viewed as a master resource; however, it can also lead you to being viewed as the "NO" guy that doesn't really ever want to actually do anything and adds just as little value as the sloppy coder does. A lot is also dependent on managers, as you've said. Apparently, you have some managers that are willing to look at things from a realistic, risk-reward perspective. Not all managers are like that -- especially if it's not only your butt on the line, but theirs!
The answer is people like you. Actually, the answer(s) could be a lot of things. But that wouldn't be a witty enough comment to post on slashdot, now would it? If you view yourself as some high-and-mighty, grand and most professional of programmers, then that's fantastic and I, in all seriousness, respect that. But to blame the fact that people don't respect you or your job (profession) as much as you'd like on the fact that I work at an imperfect company, amongst imperfect people and am myself imperfect, is silly. The reason (or one reason) those are viewed as "professions" is because they generally require more advanced degrees, which a programmer does not require. If you believe programmers should be required to have MBAs, MCSs, or Ph.Ds, and that having those degrees somehow actually improves actual work performance one iota, then you live in an alternate plane of reality. Seriously.
Theoretically speaking, yes. Practically speaking, no. In fact, no no no no no no no. I've found that more time in the design phase means less time in the actually-doing-stuff and fighting-about-scope-creep and why-have-we-only-1-day-for-testing-and-bug-fixes? and you-didn't-ask-for-that-yes-I-did-no-you-didn't-yes-I-did-then-show-me-where-it-is-in-the-requirements phases.
You're 100% right that better design usually allows for better code; however, when you're in the real world where your actual work is interrupted every 2 or 3 hours by "status" meetings or calls from a "project manager" or some kind of "business analyst" or whatever asking if something is done, and your clients only care about it working just then and there so they can meet THEIR client's deadline (so they can then meet THEIR clients' deadlines and so and so forth), well, then you just get the project done, knowing full well that your questionable code is screwing yourself or someone like you over in the future.
You really have no choice. Principles, aside from the deeply held moral ones, don't carry much weight, especially if you work at a larger company. Calling for standards is all good and well -- until my fat, white (sometimes pimply) butt is on the line. Then I just get it done. I'd rather I get another paycheck than piss clients off and have 10 meetings (cutting into even more of my time) talking about how to implement coding standards that will, for all intents and purposes, never actually be implemented, even after we've decided to implement them!
Are you serious?! I think it makes more sense for schools to teach students practical skills like, say, reading and writing and foundational math ("maths" for those of you over the pond). Amateur radio might end up helping someone in an emergency, but might never, ever, be used, too. Schools, especially public ones, are already too stupid with how they spend their money (i.e. "diversity" initiatives, learning to put condoms on bananas, etc.). I don't want to give the schools another excuse to try and futz with my taxes because they now need to teach students yet another thing that most of them will never use in their lives -- just because it might be handy if there are terrible floods, or as I'm sure some slashdotters believe, the fascist government forces us to communicate in a clandestine manner as we plan our rebellion.
OH NO! A visit!
As you say, you bet your biffy they'd call or visit you; this makes perfect sense. But I still don't understand why this is so bad. You're a witness to a dangerous situation, but you're only willing to help out if it means absolutely no inconvenience for you? Not everyone is out to get you. Life is not TV. Not every cop is corrupt, and not even the corrupt ones are going to trying to pin the theoretical murder of some drunk on you because you called it in. Could your goodwill end up being a pain in your rear end -- time in court, time dealing with police? Definitely. But that just might be worth it, especially if you end up saving some drunk from freezing to death or drowning in his own puke and/or piss in a ditch on the side of the road. So kudos for being willing to help someone out, even if it meant the potential for inconveniences great or small in your life.
Quiet you. None of this practical information stuff.
Spot on. I can't believe you're the first post (I did scan quickly) to bring up the role the browser plays. All these people and their standards don't mean a thing. It's an academic, if you will, exercise void of many of the realities of the real world. Necessary? Sure. But unless the primary means for displaying/parsing/etc actually follows the standards that they're taking so long to develop, who cares?
...if my eyes and brain RTFA correctly. I recognize Google is the big(gest) player, but it's not like the purveyors of fine malware focused exclusively on Google and Google alone. It's in TFA if you're willing to take a look-see.
Yes, I agree. The mural graduates and the charcoal graduates are generally still good. Shoot - even the plain old oil and watercolor graduates are good. But I too have noticed how the collage graduates have dropped in quality. It used to be that professional collages were of the utmost quality, with many different types of print media glued to a backing surface to make a single piece of art -- not just silly ransom note-type concoctions, mind you, but serious art. And this was obviously because the collage graduate was high-quality. It only makes sense. But since the collage graduate quality has dropped off, the collages suffer. A lot of them are now nothing more than Creative Memories scrapbookers. A real disgrace, those collage graduates are.
It all makes sense, if you're willing to just sit down and think about it for a short time.
I was waiting for this one.
Darn white man. Source of all problems. First of all, kills off all the supremely peaceful and progressive Native Americans, on which the REAL future of things like science and medicine rested. THEN, picks a poor-tasting bird to celebrate with. Can't even choose a good tasting bird, for pete's sake. Finally, invents football, which isn't even really played primarily with the feet!
I wish we could go back to those pre-usurping days in America (not even a good name! Amerigo Vespucci was an idiot), especially the parts where I could treat women as property and do as I pleased with them, where I could cower in fear of the Windigo and watch my children die of infections from simple cuts on their feet. But the stupid western europeans took that liberty away from me. Idiots.
Now, scroll down a bit if necessary, choose Flamebait and have a Happy Thanksgiving! God bless!
I hate to nitpick, but...
...while you didn't post as a anonymous coward, did you post onymously? No - you posted psuedonymously, right? There's a big difference. The point being, you didn't come out and use your given or legal name or anything. You're acting as ackthpt, not who you really are, even if you say ackthpt and you are one in the same. Not only that, but on another forum or site or whatever, you may not be ackthpt, you may be someone else. And ackthpt means as much to me as Foolicious does to you. Furthermore, even though you or slashdot or whomever may find out I am Bjorn Johnson, even that probably means very little to you, nor would it give you much direction if I was to be particularly annoying in some online interaction with you and you wanted to have me banned or something like that.
All that to say, good and bad often come in the same packages. We value the supposed anonymity of the online world, but lament the drawbacks that go with it, forgetting that it is really is no different than the "real" world -- it has positives and negatives that people eventually wield (abuse) for personal satisfaction or gain. So its broadness in scope, its void of close proximity, its instant-ness and its limited regulation -- these are all both positives and negatives at the same time. You can't take away the negative parts of it to prevent abuses without completely altering it, thus impacting the positives, leaving you with a shell of what you originally appreciated about it. We should enjoy things as they last.
But now I've come full circle and am more or less repeating what you've already said, so I'll shut up.
p.s. I am not trying to be a troll either.