If generics significantly disrupt the market, then the prices will drop way way down and they won't be a massive waste of money, at worst a small waste of money, and at best a very very durable shiny that lasts a long time and is cheap.
You're clearly disgruntled, but you don't really make a good argument against policy makers responding in realtime to events, which is basically what you rant about using a bunch of unflattering terms.
You do make a good case that you don't understand the policy, but not in a way that suggests possible remedy through explanation.
You also make a good case that you don't understand the different regional groups and ideological forces, other than a vague idea that ethnicity should be tied to ideology and that everybody in the same ethnicity should be on the same side relative to us. The only detail that I want to correct is to note that Turkey is in Iraq helping the Iraqi Kurds fight the daesh infestation in Mosul, and that is entirely consistent with longstanding US and Turkish policy.
It is a well known technique to hide secret communications in plain sight, because that is where they least stand out. Presumably they trusted their payload to remain secret, and so far it has.
They may even have been surprised to be found by private researchers because of their innocuous obscurity. Perhaps they were avoiding use of channels that are more heavily monitored on the Russian side, worried about NSA moles or other access over there? The list of known unknowns that are relevant is pretty long, even just pulling them out of [a hat]. It isn't hard to realize that we don't (and won't) know.
If the server was hacked, OK, maybe. But the responses from the parties don't really match that. It seems like they'd want to admit that, because it is the least-bad possible answer. But they're denying that too; they probably don't want the server to become evidence.
Why would they bother to tunnel over weird protocols when they could just SSH there? Who should be spying on their traffic, again? If anything, some odd tunnel would make me believe the people who owned it weren't responsible.
In that vein, look at the DNS, it's not even Trump's server!
Great question. Maybe they have an idiot PHB project manager, or some trusted mob guy that they thought was more technical than he actually was? Maybe the Russians think the NSA cracked their SSH and that obscurity is the only game left? Who knows!
Why? I'll tell you why! Because of [long list of known unknowns]!!!
That isn't debunking, that is verifying. That's exactly what we're here talking about, yes.
Wow, man. Just wow. Nobody is saying there is evidence of a crime, they're saying that is very troubling that a presidential candidate has ties to Russia and denies it, and offers no explanation, and withholds his tax returns.
Exactly. The news isn't that Trump communicates with the bank, it is that he does so and the bank denies it. They don't refuse to answer because client confidentiality; they actually answer the question and deny it.
The whole situation is shocking and suspicious. Maybe it is innocent, but maybe it isn't. If there was nothing there at all, they would not have answered the questions, and the server wouldn't have changed configurations multiple times when questions were asked.
Maybe they're just protecting legit trade secrets, or something. I hope the NSA knows that answer, though.
It is almost like you didn't know the movie existed, or didn't know that in the leaked speech, that is exactly the context.
When you pay a VIP to come give some talk to your company, who is not even in the same industry as them, they will talk about movies and stuff. That is what they pay for. It is not some super-secret illuminati induction. They literally tried to take her comments about the movie about Lincoln and use it against her, so she explained the context they left out. These attacks are so weak, they turn into softballs! Maybe taking her comments about a movie out of context works great in a fox news sound bite, but fails spectacularly when used in a direct attack in a debate where she can just fill in the blanks.
It is funny to see people pretend to care, but not even catch the events.
The BBC yesterday was reporting that they can't flee west because the US is using air power to deny them access, since there is a giant open stretch of desert to cross and nowhere to hide.
So there is the BBC yesterday, or the rantings last week of an actor/real estate developer. Which is more likely to be news out of Mosul?
Her server wasn't hacked, the State Department's was. The idea that she created a risk is silly. In a more perfect world it would be true, but security is so awful in government it simply isn't true in the real world.
And where are all those Colin Powell emails? Oh right, he didn't use his own server he had hired people to secure, he used a freakin' consumer email from a major provider and would never even be notified if they were hacked.
Most of the Bush administration used the RNC's email server, and they deleted all the emails.
People who actually follow email scandals over time notice some significant differences, mostly in that Clinton's setup was more secure, and also that she deleted a lower percentage of her emails that the median politician in the past 15 years.
