Comment Re: Boot-licking sacks of shit. (Score 3, Funny) 83
I read this in Dale Gribble's voice.
I read this in Dale Gribble's voice.
Except trees tend to self-perpetuate. One million trees could turn in to 5 million trees in 20 years.
Software development methodologies exist specifically for managers [not developers] to run projects. More specifically, for "not great managers". There are more bad managers than good managers, so the methodology fills the gap. A good manager does not need the methodology.
Early in my career, I exclusively had bad PMs. I honestly could not figure out what value they were supposed to add and made fun of the profession... until the day I had a great PM. Everything suddenly clicked at that moment. I have a feeling many people have never had a good manager.
We all joke about "the year of the Linux desktop", but the reality is, it could never happen without SystemD--or something that looks like it.
SystemD gets a lot of hate, but SystemD is really only a small part of the overall "modern" Linux system that deviates significantly from old-school Unix.
D-Bus is really at the root of the changes to modern Linux. D-Bus allows you to programmatically manage other subsystems, such as SystemD (services and devices), NetworkManager (network), udisks (disk management), etc. I have done some limited work with system management via D-Bus. It is a less than perfect solution, but I can appreciate what it brings to the table.
The reality is we need to get away from using shell scripts to manage servers. SystemD just happens to be one of the steps on the road to hell that is modern operating system.
I do not understand. In this scenario, do the Democrats or Republicans represent the mosquitos?
Ah, the Russians have found their way back. I was worried you guys were lost forever. Welcome comrade!
tax doge... That name is just perfection
"manipulation of results" has such a negative connotation. In reality, it is de-manipulation of results. The misinformation campaigns are targeted, SEO-optimized efforts designed to increase their own rankings in the search engine results--the very definition of manipulation.
Modern search engine algorithms are not designed to show the most relevant results to a person's search, but to show the most relevant results to a persons *interest*. The algorithms tend to bring click-bait to the foreground.
You are so close, but miss the forest for the trees.
This is the whole point. The worst thing that can happen with Google achieving a 75% accuracy in identifying an individual might result in ads for penis enlargements going to the wrong person...
But correctly identifying 99% of the cheaters and 1% false accusations that can cause innocent people to be kicked out of school and left in 10s of thousands in debt. But at least you got the low hanging fruit, right?
The article specifically calls out the use case of tracking IP addresses for people using secondary machines.
As they say, never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
Read the article. It specifically mentions tracking IP addresses for people using a second device to lookup answers.
If you imagine a venn diagram, companies that develop test proctoring solutions and tracking companies are separate circles with no crossover.
Student A is cheating by looking for answers online.
Student B is not cheating.
Student A and B are both behind the same NAT IP address.
Student B is labeled a cheater because his IP address was logged as hitting the honeypot site.
This is a problem. Period.
It says "everyone" in the summary, but this is the real story. Maybe the first few months it might affect everyone, but at some point, it is only going to affect people that are low enough on the ladder to not get out of it.
That appears to absolve its users/adopters of their fiducial responsibility, but should not.
This is despite the fact that free and open source software licences have a very explicit As-Is clauses in them.
What the hell are you going on about? "Fiduciary" makes absolutely no sense in this context, but I will just roll with it in the spirit of Christmas.
If you are a commercial software vendor with support contracts with your customers, and you use open source software for your product, you bear the burden of support. You agreed to the as-is terms of the open source license and your users pay you to fix problems.
If you are selling support contracts for your software, you bear the "fiduciary" burden of your contract. In other words, there is no fiduciary for the open source license.
For the log4j team, this "huge security vulnerability for the industry" was just a Tuesday. A security bug (or two) was reported, and they fixed it.
developers need to know is how to make the EncodeForTransmission() and DecodeAndValidate() calls.
Error detection/correction works on a much lower level than this.
No one is doing an EncodeForTransmission("text of this email")
I see you have never used PHP.
For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!
