So process is in place but is not actually followed. Absolutely no surprise, but it will be your company's problem when root cause analysis of this or that fiery crash turns out that quality review wasn't actually conducted.
I am more excited about spoofing V2V with 'no-movement-congestion-ahead' signal to get all autonomous cars clear from the highway while I drive home with no traffic.
It isn't about bug free on first compile, it is about a) failure-tolerant design b) multiple redundancies. We generally trust airplane auto-pilot systems, there is no reason why similar approach could not be used here.
The real concern is not 'autopilot' feature, it is V2V and introducing remote attack surfaces.
To play devil's advocate, highway driving (at least in North America) is rather simple tasks that does not require extensive computational and sensory demand that city driving would require.
I think the key is to clearly map system limitations and have it fail to engage when it isn't up to the task. (e.g. construction or bad weather).
You might realize that these are exaggerated stereotypes, but for people not "in" - these are accurate and realistic portrayals. That why this show is show harmful/awful.
Or you could just blast speed reading of 0km/h and then engage electronic parking gear, or auto-parking module, or ABS diagnostic mode. You might even be able to deploy air bags, but I am not 100% sure on that one.
It is now official - SJWcraft has confirmed: slashdot is dying. Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered/. community when recently IDC confirmed that/. accounts for more than a fraction of SJW on the Internets.
The above scenario is actually not as far-fetched as you think. There are proof-of-concept hacks of car infotainment systems over Bluetooth, and there are confirmed cases of infotainment systems directly connected to CANBUS giving attackers access to vehicle systems. Clearly, not all cars are so badly designed, but some are. So it is possible to chain cellphone-bluetooth-CANBUS and end up in a fiery crash.
While your highbrow insult of the poster above is likely baseless generalization, the "Google has allowed stupid people to X" is interesting concept. In my opinion, this is overwhelmingly positive societal benefit. If mediocre people can be more productive, then society as a whole can be more productive. It doesn't matter how smart is the person that solved the problem, all that matters is that the problem is solved.
The OBD-II dongles are not a threat until Metasploit module exploiting this overflow or that out of bound write comes out and cars start crashing. OBD of modern cars have been successfully exploited, considering that cars can easily stay on the road 15+ years and automotive industry only now started taking rudimentary first steps to secure it, it will be 20+ years until such dongles will be safe to use for general public.
Standardized testing, and teaching to the test does great disservice to students. It teaches them trivia. Why is this done? It is easiest to teach and test this way, and you can claim successful teaching without succeeding. Writing open book exam is actually hard, checking problem-solving process and giving out partial marks is time consuming. As a result both are avoided due to laziness.
We have noticed that in the past 30 days you have parked twice near a bar. We regret to inform you that as a result your premium increased by GAZILLION DOLLARS and this information was added to your permanent driving record so you will never be able to get insurance anywhere else again.
This is just another attack surface on my privacy and in case of OBD-II devices on my safety.
Insurances are not in business to save you money, they are also no in business of securing data or massive distributed sensor networks. Best case scenario - you will save $5/mo while your car/cellphone ends up sending out spam, worst case scenario you will die in a flaming wreck when someone in CN remotely turns your auto-parking feature while you are driving at 75mph.
Why is this "unfair advantage"? Your expectations are simply outdated. Humans are now distributed systems, there is no value in memorizing any fact when information is available 24/7 everywhere. If students want to Google texbooks - let them. Make all exams open book and it will closely resemble 'real-world' problem solving.
You have to ask yourself, do you want to actually teach kids physics trivia (and please explain value in that) or ability to solve physics problems with hopes that some of this problem solving skills will get generalized?
>>>Those are the tests that really matter for selling calculators.
I think this is key issue. These calculators are popular because they are allowed on standardized tests, like SAT. Obsession with these tests in US is what ultimately drives up the price and limits feature improvements of these calculators.
I have relatives, retired in their 50s after a career in early days of programming (60s-70s era). Almost nobody had a degree back then.
Today? Things changed. If you are giving advice to young people on how to get a coding job, saying "don't bother with a degree" would set them up for a life of hard knocks. Would they still make it? Perhaps, but why make things harder on yourself?
I dislike dealing with HR most of the time, except when "that unqualified disabled visible minority candidate is now suing us for discrimination" or "Joe from IT was seen doing lines off the servers, and by the way servers he suppose to be watching halted and caught fire" situations turn up. Then I am thankful they exist.
Sorry, degree has nothing to do with competence. Self-taught programmer competence distribution would be representative of general programmer distribution, with individuals falling above and below average competence.
The key reason you need degree is to get past the gatekeepers to get a job. We could argue about value and return on investment of getting a degree, but the article clearly focuses on getting a job.
I wouldn't turn down qualified applicant ether, but the simple fact that HR departments exist make this unrealistic goal for any large organization. The resume of such hypothetical person will never land on our desks. Moment you grow past 20ish people shop and have to have procedures, policies, equal opportunity and all that other annoying but often necessary bureaucracy you lose your "just hire the gal/guy" ability.
This is simply not the case today, especially as applied to 20-somthing trying to get a job. If you are still skeptical, I invite you to go to talk to HR and ask them what it would take to get entry-level job without a degree.
Slashdot Mirror
I am more interested in reinventing of John Romero, the old one only good as a bait for the inevitable flamewars. I am sure we can add more features.
So process is in place but is not actually followed. Absolutely no surprise, but it will be your company's problem when root cause analysis of this or that fiery crash turns out that quality review wasn't actually conducted.
