Bennett Haselton writes: "I was an early advocate of companies offering cash prizes to researchers who found security holes in their products, so that the vulnerabilities can be fixed before the bad guys exploited them. I still believe that prize programs can make a product safer under certain conditions. But I had naively overlooked that under an alternate set of assumptions, you might find that not only do cash prizes not make the product any safer, but that nothing makes the product any safer — you might as well not bother fixing certain security holes at all, whether they were found through a prize program or not." Read on for the rest of Bennett's thoughts.
You mean you can print in 3D now? Why have you guys kept that so quiet for so long?
Ah now to be fair, pulseaudio wasn't all bad. In its early mainstream (Fedora 12?) days, when I had audio problems, I knew that I could always type `killall pulseaudio` and reliably solve them.
All of us. We just choose a different place to start.
cold fjord sends news that a study by Coverity has found open-source Python code to contain a lower defect density than any other language. "The 2012 Scan Report found an average defect density of .69 for open source software projects that leverage the Coverity Scan service, as compared to the accepted industry standard defect density for good quality software of 1.0. Python's defect density of .005 significantly surpasses this standard, and introduces a new level of quality for open source software. To date, the Coverity Scan service has analyzed nearly 400,000 lines of Python code and identified 996 new defects — 860 of which have been fixed by the Python community."
Especially from a glowing review that explains how it's a book that is effective due to its non-quick-fix approach, and yet Amazon tells me was published less than 6 weeks ago?
Vim? Joining 10 tables is a ballache in terms of typing, but it's not actually
/hard/ - any more than writing a function with 10 statements is hard. You just need to step away from the ORM long enough to realise that actually relational databases are perfectly logical and easy (well, as easy as any other programming) despite what various frameworks have screamed at you for years.
The study only looked at elective surgery, not urgent surgery.
They did, but it was temporary; it has since been restored - but with the "Important note" about the issues people have faced trying to get it to work properly.
You wouldn't, and that's the problem I have with most of the "go back to the good old days!" posts. That only works if the cost of hosting the site is cheap enough to fall in to a person's "hobby-level expenditure". Anything even remotely popular is going to cost orders of magnitude more than that; that requires either direct payment, corporate ownership, or corporate sponsorship - the most common form of which is advertising.
I'm not so sure that their targetting is all that great - I keep getting dating ads, despite being "in a relationship", and Christian-centric ads despite being an atheist.
I mean I guess the summary could have been written in a more cunty way, but I don't see how. So high fives all round!
True. These infernal "computer" things would be going nowhere if it weren't for the clever marketing.
If you read the article it's barely even that - they're tracking their use of that site, not their computer (or web) use in general. It really is a complete non-story.