Of course it's all measured. As the risks become apparent, a bank will look at the cost of fixing it and comparing it to the cost of the fraud. But nowhere will such an entity take a look at the infrastructure itself and say "this is flawed, we must fixit". Instead, it's band-aids. This also isn't directly out of greed - it's more a lack of foresight.
It's also naive to assume that banks are indifferent to fraud - that they simply foist it off onto the consumer. Look at the P&L statements for any major bank, and you'll see that it's costing them billions every year -- in both losses and prevention.
In a way it's like the situation with antivirus software. It's always a game of catchup, because nobody sees that it's possible to do it a different way.
Which means your balancing relies on a very strictly controlled unemployment rate. Let's also not forget the way unemployment measure has changed. I believe (and I don't have a citation handy) that the unemployment rate as measured historically would currently be something like 16-18%.
I'm just glad someone noticed that creating jobs was good for the economy.
Creating jobs is great for the economy. The *government* creating jobs - not so good.
Let's make this simple. Say you have a country with 20 people. 10 of them are working and making 100,000 a year, which is about the minimum need to get by comfortable. Tax is 10%. Let's further say we had a smart government, and they saved all that tax revenue for the first 10 years of the country's existence, giving a bankroll of 1 million.
At the start of year 11, the government decides that 50% unemployment is unacceptable, and it must create jobs for its other 10 citizens at the same rate of 100k. It does this by giving 1million dollars annually to Company Y, a major employer who will use it to hire the remaining 10 people.
At the end of year 11, the government has a bankroll of (+1m balance + 200k taxes - 1m to Company Y) = 200k
At the end of year 12, the government is in debt for (200k + 200k - 1m) = 600k.
At the end of year 13, the government is in debt for (-600k + 200k - 1m) = 1.4m
At the end of year 14, the government is in debt for (-1.4m + 200k - 1m) = 2.2m
Yes, it's over-simplified, but that's kind of the point. It seems utterly ridiculous doesn't it? This is obviously a model that's not sustainable. Yet when you make that a country of a few hundred million, bump the dollar amounts into the billions -- and the debt into the trillions, and make the expenditure just a fraction of total government spending, it somehow looks like a good idea?
How much has NASA spent on R&D since the moon trip? NASA has come up with a lot of good spin-off technologies (though not so many in recent years...); but do you really think that those things would remain undiscovered forever? Would velcro never have happened if NASA didn't need it? I find that unlikely.
Never thought I'd say this, but it's time to move on. The last truly monumental thing done by NASA was almost half a century ago now. The money dumped in to NASA over the decades since then could be put to better uses. Chief among those is not being taken from the people who earned it in the first place.
The are two things I dislike about the dynamic forms on/., and one of them is that if I accidentally hit "back" I lose my post-in-progress. </mini-whine>
First - my real name is "Marc Paradise", which isn't exactly a secret considering that my sig and web site both link to "marcparadise.com".
That aside, I agree with you. But in context of the conversation, I was trying to say that if you're making a post that you feel you *must* distance yourself from, then perhaps you should look at why that is so and think twice before making it. What I didn't say was "everyone should post with their real names everywhere" (though life would be more interesting if we did;)
Why would anyone write something that they didn't feel comfortable putting their (user)name on? To me, that's probably a sign that you shouldn't be writing it*...
Because your real name is "thePowerOfGrayskull", right? Either way, why do you need to know the identity of a poster? Isn't the important thing the quality of their argument not their identity?
Actually, my real name is "Marc Paradise" which is pretty easy to deduce since my web site and sig both point to "marcparadise.com";)
That aside, you raise a good point and I agree. But in context of what I was replying to, OP said that the GP's post was "worthy" of using his registered name for. My reply to that is that if you're posting anything you feel you *must* hide or distance yourself from, perhaps there's a reason you feel that way and you should think twice before posting it at all.
I don't think market cap isn't a particularly good representation of actual size of a company, as it's only num shares outstanding * share price. In other words - -it's a measure of (public's view of) equity, not related to size.
If you look in terms of number of employees, amount of R&D spending, revenues, profit, etc... MS still dwarfs apple.
Why'd you post this anonymously? It was worth putting your (user)name on.
Why would anyone write something that they didn't feel comfortable putting their (user)name on? To me, that's probably a sign that you shouldn't be writing it*...
* whistleblowing and revolts against government excluded.
Another interpretation would be searches increasing indicating that old programs are failing more often, and programmers are writing (and complaining) more about this stupid C app that was written 20 years ago and now it's broken...
Absurd, true -- but no more so than their own conclusion.
