Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:they couldn't have just read Dilbert? (Score 1) 203

by Tablizer (#46792207) Attached to: California Utility May Replace IT Workers with H-1B Workers

It's so universal it's seen everywhere.

Managers should also be formally judged by their underlings. If they score low or fail to improve in problem categories, they get docked pay.

It can be an anonymous survey with 20 or so categories such as "Shows respect to me (employee)", "Explains my tasks clearly", "Listens to and thoughtfully considers my opinion", "Gives me meaningful and relevant work", "Explains the purpose of my work in terms of organizational goals", etc.

Comment: Re:Outsourcing! Management Sux! What?!? (Score 1) 203

by Tablizer (#46792161) Attached to: California Utility May Replace IT Workers with H-1B Workers

But third-world labor is often cheaper because those countries don't have and/or enforce labor, safety, and pollution laws. Should we trash the USA in order to compete with those used to living in trashy country?

Further, individuals here don't have the ability to change their entire country even if they personally wanted the trade-offs offered by such an Ayn Rand "paradise".

And why reward trashy countries for being trashy by giving them our jobs? We should encourage them to get civilized.

Comment: Dilbert is Real (Score 4, Funny) 203

by Tablizer (#46792075) Attached to: California Utility May Replace IT Workers with H-1B Workers

SCE's management culture may be particularly primed for firing its IT workers...One observation in this report...was that 'employees perceive managers to be more concerned about how they 'look' from above, and less concerned about how they are viewed by their subordinates.

PHB1: "This survey shows our employees think we in management are clueless superficial jerks. What do we do about it?"

PHB2: "I got it! Fire them all and outsource their work to new people who don't yet know we are clueless superficial jerks."

PHB1: "Brilliant! Let's vote ourselves a raise for this plan!"

Comment: Re:So what? (Score 0, Flamebait) 313

by HBI (#46790193) Attached to: VA Supreme Court: Michael Mann Needn't Turn Over All His Email

Because he knows that the data is cherry picked and manipulated. Everyone knows that, otherwise there would be no hockey stick. The defamation suit would fail. So concealing the maximum amount of information benefits his very weak case.

He'll probably lose the defamation case, in any event. Regardless of what data ultimately is clawed away from him.

Comment: From basic programming to advanced (Score 1) 232

by erroneus (#46788115) Attached to: Bug Bounties Don't Help If Bugs Never Run Out

Like so many others, my first code was:


We started out with some basic operations and grew from there. Unfortunately most people kept what they liked and discarded the rest. Things like data and input validation are seen as a waste of time by so many. Strings and other data which get passed to other processes in other languages (like SQL, or Windows image libraries) also warrant some inspection.

The types of vulnerabilities we find most often happen because programmers are neglecting to pay attention to some of these very basic things. Others are more complex, but if these basic issues are still going on, then it's hard to see programmers as generally professional whether they are commercial or open source writers.

It may come as a surprise to some people, but the mistakes made in coding these days are increasingly critical in nature as civilization is increasingly reliant on what is being written and run out there. Much scrutiny and soul searching should be done. (It won't happen until some really bad things happen and frankly, the truly bad things are too much of an advantage to alphabet agencies so we won't hear a push for this from government in case anyone was waiting for it.)


Bug Bounties Don't Help If Bugs Never Run Out 232

Posted by Soulskill
from the trying-to-bail-the-ocean dept.
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.

Comment: Re:Waste? (Score 1) 213

by bigpat (#46787769) Attached to: MIT Designs Tsunami Proof Floating Nuclear Reactor

And there is a good solution for storage, but the allies of the fossil fuel industry have combined with the anti nuclear folks to block Yucca mountain from opening. Bury the nuclear waste deep in the earth, because that is where it came from in the first place.

It is very sad for the thousands of people that lost their homes because of radiation around Fukushima. But compare that evacuation to the effects of the earthquake and tsunami itself, which claimed the lives of 15,885 people and injured 6,148 with 2623 people still missing, the response to the radiation leak is just one after effect of the tsunami, but it hasn't caused any deaths.

As for "Such a fire will render the U.S "virtually" uninhabitable.".... a hundred nuclear weapons were detonated on the US mainland as part of above ground nuclear weapons tests. While I think that was incredibly stupid and irresponsible and there have certainly been health effects and increased cancer deaths in the decades afterwards, the radiation leaks at nuclear power plants pale in comparison to the radiation released by those above ground tests and as far as I can tell the US is still inhabitable.

Comment: Re:ALL the exchanges failed (Score 1) 155

by Tablizer (#46785523) Attached to: Oracle Deflects Blame For Troubled Oregon Health Care Site

was that the rollout was rushed for political reasons. If it were slowed down then the republicans might have had more success killing it before implementation.

That might be "political" reasons, but it's also practical reasons. If you want to get certain things done, you have to race against competition trying to kill it.

For about 100 years various presidents and lawmaking groups have tried to enact a medical insurance program of some sort, only to see it smashed down. With that kind of record you know you have to move quickly and take some risk to slip through the narrow cracks of opportunity that present themselves.

Like it or hate it, ACA is a monumental political endeavor with equally monumental forces pushing against it. The horse has to be big and ride fast to get something like this through, and that probably means inadvertently stepping on and squashing stuff along the way.

When Biden was caught on mike saying, "This is a big fucking deal!", it was no exaggeration.

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all alike.