Bill Clinton stuck to phone calls and refused email because he didn't want to delete it, or to not delete it. Maybe that is what we should expect, because we're too childish and partisan to allow them to use the tools the way others do.
I can say that as somebody who has been following email scandals since the days when the news had to explain email, it really is a less important issue than a foreign government trying to tamper with our elections. That is new territory and shows we're not at risk of a new Cold War but already years into one.
Did you know the Clinton Foundation is a top rated charity that does real good work? I don't think there is any prohibition on charities collecting money from anybody that will give! Actually most people think, if an evil group gives some money to charity to make themselves look good... the charity might do some real good with that money!
So the malware on Spectrum Health's server is perhaps something that the scanner employed did not find.
I mean, I'm not a conspiracy fan, but them not finding anything only tells me they didn't find anything. You can't expect them to prove a negative, but the second most likely explanation isn't "nothing," but rather routine malware. So their assurance that it is not routine malware, combined with not finding anything, makes me not trust that host at all. Their server is probably totally p0wned.
Their audience is apparently morons who don't know what a ping is.
Well, as an actual software developer who has worked with network protocols I can assure you that there are lots of different types of ping, TCP ping, etc.
Furthermore, those in doubt can just check the RFC for ICMP and discover that it includes echo packets with an arbitrary payload. That should get a person one dim lightbulb away from realizing that you can tunnel other things on top of ICMP, and then from there they might do a search of the interwebs and discover that is old hat.
The pedants in this article are mostly a bunch of tools who don't know an ICMP echo packet from a Russian in a fur hat! Worse, they don't know a Russian ICMP packet in a squirrel toupee from a Brazilian SSH attack!
So even though they're possibly not even talking about ICMP, if they were it would all make sense. But DNS is also used for tunnels, so that's probably what it really is. Also, DNS is more likely to make it into logs that people have legit access to and aren't private.
The vast majority of newer tools that I work with have extensive text documents. The exception, amusingly, is the web interface frameworks. But that is such basic work and the algorithms are so simple, not much documentation is needed other than a list of methods and arguments.
Even something like the ESP-8266 platform had English text documents before videos, and the videos are useless without the text.
There is a trend towards videos because a larger portion of the work can be completed without learning anything too technical or precise, just by banging at the example until the test somebody wrote passes. Then when there is an actual bug that isn't obvious, they spend a week on it until a more sr. member of the team spends 10 minutes to fix it. There is a huge amount of that these days, because many products only exist at a high level and can be assembled by plugging and configuring framework extensions.
My goodness, if an employer would replace an existing employee because they didn't have some flavor on their resume, that is one lucky employee to escape without any effort! I mean, serious, what sort of employer is checking your resume when you already work there?
That is certainly not the way to retain high quality developers who understand algorithms well enough to be working on random platforms for the length of a client contract, especially the sort of short-term crap project where they don't even have the engineering staff involved during negotiations. We know just from that detail that it isn't interesting work.
From afar the names of things seem important, but there are many layers of depth beyond that that are needed for those mere labels to have semantic value within the context of the problem domain. It doesn't matter if I remember the name of a design pattern, what matters is do I remember it when it is relevant, and do I know how to look it up using whatever I remember?
If terms are the hard part, either your brain is wired in a nonstandard way and the value of the labels appears distorted to you, (which is probably benign) or you just don't understand the level of knowledge and expertise that those others who know the terms also have. (which is more likely)
And that is from a person who had the nickname "Dictionary" (not a compliment, amazingly) in school.
You need to read all the works of Ayn Rand so that you know how to phrase your "mercenary" attitude as a deep understanding of the individual work ethic. It really aids in communication with managers. It lets you say the same thing, but in a positive way that will gain their respect, admiration, and deference.
The key hint is that small businesses don't hire an HR consultant; only a payroll accountant. Most of what the corporate role of HR does is related to being a corporation, not related to managing workers. It is just the corporation doesn't have an absolute dictator or team of people who collectively amount to a dictator; a corporation has to hire a professional to make specialized decisions.
Large companies that aren't corporations will have small HR departments with very little power, whose role is just to assist the workers and managers and act as a go-between who can oversee the paperwork. They don't even try to make decisions, or get in the way.