I am more excited about spoofing V2V with 'no-movement-congestion-ahead' signal to get all autonomous cars clear from the highway while I drive home with no traffic.
No you don't have expectation of anonymity anywhere, but with Tor breaching your anonymity is prohibitively expensive for most scenarios.
It isn't about bug free on first compile, it is about a) failure-tolerant design b) multiple redundancies. We generally trust airplane auto-pilot systems, there is no reason why similar approach could not be used here.
The real concern is not 'autopilot' feature, it is V2V and introducing remote attack surfaces.
To play devil's advocate, highway driving (at least in North America) is rather simple tasks that does not require extensive computational and sensory demand that city driving would require.
I think the key is to clearly map system limitations and have it fail to engage when it isn't up to the task. (e.g. construction or bad weather).
You might realize that these are exaggerated stereotypes, but for people not "in" - these are accurate and realistic portrayals. That why this show is show harmful/awful.
Or you could just blast speed reading of 0km/h and then engage electronic parking gear, or auto-parking module, or ABS diagnostic mode. You might even be able to deploy air bags, but I am not 100% sure on that one.
>>>the show teaches people to laugh at geeks and nerds.
This.
It is now official - SJWcraft has confirmed: slashdot is dying. Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered /. community when recently IDC confirmed that /. accounts for more than a fraction of SJW on the Internets.
The above scenario is actually not as far-fetched as you think. There are proof-of-concept hacks of car infotainment systems over Bluetooth, and there are confirmed cases of infotainment systems directly connected to CANBUS giving attackers access to vehicle systems. Clearly, not all cars are so badly designed, but some are. So it is possible to chain cellphone-bluetooth-CANBUS and end up in a fiery crash.
While your highbrow insult of the poster above is likely baseless generalization, the "Google has allowed stupid people to X" is interesting concept. In my opinion, this is overwhelmingly positive societal benefit. If mediocre people can be more productive, then society as a whole can be more productive. It doesn't matter how smart is the person that solved the problem, all that matters is that the problem is solved.
The OBD-II dongles are not a threat until Metasploit module exploiting this overflow or that out of bound write comes out and cars start crashing. OBD of modern cars have been successfully exploited, considering that cars can easily stay on the road 15+ years and automotive industry only now started taking rudimentary first steps to secure it, it will be 20+ years until such dongles will be safe to use for general public.
Standardized testing, and teaching to the test does great disservice to students. It teaches them trivia. Why is this done? It is easiest to teach and test this way, and you can claim successful teaching without succeeding. Writing open book exam is actually hard, checking problem-solving process and giving out partial marks is time consuming. As a result both are avoided due to laziness.
Dear Edwin,
We have noticed that in the past 30 days you have parked twice near a bar. We regret to inform you that as a result your premium increased by GAZILLION DOLLARS and this information was added to your permanent driving record so you will never be able to get insurance anywhere else again.
Sincerely,
Your Insurance Company
This is just another attack surface on my privacy and in case of OBD-II devices on my safety.
Insurances are not in business to save you money, they are also no in business of securing data or massive distributed sensor networks. Best case scenario - you will save $5/mo while your car/cellphone ends up sending out spam, worst case scenario you will die in a flaming wreck when someone in CN remotely turns your auto-parking feature while you are driving at 75mph.
Why is this "unfair advantage"? Your expectations are simply outdated. Humans are now distributed systems, there is no value in memorizing any fact when information is available 24/7 everywhere. If students want to Google texbooks - let them. Make all exams open book and it will closely resemble 'real-world' problem solving.
You have to ask yourself, do you want to actually teach kids physics trivia (and please explain value in that) or ability to solve physics problems with hopes that some of this problem solving skills will get generalized?
>>>Those are the tests that really matter for selling calculators.
I think this is key issue. These calculators are popular because they are allowed on standardized tests, like SAT. Obsession with these tests in US is what ultimately drives up the price and limits feature improvements of these calculators.
I have relatives, retired in their 50s after a career in early days of programming (60s-70s era). Almost nobody had a degree back then.
Today? Things changed. If you are giving advice to young people on how to get a coding job, saying "don't bother with a degree" would set them up for a life of hard knocks. Would they still make it? Perhaps, but why make things harder on yourself?
I dislike dealing with HR most of the time, except when "that unqualified disabled visible minority candidate is now suing us for discrimination" or "Joe from IT was seen doing lines off the servers, and by the way servers he suppose to be watching halted and caught fire" situations turn up. Then I am thankful they exist.
Sorry, degree has nothing to do with competence. Self-taught programmer competence distribution would be representative of general programmer distribution, with individuals falling above and below average competence.
The key reason you need degree is to get past the gatekeepers to get a job. We could argue about value and return on investment of getting a degree, but the article clearly focuses on getting a job.
it is what it is.
I wouldn't turn down qualified applicant ether, but the simple fact that HR departments exist make this unrealistic goal for any large organization. The resume of such hypothetical person will never land on our desks. Moment you grow past 20ish people shop and have to have procedures, policies, equal opportunity and all that other annoying but often necessary bureaucracy you lose your "just hire the gal/guy" ability.
As a consultant you already have your clients, list of projects and so on. Good luck getting that entry-level job to build these without a degree.
This is simply not the case today, especially as applied to 20-somthing trying to get a job. If you are still skeptical, I invite you to go to talk to HR and ask them what it would take to get entry-level job without a degree.
Absolutely. For any reasonable definition of 'coder' that approximates definition of 'employed IT professional' that statement is false.