The best programmers are better at talking to users and customers, because that is the harder skill. Programming isn’t a solo activity - at the very least the programmer is working with their past and future selves. Which of Linus’s projects have had the bigger impact - Linux or git?
Being able to work with another skilled programmer (be that yourself in the future or someone you're working on a kernel with) is not the same kind of skillset as being able to talk to an end user about what the pain points are in their day to day work and trying to actually sympathise with them and understand what problems they're encountering without making the rookie mistake of taking everything the user said at face value and designing a system around it.
These are disparate skillsets and both of them are difficult to master. Claiming one is harder than the other is really quite shallow. Some people are going to naturally have an easier time picking up one skillset while other will have a naturally easier time picking up the other skillset. I think rather than trying to pretend like people should stop focusing on hard skills and start focusing on soft skills, we could realise for a moment that it does nobody any good to take people who are good at one task and insist that they must retrain for another when there are already plenty of people who are good at the other task.
It would make more sense to get these groups of people to learn just enough of the opposite person's skillset so that they can effectively communicate and as a result form a well functioning two-sided system where one group of people talks to users and analyses their requirements and the other group of people actually works off of these more concrete better defined requirements to actually implement the software.
If you think that "soft skills" are harder than "hard skills" it's probably because they're harder for you, that doesn't mean they're harder for everyone, and instead of pretending like this is some kind of major flaw in your own professional development, you could treat it as a gap which could be filled by people who have the opposite view of difficulty.
> The best programmers are better at talking to users and customers, because that is the harder skill.
Uh, what? Most humans find social skills much easier to learn than crunchy engineering skills. Good social skills are way more common in society than, say, deep knowledge of algorithms and data structures.
But it’s not a competition. As you say, programming is rarely a solo activity. Our projects can fail due to a lack of teamwork. Or a lack of technical skill. Or a lack of empathy with our users. Or a lack of leadership. Or a dozen other things.
We need (and need to value, depending on the project) all of this stuff.
As someone who cares about security, thanks Google!
As someone who administers some servers that are affected by this, I'm annoyed, because I now have a new project that has to be done within the next 6 months.
It's the sign of a corrupt state if you're hoping to get justice by having the cops ignore the law. You can't blame cops for enforcing the laws; if you want the laws changed, change them.
> It's the sign of a corrupt state if you're hoping to get justice by having the cops ignore the law.
Look, I don't disagree with this. But the die has been cast. You probably spend more of your waking hours committing crimes than not committing them. You can blame cops for enforcing laws just like you can blame anyone for doing something they know is wrong, whether because "it's their job" or for any other reason. There's not just one way to attack a system you don't like. Fight on all fronts. You'll make better, faster progress.
Do you think more laws are invalidated by being actually repealed, or by shifting the culture to the point where enforcing them is impossible? Why is this particular case different?
You probably spend more of your waking hours committing crimes than not committing them.
That's FUD and you know it. Most things that people do are not crimes. People don't spend the majority of their day, or even a significant minority of their day committing crimes.
Moreover, just because something is against the rules doesn't make it a crime. It may be a mere infraction or a tort. Infractions may, in some jurisdictions, be enforceable by cops. Tort laws are not enforced by the police in any jurisdiction.
I'll cop to hyperbole, but not FUD. I'm basing this on the following ideas:
- A "crime" is anything proscribed by any legal code. The term is not restricted to actions earning, or just potentially earning, prison time.
- US law is so vague that there is no way to assure yourself that you haven't violated it.
- US law, in its vagueness, covers mostly normal, unexceptional conduct ("mostly" here refers to the idea that of all the conduct proscribed by the law, "most" of it is normal and a healthy majority of pollees would happily agree that it shouldn't be proscribed at all).
- The proscriptions are so broad that if, in the course of your life, you interact with any other person in any capactiy, you are reasonably likely to run afoul of one or more laws.
- As the vast majority of people interact with multiple other people every day, most of your life is covered by this.
- The breadth of these proscriptions is not aberrant in the eyes of the system. It's considered an important feature that lets prosecutors take down those who need to be taken down, and making the laws more rigid would hurt that project.
If a guy on the street asks you where you just came from, and you lie to him ("Church. I don't visit strip clubs"), that's your right. Unless he was a plainclothes LEO. There is no pretense that people are even able to follow that law, but it's on the books and enforced.
In what jurisdiction in the US is it a crime to lie to about going to a strip club, whether or not the strip club is the target of an investigation, to someone who has not identified themselves as a police officer?
In Illinois, where I live, it's not even a crime to lie if you know they're a police officer, so long as you aren't knowingly disrupting the investigation. The state needs to prove not just deception, but intent regarding the police officer's actual effort.