Right, if you're scared about facing uncertainty with 3 months of notice, do not try to be a consultant. You would probably die of a heart attack the first year. Try to understand: if you had the personality for consulting, that would sound like a great deal to you to just put in your notice and have 3 months to get everything ready. After all, if you have the personality to be a consultant, you already save more of your money, and have some set aside for unexpected externalities. It isn't like a contractor works constantly anyways! You have to be ready all the time not to have a contract, not only after 3 months of preparation.
It may not be age at all, but rather ideology. You might believe that as you get older you're owed perpetually increasing pay, but it might turn out that most developers peak as a mid-level employee and will never actually be 2 or 3 times as useful as the guy with only 5 or 10 years of experience. An "impressive" resume is going to hurt because when they look at it they're going to see large pay demands, and not necessarily additional skills that they need. That is especially true if you have balanced experience, because they want balanced employees but they don't want to pay for multi-discipline experts because they don't need it.
How many older devs show up to the interview, "well, I've been doing the same sort of stuff for decades, but using different tools overs the years. I still enjoy it, I could do this forever! I know I'm at the max pay I can expect since I never jumped to management." Then I think you'd find they don't actually care that about age. How many older programmers sound that way? I don't meet them. The ones I meet either have a bunch of complaints, or want something more/else, or think they're very important people because of their age and experience. And if true, great, important people don't even apply for jobs, they just announce that they're available and then choose an offer. But then we usually loop back to the complaints, usually they start with "gosh nobody understands how important I am."
Slashdot Mirror
If generics significantly disrupt the market, then the prices will drop way way down and they won't be a massive waste of money, at worst a small waste of money, and at best a very very durable shiny that lasts a long time and is cheap.
You're clearly disgruntled, but you don't really make a good argument against policy makers responding in realtime to events, which is basically what you rant about using a bunch of unflattering terms.
You do make a good case that you don't understand the policy, but not in a way that suggests possible remedy through explanation.
You also make a good case that you don't understand the different regional groups and ideological forces, other than a vague idea that ethnicity should be tied to ideology and that everybody in the same ethnicity should be on the same side relative to us. The only detail that I want to correct is to note that Turkey is in Iraq helping the Iraqi Kurds fight the daesh infestation in Mosul, and that is entirely consistent with longstanding US and Turkish policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Not to be confused with FUBAR."
From your link:
"Not to be confused with Foobar."
It is like asking what "Hello World" is.
It is a well known technique to hide secret communications in plain sight, because that is where they least stand out. Presumably they trusted their payload to remain secret, and so far it has.
They may even have been surprised to be found by private researchers because of their innocuous obscurity. Perhaps they were avoiding use of channels that are more heavily monitored on the Russian side, worried about NSA moles or other access over there? The list of known unknowns that are relevant is pretty long, even just pulling them out of [a hat]. It isn't hard to realize that we don't (and won't) know.
If the server was hacked, OK, maybe. But the responses from the parties don't really match that. It seems like they'd want to admit that, because it is the least-bad possible answer. But they're denying that too; they probably don't want the server to become evidence.
Why would they bother to tunnel over weird protocols when they could just SSH there? Who should be spying on their traffic, again? If anything, some odd tunnel would make me believe the people who owned it weren't responsible.
In that vein, look at the DNS, it's not even Trump's server!
Great question. Maybe they have an idiot PHB project manager, or some trusted mob guy that they thought was more technical than he actually was? Maybe the Russians think the NSA cracked their SSH and that obscurity is the only game left? Who knows!
Why? I'll tell you why! Because of [long list of known unknowns]!!!
You win the pedantic nerd award.
Gosh, thanks, I'm blushing with joy.
I haven't won a lot of awards, a few chess tournaments maybe, but a pedantic nerd award, I'll cherish that forever!!1!
And yes, the *most evil scenario* is that they're hiding stuff so evil that they want to hide it! And poor opsec.
That isn't debunking, that is verifying. That's exactly what we're here talking about, yes.
