There is unlikely to be a single point like that since what we are increasingly seeing is various specialized AI systems knocking out job types one by one. For instance look at what limited AI and voice recognition has done for things like customer service and banking.
I think this is a classic example of 'those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it', but on a surprisingly rapid cycle.
So first people start realizing that the way menus and such are handled on the desktop did not work well in the touch screen or mobile space, so designers learned that lesson and developed more appropriate layouts.
Now we have a new batch of designers that is making the same mistake, taking the mobile layouts and trying to use them on a desktop where they do not make much sense.
Though really, it is probably just the old 'I learned to do X in environment Y and now I want to do X everywhere because Y rocked!' thing.
Or they are using other traditional methods like political pressure... which methods of showing displeasure and getting something taken down would require fatal response and which would not.....
Depending on the culture of that specific university, yes, I could believe they were easily duped. Professors tend to be overworked and these comity assignments can be quite draining. They rarely will sit and do independent checking or even really debate the topic, most of them are willing to just hear the complaint and apply the rules quickly so they can get back to tasks more directly connected to their jobs. The evidence may have been as simple as 'Our long term partner has brought charges against this student for attempting to hack their network. Our relationship with them is important and failure to hold up our guidelines regarding unprofessional conduct could sour the relationship or even lead to legal troubles'. Unless they have a reason to suspect the company is feeding them false or misleading information they have a significant incentive to just believe them.
Unless someone raises a stink, the whole process probably took about 10 minutes.
Since it seems (from the description) that he was congratulated and then criticized by different people, I suspect that the attitude was already there but the action of checking to see if it was patched changed the balance of who's voice was dominant.
On the other end, there is the idea that poverty kills and thus things that cause mass economic damager really do hurt people and cause shortened lifespans.. but I have yet to hear of any cyber attack that even begins to approach that and, if we were going to use that metric, the people who create AI systems for stock trading would be in far more legal trouble then even the worst cyber criminals.
Generally with Ponzi schemes they get ignored unless they piss off someone with influence. The run of the mill ones are not considered worth prosecuting, esp since they mostly impact random low income old people. Madoff was prosecuted because he scammed rich investors and investment funds.
I suspect that the professors were not conspiring, but whoever prepared the package of information for them probably did give them a rater selected view of events. The kid screwed up by pinging to see if the issue had been fixed, but given how often industry has a bad habit of burying issues and his concerns about real world harm this problem could present, I can not blame him for his desire to find out if they had made good on their promise to correct it.
I generally agree that with the information in TFA a professor would be unlikely to expel, but I have seen administrators (who often do have an incentive to protect either themselves or a corporate parter) passing along slanted stories, esp if they are just taking the word of the company.
Sounds like what he got in trouble for was being a responsible developer and informing the university of the flaw. He got praises from the developers and IT people from the company who wrote the software but then the president of the company (not the university) went apeshit and claimed he was hacking them. I suspect the University was unhappy with the company for the problem and the company decided to take it out on the person who embarrassed them.
I do not think it means what you think it means....
Well, I guess it comes down to what criteria one means when one says 'worse'. In terms of ease of access or ability to defend against it might be 'worse'.. but worse in the same way that, say, pigeon crap is worse. Sure it might be everywhere and you can't do much about its absolute existence, but you can do a LOT against it actually doing harm.
One can not do much to 'defend' against cyber weapons on the whole, but one can do a lot to mitigate the impact of actual harmful attacks. Ok, attacks like Stuxnet are non-trivial to defend against, but even these sophisticated attacks did minimal actual damage, all they really did was mess up people's schedules. So the worst of the worst were still weapons of inconvenience and even in those cases there are things the defenders could do to stop future attacks.
There is an important change though. In the days of dial up you had effective competition, so companies had to, well, be competitive. Now in many regions the local ISP is an effective monopoly, so their only competition is 'no internet'.
It also depends on how much TV you are talking. Casual viewing will not eat up much but, if, say, you tend to leave the TV running as background noise or something, then it can really add up.
While true that, in theory, prosecutors are just enforcing the law, they have significant discretion when it comes to things like even bringing any charges in the first place. As any victim of petty crime and they will usually have a tale of how the police or prosecutor just didn't bother doing anything even though the law said crime was committed.
I had a professsor who used to like talking about programming via touching a nail to a series of contacts, inputting one bit at a time, and the wonderful innovation of a button that would input the whole byte a then *gasp* auto increment the input to the next byte in memory for you.
And to be fair to him, his ability to program in machine code (a hex pad with an enter key) strait into memory and have programs actually work as part of live demonstrations was impressive.
That is one of the reasons I have stuck with CentOS over the years. I have found they strike a good balance between being reasonably up to date while still being pretty conservative and thus stable.
A while back I mounted some photographic circular polarizers in a goggle frame and tried various tasks like walking around. You can get used to it, but yeah, driving would be a bad idea....
The tools allowed to the powerful are not the same for the weak. It is fraud because a low (relatively) paid individual did it.