Where's the statute that you're thinking of? I'm sure it exists; our union includes places like Kansas and Utah.
> In what jurisdiction in the US is it a crime to lie to about going to a strip club, whether or not the strip club is the target of an investigation, to someone who has not identified themselves as a police officer?
The answer to this question is "all of them", or, to be painfully specific, "all jurisdictions subject to the federal government".
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section,
whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the
executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the
Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick,
scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document
knowing the same to contain any materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more
than 5 years or, if the offense involves international
or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331),
imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the
matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A,
109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of
imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not
more than 8 years.
> Though materiality is an element of Section 1001, it's a weak, diluted type of materiality. Statements to the government are deemed material if they are the sort of statements that have the capacity to influence it. Courts have come very close to creating a presumption of materiality by reasoning that if the information were not material the government would not have asked for it and you wouldn't have offered it.
(emphasis original)
The poster child for this sort of thing is Martha Stewart, who was investigated for insider trading, but not charged for it. She was convicted of (according to wikipedia) "conspiracy", obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements under §1001. It is not alleged that, other than lying to investigators, she did anything wrong.
> Courts have affirmed §1001 convictions for false statements made to private entities receiving federal funds or subject to federal regulation or supervision.
(emphasis mine)
There is no requirement that you be aware of any information concerning the person you're lying to. There is no requirement that they be employed by the government. There is no requirement that you know an investigation is being conducted. Every time you lie to a person you don't know, you're taking the risk of committing a federal felony. If they purposefully mislead you into doing so... you're just as guilty.
edit:
Concerning your language "whether or not the strip club is the target of an investigation". Obviously, it's not necessary that the strip club be the target. As long as any investigation, whether of the strip club, you, or a third party, is under way, lying about your presence there is a felony. But that's the weak, technically correct way to answer you. What bothers me more is that you don't have to be aware of the investigation. Whether lying is a crime or not is based wholly on facts that you don't and cannot know. This spits in the face of the mens rea concept, to say nothing of the idea "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
Did you miss the words "knowingly and willingly" in the statute?
Because the scenario you laid out for people randomly breaking the law in their daily life was "lying about ever going to strip clubs to someone who turned out to be a plainclothes cop".
I think the statute you cited is a pretty poor example of a law normal people routinely violate.
whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the
executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the
Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully
makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation
(clauses 1,2,3 are linked by "or")
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more
than 5 years or, if the offense involves international
or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331),
imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
"Knowingly" making a false statement just means you're aware that what you're saying is untrue. What part of that protects you from liability for lying to someone you've never met?
1. the agency had the power to act on the statement;
2. there was an "intended" relationship between the act
and the Federal government; or
3. the act was calculated to induce government action.
Lying to the guy on the sidewalk obviously won't satisfy (2) or (3), but it will satisfy (1).
They give several examples of what makes a violation, of which my favorites are "false statements to oil company subject to federal regulation" and "false time sheet submitted to accounting office of community organization receiving CETA funds". How are you distinguishing lying to your boss about your hours worked from lying to the guy on the street about whether you were in a strip club?
First, your source doesn't deal (in ANY of its exhausting pages) with the implications of a defendant making false statements to an unknown government agent. In every situation it refers to, including those involving non-government agents performing government functions, the defendant knows they're disclosing something material to a government function of some sort. Read closely. (It is especially annoying how close the "Things the government must prove" page comes close to settling this.)
Second, SCOTUS disagrees with you. For instance, see Liparota v. US. The government is required to prove mens rea.
Third, 18 USC 1001 is ambiguous (there's a sprawling discussion on Volokh about it), and, where statutes are ambiguous, the rule of lenity requires that the ambiguity be resolved in favor of the defendant. Here, you raise the concern that 1001 is ambiguous as to whether the defendant must know both that they are lying and speaking to an agent of the government, or whether merely lying suffices. Tie goes to the runner.
Can you find a case where someone has had an upheld conviction under 1001 for lying to someone they didn't know was an agent of the government? I looked.
No, I don't think saying you don't go to strip clubs to a plainclothes cop investigating the Strip Club Strangler actually makes you a criminal.
1. You are "in" a matter subject to the jurisdiction of any branch of the US government.
2. You knowingly (and willfully) make a false statement.
The entity your statement is directed to is not mentioned. We have cases of convictions under section 1001 for making knowing false statements to someone who was known not to be a government agent. As a side note, I was fairly explicit in my earlier comment, saying "there is no requirement that you be aware of any information concerning the person you're lying to"; it would have been nice if you'd indicated your disagreement then. Again, the object of your deceit is not even mentioned in the law.
