Tänane tsitaat

tuleb Steve McDonnelli raamatust Code Complete. Sama asi kehtib ka süsteemihoolduse kohta, paraku.

Gonzo Programming

If you haven’t spent at least a month working on the same program— working 16 hours a day, dreaming about it during the remaining 8 hours of restless sleep, working several nights straight through trying to eliminate that “one last bug” from the program— then you haven’t really written a complicated computer program. And you may not have the sense that there is something exhilarating about programming. —Edward Yourdon

This lusty tribute to programming machismo is pure B.S. and an almost certain recipe for failure. Those all-night programming stints make you feel like the greatest programmer in the world, but then you have to spend several weeks correcting the defects you installed during your blaze of glory. By all means, get excited about programming. But excitement is no substitute for competency. Remember which is more important.

McConnell, Steve (2004-06-09). Code Complete (Developer Best Practices) (Kindle Locations 20402-20405). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.

Advertisements
Tänane tsitaat

Päeva tsitaat

tuleb sedapuhku küll eelmisest nädalast. Daniel Gross ütles Niall Fergusonist rääkides välja järgmised kuldsed sõnad:

H.L. Mencken tagged the Puritans as people possessed of the “haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” Ferguson represents a strain of intellectual Toryism bedeviled by the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be getting social insurance.

Painavat hirmu, et keegi kusagil saab äkki sotsiaaltoetust, tuleb ka meie “valgetes erakondades” üksjagu ette. Nimesid ei hakka eraldi välja tooma. Eks neid viimase aja sotsiaalministreid ja tulnukaid mäleta igaüks.

Päeva tsitaat

Päeva tsitaat

pärineb sedapuhku John Holbo sulest:

[…] someone should rewrite Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit as a Wodehouse novel, with the title Absolutely Jeeves! (Alternate, Kierkegaardian version: Beer and Trembling.)

[…]

OK, let me explain the Hegel joke. Hegel is, of course, the original theorist of singularity. (He’s Kurzweil, minus the technology.) True, Prussian bureaucracy is a very weak, weak AI, but close enough for government work.

(And, of course, Parmenides was really the first to advocate singularity, but who’s counting?)

The main point of Hegel, so far as I can tell, is that without Hegel – to make Kierkegaard’s Hegel jokes funny – Kierkegaard’s jokes wouldn’t be funny. Indeed, they wouldn’t be jokes at all. So you should read Hegel for the jokes, and only for the jokes. Of course, Hegel couldn’t see this, but that’s how the worm of Absolute Spirit, Coming To Know Itself As Itself (a.k.a. technological singularity) turns.

Päeva tsitaat

Kuidas olla poliitikute vastu väga hea

Veel üks tsitaat, sedapuhku Matthew Symondsi raamatust “Softwar. An intimate portrait of Larry Ellison and Oracle“.

Disklaimer: järgnev jutt ei ole kohe üldse maadevahetamiste ja kinkekaartidega seotud. Kuid väikseid järeldusi kohaliku poliitilise kultuuri kohta võib teha küll…

Al Gore, with his carefully cultivated contacts in the tech business and high-profile support for the Internet, might have seemed a natural home for some of Ellison’s money. But Ellison despised Gore. After buying the parallel processing computer firm nCUBE, Ellison went to see then Senator Gore to complain about the preferential treatment that a rival, Thinking Machines, seemed to be getting. Not only was Thinking Machines winning government contracts at nCUBE’s expense, but it was also being directly supported with tax dollars that Gore had been instrumental in steering its way. Ellison says that when he complained to Gore about this double whammy, the future vice president smiled and said to him, “What you’ve got to understand, Larry, is that Thinking Machines has been very good to me.” Ellison exploded. “What do you mean, they’ve been good to you? Just how good have they been, Senator? What units of goodness are we talking about here?” Ellison says simply, “I guess he just wanted me to offer him a campaign contribution similar to the one he was getting from Thinking Machines, but back then I didn’t know how the game was played, so I just kind of lost it. Now I know how the game is played, but I don’t want to play it.”

Ääremärkuse korras, Obama presidendikampaania lõpusirgel oli tema vastu väga hea näiteks Oracle president Charles Phillips

Kuidas olla poliitikute vastu väga hea

Päeva tsitaat: Mary Ann Davidson web 2.0’ist, turvalisusest ja defconnist

Mary Ann, Oracle CSO kirjutab niimoodi:

I was reminded in a frightening way recently that people worship new technology without in many cases either analyzing what problem it solves or whether the benefits are worth the risks. Specifically, I recently heard a highly placed official in the Department of Defense opine about the fact that DoD wants to embrace Web 2.0 because (to paraphrase), “We need to attract and keep all these young people and they won’t work here if we don’t let them use Facebook in the workplace.” What are people going to use Facebook for in the Defense Department, one wants to know? <”Hi, my name is Achmed and I am an Al Qaeda operative. I like long walks on the beach and IEDs. Will you be my friend?” I don’t think so.>

The official went on to say that industry really needed to secure all these Web 2.0 technologies. At that point, I could not contain myself. I asked the gentleman if the Department of Defense was planning on taking container ships and retrofitting them to be aircraft carriers, or buying Lear jets and making them into F-22 Raptors? No, he said. Then why, I offered, does DoD think that the IT industry can take technologies that were never designed with security in mind and “secure them?” Why is IT somehow different that we can, ex post facto, make things secure that were never designed for the threat environment in which they are now deployed?

[…]

Your “tools” need to be designed for the environment in which they are going to operate. If they aren’t, you are going to have trouble my friend, right here in River City (with apologies to Meredith Willson). To put it even more succinctly (more apologies to Meredith Willson): “You gotta know the territory.” Meredith Willson was not writing about security when he wrote The Music Man, but “you gotta know the territory” is as succinct a description of a security weenie’s responsibilities as ever there was.

Mind you, I understand that the idea of collaboration is a powerful one and, if it is appropriately secure, can be a powerful construct. We read, for example, that the intelligence community has created an internal Web 2.0 construct called Intellipedia (along the same lines as Wikipedia). It makes sense that, instead of having one expert on, say, Syrian antiaircraft defense, that that person’s knowledge can be written down and accessed by others. In a way, that kind of collaboration facilitates “legacy” because someone who knows something valuable can share it with others far more easily than through one-on-one oral transmission. But there is a big difference between “let’s embrace collaborative constructs” and “let’s allow insecure and unsecurable Web 2.0 technologies into a classified environment.”

The key to the new is remembering the universal truths of old – legacies. This is particular true in security in that, while the attack vectors may change as the technology does, there are principles of security that do not change (“trust, but verify” works just as well for IT security as for arms control).

Suurepärane artikkel, soovitan soojalt lugeda.

Päeva tsitaat: Mary Ann Davidson web 2.0’ist, turvalisusest ja defconnist