jaawn

13 ms·

61.
by jaawn 11y ago
Indeed, which is why I said a combination is the best solution. The benefits of each can be emphasized, and the issues of each can be more effectively mitigated.
62.
by jaawn 11y ago
I didn't say they are "unsocialized," I merely said it is more difficult for them to develop peer social skills. Let's not devolve the discussion to black & white thinking.
63.
by jaawn 11y ago
This sounds like a good model to start with, I hadn't heard of it before.
64.
by jaawn 11y ago
No, I literally meant homeschooling. Not all types of socializing are the same. The main thing home-schooled kids miss out on is being put in rooms with a diverse set of people, some of which are likely to be very different from them. Th
65.
by jaawn 11y ago
That still causes issues. Co-ops are still extremely insular. It isn't an issue of being anti-social, it is an issue of being exposed to a vast and diverse set of different people with different biases, backgrounds, and abilities. Ho
66.
by jaawn 11y ago
I have heard this about India and other countries as well. I think the original article is mainly talking about the United States though, and as others have said, the University you attend here matters very little for most jobs. The mai
67.
by jaawn 11y ago
I think probably a better solution is some sort of combination between home schooling and public school. Homeschooling alone makes it hard for children to learn peer social skills, and it makes it more difficult for them to relate later on
68.
by jaawn 11y ago
Thank you! Facebook is blocked where I work, so this gives me a chance to read this when I have some time.
69.
by jaawn 11y ago
If they discovered an issue in Windows, and it led to gag orders, why would they tell people to move to BitLocker (a Microsoft product)?
70.
by jaawn 11y ago
I would consider that "some version of the source code". However, this is one of the reasons I disagree with Oracle on the matter. There are tools which actually can and do find issues at this low level (even if there are false p
71.
by jaawn 11y ago
The blog post doesn't make me think of license-agreements-as-a-weapon. Oracle's position is probably the strictest I've seen anyone be in favor of software IP protection. They are not adversarial, they are supremely protect
72.
by jaawn 11y ago
This isn't entirely accurate. There are restrictions on the legality of decompilation in Europe. The main one being that "...decompilation must be necessary to achieve interoperability with the target program or other programs.
73.
by jaawn 11y ago
I disagree. The author implies several times that the main issue, and the reason for the ban on reverse engineering in the agreement, is protection of intellectual property (source code). People may do other types of vulnerability testing
74.
by jaawn 11y ago
What you just described agrees with my definition. The ultimate goal of both teams was to end up with usable source code that is likely to be close or identical to the original used to create the binary. There is a slight difference in th
75.
by jaawn 11y ago
It is totally fine to be frustrated by humans being stupid, but some humans really do have less cognitive abilities than others. In at least some of those cases it isn't their fault necessarily. So, I'm just making the point that
76.
by jaawn 11y ago
People have different understandings of words, so I'm not claiming there is one, universal meaning of "software reverse engineering." However, here is the definition some researchers came up with: "Reverse engineering is
77.
by jaawn 11y ago
Why should you be angry? They are just being stupid. Being stupid is something humans do naturally. Choosing to rely on someone who is verifiably stupid (in your opinion) is significantly worse, I think, than the original stupidity. edit:
78.
by jaawn 11y ago
I think there may be a language barrier here. So, this should clear it up: The only definition of "reverse engineering software" that I use is this -- "Using tools and deep binary analysis to take a compiled binary, and co
79.
by jaawn 11y ago
I think that is a very reasonable course of action, and that is my point. Rather than complain about the no-reverse-engineering thing, you really should just move everything you can off of Oracle systems if you disagree with them on this.
80.
by jaawn 11y ago
Oh yes, I agree. That is why I think it makes sense to tell everyone you can about the issue. However, there is only so much anyone can do about it, and technically it isn't Oracle's fault that people won't listen, only the
81.
by jaawn 11y ago
If you're forced to use their software, and you disagree with their strong closed-source stance, you should share your views with whoever is doing the "forcing" (your employer?). If they don't listen, it's on them.
82.
by jaawn 11y ago
Since Oracle has made it clear that they do not want to collaborate with third parties on their code, the most reasonable responses would be either 1) trust them and follow their agreement or 2) don't trust them and use a different sol
83.
by jaawn 11y ago
Reverse engineering software is completely different from penetration testing, and it is the reverse engineering bit that Oracle has an issue with. They mostly just don't want anyone/everyone trying to recreate their source code
84.
by jaawn 11y ago
That's a fair point, but it is a blog post, which implies that the tone will be more personal and informal. The author stated a few times that these were her personal views. I took it more as frustrated rather than condescending.
85.
by jaawn 11y ago
I don't really see how a lot of the responses here match with the original blog post. People seem to be airing a lot of long-standing grievances about Oracle rather than responding to the specific post on its own. Viewed on its own,
86.
by jaawn 11y ago
This is a very reasonable point. By the same logic, there should not be a single European action taken against Google either. The people behind all of the political resistance to Google in EU countries seem to all be from, or tied to, EU
87.
by jaawn 11y ago
I have seen several comments that basically say "Google puts customers first, but this goes against the EU's strong preference to protect local workers." It is not "customers over workers" it is "customers over
88.
by jaawn 11y ago
And those systems all have humans operating in conjunction with them, none of those things are (currently) autonomous. The success thus far of life-critical code usually depends partially on the assistance of humans.
89.
by jaawn 11y ago
I agree with this letter, and I'm glad it was created. Some commenters are skeptical that we can realistically ban fully automated weapons, but I disagree. A practical approach could be to ban them, and invest in R&D on effective
90.
by jaawn 11y ago
The bubble is clearly visible here: http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/SHSZ300:IND (change time frame to 5Y) Based on my completely non-expert analysis, it looks like the index is likely to drop down to around 2,800-3,000

More ›