Wow, man. Just wow. Nobody is saying there is evidence of a crime, they're saying that is very troubling that a presidential candidate has ties to Russia and denies it, and offers no explanation, and withholds his tax returns.
Exactly. The news isn't that Trump communicates with the bank, it is that he does so and the bank denies it. They don't refuse to answer because client confidentiality; they actually answer the question and deny it.
The whole situation is shocking and suspicious. Maybe it is innocent, but maybe it isn't. If there was nothing there at all, they would not have answered the questions, and the server wouldn't have changed configurations multiple times when questions were asked.
Maybe they're just protecting legit trade secrets, or something. I hope the NSA knows that answer, though.
It is almost like you didn't know the movie existed, or didn't know that in the leaked speech, that is exactly the context.
When you pay a VIP to come give some talk to your company, who is not even in the same industry as them, they will talk about movies and stuff. That is what they pay for. It is not some super-secret illuminati induction. They literally tried to take her comments about the movie about Lincoln and use it against her, so she explained the context they left out. These attacks are so weak, they turn into softballs! Maybe taking her comments about a movie out of context works great in a fox news sound bite, but fails spectacularly when used in a direct attack in a debate where she can just fill in the blanks.
It is funny to see people pretend to care, but not even catch the events.
The BBC yesterday was reporting that they can't flee west because the US is using air power to deny them access, since there is a giant open stretch of desert to cross and nowhere to hide.
So there is the BBC yesterday, or the rantings last week of an actor/real estate developer. Which is more likely to be news out of Mosul?
Her server wasn't hacked, the State Department's was. The idea that she created a risk is silly. In a more perfect world it would be true, but security is so awful in government it simply isn't true in the real world.
And where are all those Colin Powell emails? Oh right, he didn't use his own server he had hired people to secure, he used a freakin' consumer email from a major provider and would never even be notified if they were hacked.
Most of the Bush administration used the RNC's email server, and they deleted all the emails.
People who actually follow email scandals over time notice some significant differences, mostly in that Clinton's setup was more secure, and also that she deleted a lower percentage of her emails that the median politician in the past 15 years.
Bill Clinton stuck to phone calls and refused email because he didn't want to delete it, or to not delete it. Maybe that is what we should expect, because we're too childish and partisan to allow them to use the tools the way others do.
I can say that as somebody who has been following email scandals since the days when the news had to explain email, it really is a less important issue than a foreign government trying to tamper with our elections. That is new territory and shows we're not at risk of a new Cold War but already years into one.
Nice straw man, but the US policy in Syria doesn't require a bunch of volunteers to go and shed their own blood.
It calls for politicians to bomb more stuff, or not, and to authorize additional special operators, or not.
Did you know the Clinton Foundation is a top rated charity that does real good work? I don't think there is any prohibition on charities collecting money from anybody that will give! Actually most people think, if an evil group gives some money to charity to make themselves look good... the charity might do some real good with that money!
So the malware on Spectrum Health's server is perhaps something that the scanner employed did not find.
I mean, I'm not a conspiracy fan, but them not finding anything only tells me they didn't find anything. You can't expect them to prove a negative, but the second most likely explanation isn't "nothing," but rather routine malware. So their assurance that it is not routine malware, combined with not finding anything, makes me not trust that host at all. Their server is probably totally p0wned.
Their audience is apparently morons who don't know what a ping is.
Well, as an actual software developer who has worked with network protocols I can assure you that there are lots of different types of ping, TCP ping, etc.
Furthermore, those in doubt can just check the RFC for ICMP and discover that it includes echo packets with an arbitrary payload. That should get a person one dim lightbulb away from realizing that you can tunnel other things on top of ICMP, and then from there they might do a search of the interwebs and discover that is old hat.
The pedants in this article are mostly a bunch of tools who don't know an ICMP echo packet from a Russian in a fur hat! Worse, they don't know a Russian ICMP packet in a squirrel toupee from a Brazilian SSH attack!
So even though they're possibly not even talking about ICMP, if they were it would all make sense. But DNS is also used for tunnels, so that's probably what it really is. Also, DNS is more likely to make it into logs that people have legit access to and aren't private.
Some Foos are not Bars. Therefore, no Foos are Bars. T/F?
