Sorry, but no. For example, one of the most important threats these days in the banking industry is data leakage. No amount of input data validation is going to help one bit there. These aspects are all critical. Mess up one, and all is lost. That is what makes software security so difficult: You have to master the whole problem space before you can produce good solutions. Incidentally, there are rules "11: Always consider the business case" and "12: Do a conclusive risk and exposure-analysis and rate and document your findings" which are the make-or-break aspects and it are completely missing from the list.

You can. But you need to be aware that 99.9% of people doing PHP or Java or the JVM do not have what it takes to make anything that may see real attacks secure. People that can secure things in this particular problem space are exceedingly rare and exceedingly expensive. One problem is that you cannot use most/all libraries for security critical functions, and may well have to augment the JVM via JNI for secure input validation. Most Java folks are not capable of doing that at all.

While the brochure referenced is nice, anybody that needs it has zero business building anything security-critical. It does take a lot of experience and insights to apply the described things in practice in a way that is reliable, efficient and secure and respects business aspects and the user. Personally, I have more than 20 years of experience with software security and crypto, and looking back, I think I became a competent user, designer and architect only after 10 years on this way. The problem here is that as software security is very hard, a specialized form of the Dunning-Kruger effect applies. The things I have seen people do that though they understood software security are staggering. Unless you have achieved a holistic view of the problem-space, do not even try to design any security critical software.

Statistics show that women are much more likely to use poison.
Also, feminist logic immediately shows that AC is a man, as AC is obviously an asshole and only men qualify for that.
So I deduce that you are anti-feminist as you are not following feminist logic.

That said, I am anti-idiot myself.

Those who are dead via saline solution can be told once they're... ummm... undead.

Think about it. If I have a grievance from 2006 then I was active on wikipedia then. Ergo it was substantially more gender balanced. And as a point of fact your psychic skills sucked. I could care less about userboxes I wasn't in to them then. But I did observe the change.

You must be a brave or a stupid man. I would not eat anything prepared by somebody I treat like that. (Not that I treat anybody like that...)

To be fair, men are about the same, just with a different variant of social bullshit. My take would be that 99.99% of men have nothing to contribute to Wikipedia while 99.999% of women have nothing to contribute. What, that makes this "gender gap" look insignificant? Well, while lying with statistics is easy, truth is a little harder but usually possible.

What, common sense? No, no, no! You have completely misunderstood what this fight is about!

In other news, women are waking up to the little side-effects of requiring equal representation everywhere (instead of the sane "gender-neutral opportunity" -- "equal" opportunity is not doable, as talents, interests and education differ between individuals): http://www.smh.com.au/federal-... Of course, if there are no differences between the sexes (yeah, right...), then this is all imaginary.

Aehm, moderators can down-mod but not "delete".

It is pretty pathetic when original stories do not contain any journalism as in verification and clarification and using plain, apparently old-fashioned common sense. The correction is the only good thing here, and how common "journalism" fails to deliver seems to have become a story in its own right. Again.

Another post devoid of any connection to the one above it. Why bother?
You still haven't told me why you chose to jump on to give me a lecture despite not actually reading more than the start of the post that was the target of your lecture. Are you the holder of both the narcc account and SuperKendall pretending to be an unrelated person? Are you the ten year old child of the actual owner of the narcc account? Is this some stupid Eliza script being run as a game? Either way, why do you feel that you are in a position where you are fit to lecture me when your own behaviour shows a distinct lack of maturity? Why should I roll over when some immature little shit attempts to bring me to task yet the little shit is in some way above criticism?

It is pretty easy to date the why. In 2006 there was a thing called the Userbox wars. There isn't a good page on wikipedia about this. Prior to 2006 Wikipedia user pages were sort of like myspace pages for wikipedia editors. They had lots of personal information and people chatted. Jimmy Wales wanted userspace to be about the encyclopedia. At the same time he didn't want mass deletions. There were mass deletions and the this wasn't easily reversed. The tone changed. This was one of the big steps towards the deletionists winning control of Wikipedia entirely. But if you want to know when the gender's changed this was a crucial moment.

Of course the deletionists winning even more battles probably didn't help

Links:
A few statements on Userboxes but not enough to understand what happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What "deletionists" are and what Wikipedia was like before them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And that's the real problem - how do you properly draw the line between apps that are legitimate but happen to be similar because one inspired the other, and apps that are pure scamware and trying to undermine the original developer?

That's what trademarks are for.

I'm an Apple user. I can accuse Microsoft of a lot but yes they are substantially more open than Apple:

a) Their hardware base system is extremely open. Apple provides very limited hardware choice
b) Their driver selection is 2nd to none. Incredible. Apple is far worse than Linux and might even be worse than other BSDs.
c) Azure (their cloud offering) is probably the most open cloud out there. Certainly among the big players. Apple's cloud is completely tied to their platform and they don't allow other clouds.
d) Their enterprise apps tend to play well with others and allow you to mix and match.

etc...