Software does not fail, ever

What are you talking about? Software fails all the time, and for many, many reasons. And if if a program is logically correct, the hardware upon which it must run can certainly fail to execute instructions correctly.

Formally correct software does not fail in the sense that it 'suddenly' stops working. If it has a 'bug', then the 'bug' has always been there. That's what I mean with failing, because the parent of my post made an analogy between bridges and computer programs. And hardware failure is not software failure. Bridges fail due to forces outside of your control, but well-formed computer programs do not. Changes to the platform or hardware would mean a new specification is needed, which means redesign. If the platform and hardware is static, it is possible to make a perfect computer program, but it is far from feasible. There is always time and budget constraints, (I acknowledge that, I'm not stupid) but that doesn't change that software which is shipped with flaws is per definition, unfinished, or is based on a flawed specification.

If we are going to punish people, shouldn't everyone involved share in the responsibility?

Nice straw man there. I didn't mention punishment with one word. I contested the analogy in my parent's post.

I hope you are not a software manager. If you are, you are completely and totally ignorant of modern software development processes and I pity anyone who works for you. [...] Get an education. Work in the field for a while. Then come back and perhaps we can have an intelligent dialog.

Great insults. You just lost whatever sound arguments you had.

In projects with tens of thousands of lines of code, it is unreasonable and completely unrealistic to expect every line to be a pinnacle of perfection, just like it is unreasonable to expect that every sentence in a book is completely without error.

Yes, I don't disagree. It seems people took my post a bit too literally. Given that you code against one static platform, it is possible to make bug-free software, but it's usually not feasible in practice. The poster I replied to felt that people were 'barking up the wrong tree' by blaming software engineers more than attackers. It is that part my post addresses. I'm not some nut who thinks that all shipped software can be free of exploits. But I do think that software which is not bug-free is in fact unfinished or has a flawed specification. That this happens to be the case for all but the most trivial software, doesn't change anything.

And yes, I do write code. But if my code fails, I know where to put the blame. At myself. I don't do self-deception. My applications might do their task well enough in most cases, but if they contain bugs or attack vectors, they are by definition not finished.

Putting most of the blame on attackers is a cop-out, which was my point in the previous post.

Software does not fail, ever. It either works according to the specification, or it does not. Any attack vector or 'bug' is a fault with the program which has always been there. Bridges and other structures can't be made 100% secure, but software can and should. If a piece of software is not, then either it does not work according to the specification (as in, not finished), or it was deliberately made to be faulty. This is where your analogy breaks down. A well-formed program is 'invincible', but a bridge can never be, unless someone invents a material which is resistant to corrosion, shock, extreme heat/cold, and never gets tired.

In fact, since software cannot fail, ever, designing a well-formed specification and software following that specification exactly, is the only thing you can be responsible for as a software engineer. Since the very definition of "works according to specification" implies the absence of any vulnerabilities, is it really so hard to see why the blame is put on the software authors, in addition to the 'attackers'?

Feel free to ship unfinished software, or make it insecure on purpose. But then don't be surprised of the opinion customers and your peers hold for you.

I voted logic, but what I really want people to learn is argumentation theory, rhetoric and common logical fallacies. I'm stumped on how many I discuss with who totally fail to see their own flawed arguments. Not only that, they are impossible to persuade or reason with, when or if you challenge them on this. But it's only a dream, I guess.

And banned A-cup breasts from mainstream pornography. Reason? Think-of-the-children mentality again. http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2010/01/28/australia-bans-small-breasts-as-child-pornography/ I found that both amusing and shocking. It's not about children's safety anymore, but pushing moral values and acting as thought-police.

So you think pedophilia is 'curable'? It's not more curable than say, homosexuality is. It's a sexual preference. If that's not what you meant, how do you figure that getting an outlet for ones urges somehow makes a person even more desperate? In my head, it's kind of the other way around.

I beg to differ. For example, you can measure all the angles in the known universe if you want to, but you will *never* be able to prove the Pythagoras theorem wrong. For sound mathematical proofs, they precede experiments. Note that I only think this makes sense for mathematical proofs.

DIE! Just give it up already. It's not even fun anymore.
Incidentally, which is hardest to kill? DNF or Jack Thompson?

So God is the HIV virus?

The word you're looking for is probably intent, not purpose.

When I was twelve, I moved from QBasic to C. C isn't that difficult to understand. If the child doesn't show any interest, don't push him/her. It takes a certain level of curiosity to like programming. It isn't for everyone. Choosing a dumbed-down toy-language doesn't make a difference, but being a good teacher does.

Did you forget the 28800 baud modem? :-)

All algorithms can be described by lambda calculus: Wikipedia:Lamda_calculus

I loved AvP back in 1999. Sure, the campaign was short, but there was one for each race, remember? Besides, the *real* fun was to play multiplayer via Gamespy or MPlayer. I used to play 1 vs 7 team deathmatch against my buddies with me as alien and the other team as whatever race they wanted. I won single-handedly every time because the alien was so fast. Hit'n'run tactics for the win.

Sadly, they nerfed the alien in AvP2. That game *really* sucked. Instead of decent jumping, they added a pounce attack, which made your enemy explode, leaving no body to let you regain health. And yeah, I do agree with the franchise mix. The Alien and Predator universes are better separated than combined. I really look forward to Colonial Marines.