I always assume nothing is threadsafe, including the stuff that claims to be.
You might want to use more words, perhaps even enough to express an idea. I can tell that you're disagreeing with something, but who knows what!
I'm not really convinced even that you understood me, much less that you identified some sort of logical error that I made.
The vast majority of newer tools that I work with have extensive text documents. The exception, amusingly, is the web interface frameworks. But that is such basic work and the algorithms are so simple, not much documentation is needed other than a list of methods and arguments.
Even something like the ESP-8266 platform had English text documents before videos, and the videos are useless without the text.
There is a trend towards videos because a larger portion of the work can be completed without learning anything too technical or precise, just by banging at the example until the test somebody wrote passes. Then when there is an actual bug that isn't obvious, they spend a week on it until a more sr. member of the team spends 10 minutes to fix it. There is a huge amount of that these days, because many products only exist at a high level and can be assembled by plugging and configuring framework extensions.
My goodness, if an employer would replace an existing employee because they didn't have some flavor on their resume, that is one lucky employee to escape without any effort! I mean, serious, what sort of employer is checking your resume when you already work there?
That is certainly not the way to retain high quality developers who understand algorithms well enough to be working on random platforms for the length of a client contract, especially the sort of short-term crap project where they don't even have the engineering staff involved during negotiations. We know just from that detail that it isn't interesting work.
From afar the names of things seem important, but there are many layers of depth beyond that that are needed for those mere labels to have semantic value within the context of the problem domain. It doesn't matter if I remember the name of a design pattern, what matters is do I remember it when it is relevant, and do I know how to look it up using whatever I remember?
If terms are the hard part, either your brain is wired in a nonstandard way and the value of the labels appears distorted to you, (which is probably benign) or you just don't understand the level of knowledge and expertise that those others who know the terms also have. (which is more likely)
And that is from a person who had the nickname "Dictionary" (not a compliment, amazingly) in school.
You need to read all the works of Ayn Rand so that you know how to phrase your "mercenary" attitude as a deep understanding of the individual work ethic. It really aids in communication with managers. It lets you say the same thing, but in a positive way that will gain their respect, admiration, and deference.
The key hint is that small businesses don't hire an HR consultant; only a payroll accountant. Most of what the corporate role of HR does is related to being a corporation, not related to managing workers. It is just the corporation doesn't have an absolute dictator or team of people who collectively amount to a dictator; a corporation has to hire a professional to make specialized decisions.
Large companies that aren't corporations will have small HR departments with very little power, whose role is just to assist the workers and managers and act as a go-between who can oversee the paperwork. They don't even try to make decisions, or get in the way.
Right, if you're scared about facing uncertainty with 3 months of notice, do not try to be a consultant. You would probably die of a heart attack the first year. Try to understand: if you had the personality for consulting, that would sound like a great deal to you to just put in your notice and have 3 months to get everything ready. After all, if you have the personality to be a consultant, you already save more of your money, and have some set aside for unexpected externalities. It isn't like a contractor works constantly anyways! You have to be ready all the time not to have a contract, not only after 3 months of preparation.
It may not be age at all, but rather ideology. You might believe that as you get older you're owed perpetually increasing pay, but it might turn out that most developers peak as a mid-level employee and will never actually be 2 or 3 times as useful as the guy with only 5 or 10 years of experience. An "impressive" resume is going to hurt because when they look at it they're going to see large pay demands, and not necessarily additional skills that they need. That is especially true if you have balanced experience, because they want balanced employees but they don't want to pay for multi-discipline experts because they don't need it.
How many older devs show up to the interview, "well, I've been doing the same sort of stuff for decades, but using different tools overs the years. I still enjoy it, I could do this forever! I know I'm at the max pay I can expect since I never jumped to management." Then I think you'd find they don't actually care that about age. How many older programmers sound that way? I don't meet them. The ones I meet either have a bunch of complaints, or want something more/else, or think they're very important people because of their age and experience. And if true, great, important people don't even apply for jobs, they just announce that they're available and then choose an offer. But then we usually loop back to the complaints, usually they start with "gosh nobody understands how important I am."