Does anyone know if Sony would replace bricked PS3s caused by this update, even if they are out of warranty?
Article author uses a very broad definition of "bricked" which seems to consist mostly of "some people had some problems with the update". This is perhaps to be expected -- as a look at his profile page shows that he spews out from 4-7 "articles" in a day. Given that, it doesn't seem surprising that he's not able to do any real research (or even provide sources).
e're talking about a front page report about a disaster/national security issue.
Because when I read - the next morning - about how aliens came in and took over the town the night before no matter what I see when I look out the window, I'm totally gonna call in the marines.
Glad you made this post, I was about to say something similar when I saw it. I think it's some weird kneejerk reaction whenever a study is posted here. It's frequent misuse just shows that some taggers don't even know what the phrase means. When you have effect B that is demonstrably induced via cause A, then it's not a matter of correlation - it is causation.
The only thing I'd question here is the use of pictures of people w/ guns to produce stress, as there are many people for which this is not stressful (especially given the prevalence of the same in media). Screaming children, screeching brakes, alarm clocks, etc -- all of these would be more generally useful than pictures of people with guns.
It also seems to me that the memory handling thread can also spend its idle time locating the next available chunk -- or several of them, based on size ranges. (This only makes sense with custom pooling.) That being said, I'm gonna go and read TFP to see if they've already talked about that...
Of course, it's related to a similar fine-grained parallelism idea for crypto that I wish would be widely implemented, and that's offloading most of AES CTR mode onto a separate thread, or several separate processes since each block has a computation step that can be computed in advance in parallel with all the other blocks. I might start doing multi-gigabyte transfers over ssh if that were implemented.
You may find this helpful, which does exactly what you're thinking of... it's basically a set of patches to OpenSSH. HPN-13 does do AES CTR processing onto multiple threads; in addition to its original functionality which was to include various network optimizations to increase throughput.
http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/
(I've been digging into it a bit very recently because someone reported it's not playing nicely with BBSSH)
My first reaction to hearing of a bug in my software is "user error". But then I squelch that, and listen to what the user is actually saying. Because there is no question - none - that the user is encountering an issue that is very real to them. If you accept that premise, it changes the way you look at development of any kind. Instead of saying, "No, this isn't my problem" you're saying "what went wrong?".
Whether it's a complex interaction fo systems that can't be reproduced in QA, the uncovering of a hardware of software bug; or if something as simple as the user consistently clicking the wrong button -- or pressing the wrong pedal, if that is what happened.
On the surface, yes - in some of those cases, the user does the "wrong" thing. But what that really means is "the user did not do what I said they should do". So is that user error, or interface design error? Why would they do it wrong in *this* case, but not in other cases? WHy did the same user never have this problem with any other car?
A bug doesn't mean only that code is broken. It can occur in any number of steps in the process -- code, interface, expectations we have set for the users, design, assumptions, hardware, etc.
Yes but the Woz case is possible bug in the cruise control software, not the accelerator.
Right, because Cruise Control Software is in no way related to acceleration, right?
I'm taking a stab in the dark here, but I'd say that the acceleration is in no way dependent upon the cruise control system, whereas the cruise control system is obviously dependent on the acceleration system. If cruise control is off, it is not a factor in acceleration.*
* Nope, no inside info. Just applying a bit of logic - in the same way I wouldn't design an HA system to be critically dependent on real-time inputs from any non-HA system.
Exactly. I used to smoke as well, and felt it gave me a great chance to think -- away from everyone. When I quit, I had trouble with that - until I realized that there was no reason I couldn't go outside and pace back and forth *without* the cigarette when I really needed to think something through without interruption.
hings have improved somewhat, mainly driven by vast hardware advances. 15 years on, Java is finally usable.
That's a bit disingenuous. Aside from the changes brought to the table w/ JIT compiling, keep in mind that Java has been running on hardware far less capable than a desktop for many years now. Blackberry has been running a pure java platform, back when their devices had 8MB of memory available (5810) and (by today's standards) ridiculously slow processors. Low-end phones and embedded devices are running Java today, as constrained or even more so than that.
So not only do Flash and HTML5 it offer a worse runtime experience for the user, but they're much more limited than Java, and much slower to develop with. They're failures all around. U
Depends how you define "failure", especially for Flash. If you consider nearly universal market penetration of a cross-platform runtime as failure, then you're right -- Flash is a total flop. Love it or hate it, it's not a failure in any practical sense of the word.
What's amazing is that all the platforms use the same code base.... There's no other platform in the world that can boast this level of flexibility -- not even close.