It is the same psychology as the anti-union stuff. If a supplier or partner negotiates a contract or demands that the other company stick to its agreement it is good business. If a union negotiates or demands that the company respect the contract they signed, it is socialists thugs ruining capitalism.
As a society, we have some rather embedded ideas about who is allowed to do what, and who should know their place.
The quotes about the work needed were actually from a while back, so they are not talking about why this particular way of finally allowing such interactions into the system is the way it is.
The work element is poor excuse here. We are not talking about massive coding changes or reams of new dialog. All that is really required is removing the gender check for which pairs have access to which speech options. What they have essentially done is changed the check from 'if A.sex != B.sex' to 'if A.sex != B.sex OR A.current_world.allow_gay_stuff == True'.
I interpret this specifically as a way to, as you say, dodge fundy criticism. They created a ghetto that is behind the paywall. If nothing else, if they are having to create 'special behavior and dialog for homosexual flirting' then they are already doing something pretty wrong and insulting, since last I checked gay people flirt and interact pretty much like any other people.
From what I gather, they worry that parents will not allow their kids to play the game if homosexual content is permitted. From talking to such parents, when you really drill down into it, it is less about fear that other people will make advances on them (though many still believe that gay == pedophile) and more about they do not want their kids to even have such options. They want a particular world view embedded in the game mechanics, so one is not even able to 'flirt' with same sex NPCs. It is all about restricting exploration due to fear that if they get a chance they might 'choose' to be corrupted into becoming gay, or even worse, getting used to homosexual narratives and seeing gay people as, well, people. It is easy to demonize an abstract and they do not want their children humanizing gays.
I am actually a bit surprised people are not willing to pay more for cases, since it is one of the few parts in a computer that can be reused after many upgrades.
Unless of course it is a meeting where the developer is getting information they want or addressing concerns they have....
Meetings themselves are not really the problem, they are a useful tool for discussion. I have found the bigger issue is different people not respecting varying priorities and needs of others. Often people do not take into account when meetings that benefit their needs are cutting into the time of people for whom they are not and then fail to make it worth their while (or at least acknowledge the cost to them).
Since most languages have some kind of 'sort' function in their standard library, unless the question specifically required writing a sort from scratch I would assume most answers would look something like that.
In a way, lazy is good and something to be watched for. You do not want programmers that are constantly reimplemeting built-in features their own way. Just look at how many C++ programmers are constantly writing their own stacks or linked lists rather then using the STL....
Slashdot Mirror
There is unlikely to be a single point like that since what we are increasingly seeing is various specialized AI systems knocking out job types one by one. For instance look at what limited AI and voice recognition has done for things like customer service and banking.
I think this is a classic example of 'those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it', but on a surprisingly rapid cycle.
So first people start realizing that the way menus and such are handled on the desktop did not work well in the touch screen or mobile space, so designers learned that lesson and developed more appropriate layouts.
Now we have a new batch of designers that is making the same mistake, taking the mobile layouts and trying to use them on a desktop where they do not make much sense.
Though really, it is probably just the old 'I learned to do X in environment Y and now I want to do X everywhere because Y rocked!' thing.
Or they are using other traditional methods like political pressure... which methods of showing displeasure and getting something taken down would require fatal response and which would not.....
Depending on the culture of that specific university, yes, I could believe they were easily duped. Professors tend to be overworked and these comity assignments can be quite draining. They rarely will sit and do independent checking or even really debate the topic, most of them are willing to just hear the complaint and apply the rules quickly so they can get back to tasks more directly connected to their jobs. The evidence may have been as simple as 'Our long term partner has brought charges against this student for attempting to hack their network. Our relationship with them is important and failure to hold up our guidelines regarding unprofessional conduct could sour the relationship or even lead to legal troubles'. Unless they have a reason to suspect the company is feeding them false or misleading information they have a significant incentive to just believe them.
Unless someone raises a stink, the whole process probably took about 10 minutes.
Since it seems (from the description) that he was congratulated and then criticized by different people, I suspect that the attitude was already there but the action of checking to see if it was patched changed the balance of who's voice was dominant.
Sounds about right.
On the other end, there is the idea that poverty kills and thus things that cause mass economic damager really do hurt people and cause shortened lifespans.. but I have yet to hear of any cyber attack that even begins to approach that and, if we were going to use that metric, the people who create AI systems for stock trading would be in far more legal trouble then even the worst cyber criminals.
Generally with Ponzi schemes they get ignored unless they piss off someone with influence. The run of the mill ones are not considered worth prosecuting, esp since they mostly impact random low income old people. Madoff was prosecuted because he scammed rich investors and investment funds.
I suspect that the professors were not conspiring, but whoever prepared the package of information for them probably did give them a rater selected view of events. The kid screwed up by pinging to see if the issue had been fixed, but given how often industry has a bad habit of burying issues and his concerns about real world harm this problem could present, I can not blame him for his desire to find out if they had made good on their promise to correct it.
I generally agree that with the information in TFA a professor would be unlikely to expel, but I have seen administrators (who often do have an incentive to protect either themselves or a corporate parter) passing along slanted stories, esp if they are just taking the word of the company.
