It goes further... their scheme requires that the people holding the parts of the key work together regularly whenever access is needed. This is likely to be thousands of times every year. There's no way to keep a secret that needs to be accessed so often by so many. Enigma was broken due to poor operational security, not poor technology. Venona broke one-time pads due to poor OpSec. An encryption scheme used by all authorities wanting decrypts of cell phones would involve tens of thousands of people and would be impossible to carry out without making egregious operational errors. Add to that the fact that none of those who hold the keys have much to lose when they screw up. War time operatives know their way of life depends on them not screwing up. The local FBI office only cares about decrypting the phone, if they screw up, it doesn't hurt them, but it hurts me.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Are you suggesting that Cook should not speak out against any social issue until he fully researches how the issue is handled everywhere in the world and only after he has prepared a complete response that is all-encompassing?
Fiorina's statement is a standard deflection technique to change focus from the good things an opponent does to something less good.
If you trust him, work through his last days as usual, just switch him to hand-over tasks instead of new work.
If you don't trust him, walk him out now and revoke all access.
Testing is an integral part of every development step, not something you tack on the end.
Good thing you know that we don't do unit testing... otherwise where we we learn that we were doing it wrong? Are you also going to assuming we don't do everything else I don't mention? I re-read my post and I can't find any part of it that could be used to infer that unit testing isn't part of our process.
Also, if you leave code review until after the product has passed all testing phases, then you have two problems. First, if you change anything after the code review, then you're not done testing, so the only way to do code review last is to magically have code that always zooms through code review with no comments. Second, you'll never get approval to fix more than a trivial amount of code if the pointy-haired boss knows the customer has already signed off; that's the classic path to being forced support bad code.
I have to agree. If it has gotten through "design reviews, code reviews, standards, pair programming, etc..." and doesn't work when it gets to test, you have a problem.
in these cases, "doesn't work" is a matter of interpretation. It's usually a defect or omission in the spec.
Whether it works is orthogonal to quality. Good code can be fixed easily, so good code is always a short distance from "it works". Bad code can quickly go from "it works" to "it doesn't work and I don't know why" with just a simple change in requirements.
One of my rules is that the customer is the judge of whether is works or not, but the team is the judge of whether it is good or not. If the only person to evaluate the product is the customer, then you are pretty much guaranteed to have bad code. Code quality management comes before testing in the form of design reviews, code reviews, standards, pair programming, etc...
if you lie on anything that can be verified, you're disqualified.
Tried that. Most of the candidates said they were the primary developer using a technology that, after two minutes of questioning, they had obviously never used before. I had several instances where the person I interviewed wasn't the person that showed up for the job.
I used to do a lot of contractor hiring. I started with the attitude "if you lie on your resume, I won't even consider you". After realizing that I would never hire anyone - I backed off on the attitude. The interview process became an exercise in determining what the candidate knows, while the candidate made every attempt possible to deceive me. It was very disheartening and I hated hiring someone who lied to my face for 60 minutes straight because he lied less than everyone else and was the most likely of the bunch to get the job done.
BTW, this was at a really big company and 99% of the resumes that HR sent me were educated in India and came to the US to work in the previous three to five years.
Sure you could put Niagara Falls in a dam, but it wouldn't be pretty.
They went through a lot of effort to get hydro power from Niagara Falls without ruining the tourist attraction factor. Instead of turning it into a dam, a three square mile reservoir was built and water is diverted from the upper river to this reservoir (mostly) at night. During the day, the dam creates energy by draining the reservoir into the lower river. No part of the power generation system is within a mile of the falls itself.