Guy creates functionality I've been using in Java for 8 years; film at 11.
And with J2ME, your reach is even more broad - any of countless phone models can also run it.
More generally -- it's essentially what any JIT-compiled or interpreted language is capable of. The *only* difference here is that iPad and similar are playing nice with it. That's not a failing of the other languages, it's a failing of Apple platforms.
I find the actions you described to be fairly disgusting, but the argument you seem to be making is that because some sick shits abused the information, nobody should have been allowed to disseminate the information. While I wish I could agree with the sentiment, the fact is that free speech isn't that selective.
Now - the officers involved should definitely be held responsible for any damages they caused. As should, frankly, anyone who can be proved to have been using the pictures in a way that caused demonstrable harm. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also naive to assume that banks are indifferent to fraud - that they simply foist it off onto the consumer. Look at the P&L statements for any major bank, and you'll see that it's costing them billions every year -- in both losses and prevention.
In a way it's like the situation with antivirus software. It's always a game of catchup, because nobody sees that it's possible to do it a different way.
Which means your balancing relies on a very strictly controlled unemployment rate. Let's also not forget the way unemployment measure has changed. I believe (and I don't have a citation handy) that the unemployment rate as measured historically would currently be something like 16-18%.
I'm just glad someone noticed that creating jobs was good for the economy.
Creating jobs is great for the economy. The *government* creating jobs - not so good.
Let's make this simple. Say you have a country with 20 people. 10 of them are working and making 100,000 a year, which is about the minimum need to get by comfortable. Tax is 10%. Let's further say we had a smart government, and they saved all that tax revenue for the first 10 years of the country's existence, giving a bankroll of 1 million.
At the start of year 11, the government decides that 50% unemployment is unacceptable, and it must create jobs for its other 10 citizens at the same rate of 100k. It does this by giving 1million dollars annually to Company Y, a major employer who will use it to hire the remaining 10 people.
At the end of year 11, the government has a bankroll of (+1m balance + 200k taxes - 1m to Company Y) = 200k
At the end of year 12, the government is in debt for (200k + 200k - 1m) = 600k.
At the end of year 13, the government is in debt for (-600k + 200k - 1m) = 1.4m
At the end of year 14, the government is in debt for (-1.4m + 200k - 1m) = 2.2m
Yes, it's over-simplified, but that's kind of the point. It seems utterly ridiculous doesn't it? This is obviously a model that's not sustainable. Yet when you make that a country of a few hundred million, bump the dollar amounts into the billions -- and the debt into the trillions, and make the expenditure just a fraction of total government spending, it somehow looks like a good idea?
Never thought I'd say this, but it's time to move on. The last truly monumental thing done by NASA was almost half a century ago now. The money dumped in to NASA over the decades since then could be put to better uses. Chief among those is not being taken from the people who earned it in the first place.
Shhh, we're working ourselves into a fine froth about corporate greed. Don't ruin it now.
Shit. Alternatively, I already posted the first comment, and forgot that I did so when I hit "back" by accident... At least my reply was consistent ...
First - my real name is "Marc Paradise", which isn't exactly a secret considering that my sig and web site both link to "marcparadise.com".
That aside, I agree with you. But in context of the conversation, I was trying to say that if you're making a post that you feel you *must* distance yourself from, then perhaps you should look at why that is so and think twice before making it. What I didn't say was "everyone should post with their real names everywhere" (though life would be more interesting if we did ;)
Why would anyone write something that they didn't feel comfortable putting their (user)name on? To me, that's probably a sign that you shouldn't be writing it*...
Because your real name is "thePowerOfGrayskull", right? Either way, why do you need to know the identity of a poster? Isn't the important thing the quality of their argument not their identity?
Actually, my real name is "Marc Paradise" which is pretty easy to deduce since my web site and sig both point to "marcparadise.com" ;)
That aside, you raise a good point and I agree. But in context of what I was replying to, OP said that the GP's post was "worthy" of using his registered name for. My reply to that is that if you're posting anything you feel you *must* hide or distance yourself from, perhaps there's a reason you feel that way and you should think twice before posting it at all.
If you look in terms of number of employees, amount of R&D spending, revenues, profit, etc ... MS still dwarfs apple.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/snapshots/114.html
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/snapshots/879.html
Why'd you post this anonymously? It was worth putting your (user)name on.
Why would anyone write something that they didn't feel comfortable putting their (user)name on? To me, that's probably a sign that you shouldn't be writing it*...
* whistleblowing and revolts against government excluded.
Absurd, true -- but no more so than their own conclusion.