As to your second point, I haven't said that section 1001 defines a strict liability offense (for example, if I lie to investigators in the belief that what I'm saying is true, mens rea would be hard to show). I'm saying that the way this law is defined conflicts with the concept behind mens rea (compare my prior words, "this spits in the face of the mens rea concept"), in that liability can attach to you based on facts you couldn't have known (though you'll still have "mens rea" in that you knew you were lying).
To the third point, if speaking to an agent of the government is not an element of the crime (and since you can be convicted without having spoken to an agent of the government, that seems likely), it's hard to see why the prosecution would have to prove that you knew you were speaking to one.
The fact that a conviction hasn't occurred under a particular set of facts does not address my complaint of overcriminalization. I just spent dozens of words arguing that criminal statutes cover, in their inappropriate breadth, much more conduct than they should, including conduct that "most" would agree should not be covered at all. This kind of thing, where prosecutors could go after anyone but choose to go after the politically unpopular (lest their power to pursue anyone be taken away), is a terrible development. If you think a conviction under those facts would be so ridiculous... is it ridiculous enough that we should remove it from the reach of that law?
Remember, the fact that a conviction with unusual facts has never occurred doesn't block you from suffering the full penalty when you become the first person to fit the pattern. If you can be convicted under section 1001 for lying to known non-government-agents, and you can be convicted for lying to known government agents in a proceeding you weren't aware of, you can be convicted of lying to unknown government agents in a proceeding you weren't aware of.
I would be interested in such discussion on Volokh as you cared to bring to my attention; searching the site for "18 USC 1001" brought up a lot of mentions but no discussions (that I found).
I stand by my previous comment, and, further harming your argument:
* It appears (and obviously so in retrospect) that 1001 applies only to agents of the federal government; lying to a plainclothes police officer can't violate 18 USC 1001.
* Convictions on 18 USC 1001 have been overturned simply because the agent eliciting the statement was "unfair", for instance by concealing that they already knew the answer.
* US v Stark says held that mere denial of a fact absent a legal duty to speak didn't create a material breach of 1001 (your example was a simple denial).
* US v. Schnaiderman held that "willfulness" for 1001 requires an affirmative act calculated to confound a function of the state. Which also breaks your example, and refutes several of the points you've made.
It is apparently so difficult to win 1001 cases that US Attorneys are required to get special permission before bringing them against defendants who have simply lied to investigators during criminal investigations.
I was sick at home with a head cold today and had time to do some research. :)
I conclude that you are not just wrong, but comprehensively wrong. But I'm grateful to have a wild goose to chase!
I don't see why you're parsing "knowingly and willfully" as including knowledge of the matter being within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch, when the sentence is not structured that way.
If a guy on the street asks you where you just came from, and you lie to him ("Church. I don't visit strip clubs"), that's your right. Unless he was a plainclothes LEO.
The statute he cited does not make that scenario criminal.
"change the [laws]"... in 'murica, of all countries. No way unless you happen to have a couple of million $ lying around somewhere to bribe...eh finance the campaign of a politician.
Bullshit. It takes hard work, but ordinary people can get out there and do things just fine if they actively work at it rather than just whining on online forums.
Most of the marijuana legalization stuff isn't being driven by huge corporations.
Gay marriage rights are not a campaign that some lobbyist cooked up.
In my home state of Oregon, they legalized euthanasia a number of years ago. That wasn't exactly something with massive corporate backing... "Wash down that lethal dose of barbiturates with a refreshing Coca Cola!"
Gay marriage, pot legalization and crime-victim laws don't hurt anyone's profit (or, in case of crime-victim laws, the cost of opposing the law is higher than the cost of letting it pass) so there are no well-funded adversaries trying to kill these laws for profit.
This is the No True Scotsman fallacy. It's especially egregious given how well-funded opposition to gay marriage actually is. But even if we were in an alternate reality where the evangelical right (and the institutions that prey on them) weren't bankrolling enormous fights against gay marriage, the point you're trying to make would still be fallacious.
Hard work and a lot of time. Ordinary people putting in large numbers of unpaid hours of work competing against highly paid lobbyists that wine and dine with the elite.
Ivy Bridge still hasn't been released in the server space. The server market currently has Sandy Bridge chips. The Ivy Bridge chips are due at the end of the year.
Agreed, I automatically exempt anything dealing with healthcare or finances from stuff like this. I definitely don't want my bank emailing me customer service messages which could contain who knows what kind of sensitive information.
XP is affected by this but XP is not vulnerable in the default configuration because there is no service listening set up with the firewall by default and the firewall is on by default. I am curious to see if this causes problems for Microsoft down the road.