Sounds like what he got in trouble for was being a responsible developer and informing the university of the flaw. He got praises from the developers and IT people from the company who wrote the software but then the president of the company (not the university) went apeshit and claimed he was hacking them. I suspect the University was unhappy with the company for the problem and the company decided to take it out on the person who embarrassed them.
I do not think it means what you think it means....
Well, I guess it comes down to what criteria one means when one says 'worse'. In terms of ease of access or ability to defend against it might be 'worse'.. but worse in the same way that, say, pigeon crap is worse. Sure it might be everywhere and you can't do much about its absolute existence, but you can do a LOT against it actually doing harm.
One can not do much to 'defend' against cyber weapons on the whole, but one can do a lot to mitigate the impact of actual harmful attacks. Ok, attacks like Stuxnet are non-trivial to defend against, but even these sophisticated attacks did minimal actual damage, all they really did was mess up people's schedules. So the worst of the worst were still weapons of inconvenience and even in those cases there are things the defenders could do to stop future attacks.
There is an important change though. In the days of dial up you had effective competition, so companies had to, well, be competitive. Now in many regions the local ISP is an effective monopoly, so their only competition is 'no internet'.
It also depends on how much TV you are talking. Casual viewing will not eat up much but, if, say, you tend to leave the TV running as background noise or something, then it can really add up.
While true that, in theory, prosecutors are just enforcing the law, they have significant discretion when it comes to things like even bringing any charges in the first place. As any victim of petty crime and they will usually have a tale of how the police or prosecutor just didn't bother doing anything even though the law said crime was committed.
Bah! Toggle switches? Those new fangled devices?
I had a professsor who used to like talking about programming via touching a nail to a series of contacts, inputting one bit at a time, and the wonderful innovation of a button that would input the whole byte a then *gasp* auto increment the input to the next byte in memory for you.
And to be fair to him, his ability to program in machine code (a hex pad with an enter key) strait into memory and have programs actually work as part of live demonstrations was impressive.
I know the feeling. The //e is what I cut my teeth programming on ^_^
That is one of the reasons I have stuck with CentOS over the years. I have found they strike a good balance between being reasonably up to date while still being pretty conservative and thus stable.
A while back I mounted some photographic circular polarizers in a goggle frame and tried various tasks like walking around. You can get used to it, but yeah, driving would be a bad idea....
The tools allowed to the powerful are not the same for the weak. It is fraud because a low (relatively) paid individual did it.
It is the same psychology as the anti-union stuff. If a supplier or partner negotiates a contract or demands that the other company stick to its agreement it is good business. If a union negotiates or demands that the company respect the contract they signed, it is socialists thugs ruining capitalism.
As a society, we have some rather embedded ideas about who is allowed to do what, and who should know their place.
Not past related at all. Talking to modern parents with young children about their concerns.
The quotes about the work needed were actually from a while back, so they are not talking about why this particular way of finally allowing such interactions into the system is the way it is.
The work element is poor excuse here. We are not talking about massive coding changes or reams of new dialog. All that is really required is removing the gender check for which pairs have access to which speech options. What they have essentially done is changed the check from 'if A.sex != B.sex' to 'if A.sex != B.sex OR A.current_world.allow_gay_stuff == True'.
I interpret this specifically as a way to, as you say, dodge fundy criticism. They created a ghetto that is behind the paywall. If nothing else, if they are having to create 'special behavior and dialog for homosexual flirting' then they are already doing something pretty wrong and insulting, since last I checked gay people flirt and interact pretty much like any other people.
The part that seems to contain actual physical parents?
From what I gather, they worry that parents will not allow their kids to play the game if homosexual content is permitted. From talking to such parents, when you really drill down into it, it is less about fear that other people will make advances on them (though many still believe that gay == pedophile) and more about they do not want their kids to even have such options. They want a particular world view embedded in the game mechanics, so one is not even able to 'flirt' with same sex NPCs. It is all about restricting exploration due to fear that if they get a chance they might 'choose' to be corrupted into becoming gay, or even worse, getting used to homosexual narratives and seeing gay people as, well, people. It is easy to demonize an abstract and they do not want their children humanizing gays.
I am actually a bit surprised people are not willing to pay more for cases, since it is one of the few parts in a computer that can be reused after many upgrades.
Unless of course it is a meeting where the developer is getting information they want or addressing concerns they have....
Meetings themselves are not really the problem, they are a useful tool for discussion. I have found the bigger issue is different people not respecting varying priorities and needs of others. Often people do not take into account when meetings that benefit their needs are cutting into the time of people for whom they are not and then fail to make it worth their while (or at least acknowledge the cost to them).
Since most languages have some kind of 'sort' function in their standard library, unless the question specifically required writing a sort from scratch I would assume most answers would look something like that.
In a way, lazy is good and something to be watched for. You do not want programmers that are constantly reimplemeting built-in features their own way. Just look at how many C++ programmers are constantly writing their own stacks or linked lists rather then using the STL....