Does anyone know if Sony would replace bricked PS3s caused by this update, even if they are out of warranty?
Article author uses a very broad definition of "bricked" which seems to consist mostly of "some people had some problems with the update". This is perhaps to be expected -- as a look at his profile page shows that he spews out from 4-7 "articles" in a day. Given that, it doesn't seem surprising that he's not able to do any real research (or even provide sources).
e're talking about a front page report about a disaster/national security issue.
Because when I read - the next morning - about how aliens came in and took over the town the night before no matter what I see when I look out the window, I'm totally gonna call in the marines.
The control would have covered that, and it could indeed have accounted for the "barely significant" raise in levels in the controls.
The only thing I'd question here is the use of pictures of people w/ guns to produce stress, as there are many people for which this is not stressful (especially given the prevalence of the same in media). Screaming children, screeching brakes, alarm clocks, etc -- all of these would be more generally useful than pictures of people with guns.
It also seems to me that the memory handling thread can also spend its idle time locating the next available chunk -- or several of them, based on size ranges. (This only makes sense with custom pooling.) That being said, I'm gonna go and read TFP to see if they've already talked about that...
Aw, damn - macemoneta beat me to it.
Of course, it's related to a similar fine-grained parallelism idea for crypto that I wish would be widely implemented, and that's offloading most of AES CTR mode onto a separate thread, or several separate processes since each block has a computation step that can be computed in advance in parallel with all the other blocks. I might start doing multi-gigabyte transfers over ssh if that were implemented.
You may find this helpful, which does exactly what you're thinking of... it's basically a set of patches to OpenSSH. HPN-13 does do AES CTR processing onto multiple threads; in addition to its original functionality which was to include various network optimizations to increase throughput. http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/ (I've been digging into it a bit very recently because someone reported it's not playing nicely with BBSSH)
Whether it's a complex interaction fo systems that can't be reproduced in QA, the uncovering of a hardware of software bug; or if something as simple as the user consistently clicking the wrong button -- or pressing the wrong pedal, if that is what happened.
On the surface, yes - in some of those cases, the user does the "wrong" thing. But what that really means is "the user did not do what I said they should do". So is that user error, or interface design error? Why would they do it wrong in *this* case, but not in other cases? WHy did the same user never have this problem with any other car?
A bug doesn't mean only that code is broken. It can occur in any number of steps in the process -- code, interface, expectations we have set for the users, design, assumptions, hardware, etc.
Yes but the Woz case is possible bug in the cruise control software, not the accelerator.
Right, because Cruise Control Software is in no way related to acceleration, right?
I'm taking a stab in the dark here, but I'd say that the acceleration is in no way dependent upon the cruise control system, whereas the cruise control system is obviously dependent on the acceleration system. If cruise control is off, it is not a factor in acceleration.*
* Nope, no inside info. Just applying a bit of logic - in the same way I wouldn't design an HA system to be critically dependent on real-time inputs from any non-HA system.
Exactly. I used to smoke as well, and felt it gave me a great chance to think -- away from everyone. When I quit, I had trouble with that - until I realized that there was no reason I couldn't go outside and pace back and forth *without* the cigarette when I really needed to think something through without interruption.
hings have improved somewhat, mainly driven by vast hardware advances. 15 years on, Java is finally usable.
That's a bit disingenuous. Aside from the changes brought to the table w/ JIT compiling, keep in mind that Java has been running on hardware far less capable than a desktop for many years now. Blackberry has been running a pure java platform, back when their devices had 8MB of memory available (5810) and (by today's standards) ridiculously slow processors. Low-end phones and embedded devices are running Java today, as constrained or even more so than that.
So not only do Flash and HTML5 it offer a worse runtime experience for the user, but they're much more limited than Java, and much slower to develop with. They're failures all around. U
Depends how you define "failure", especially for Flash. If you consider nearly universal market penetration of a cross-platform runtime as failure, then you're right -- Flash is a total flop. Love it or hate it, it's not a failure in any practical sense of the word.
Guy creates functionality I've been using in Java for 8 years; film at 11.
And with J2ME, your reach is even more broad - any of countless phone models can also run it.
More generally -- it's essentially what any JIT-compiled or interpreted language is capable of. The *only* difference here is that iPad and similar are playing nice with it. That's not a failing of the other languages, it's a failing of Apple platforms.
Interesting list in your sig, but unfortunately all of the links to detailed info that it contains seem to be broken.
Now - the officers involved should definitely be held responsible for any damages they caused. As should, frankly, anyone who can be proved to have been using the pictures in a way that caused demonstrable harm. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility.