Apple Bails on Black Hat Talk
Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Sun 3rd Aug 2008 15:56 UTC, submitted by netpython
Apple "Apple Inc. has pulled its security engineering team out of a planned public discussion on the company's security practices, which had been set for next week's Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas."
E-mail Print r 4   37 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/fjg
Thread beginning with comment 325469
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: As we say in venezuela:
by sbergman27 on Sun 3rd Aug 2008 23:33 UTC in reply to "RE: As we say in venezuela:"
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

When you president is running the economy into the ground, I guess one is forced to having to use Linux given the limited funds available.

Look Kawai,

IMO, you are being a bit of a troll, lately. I like you. And we have things in common. But I have also noted that you used to be a Linux fan. Linux could do no wrong. Then you left it, claiming "too many broken promises" (something about your wireless card) and moved to OpenSolaris, saying that it liked your wireless card and was so much better. Linux could do no right and (yeah, I watched your blog) OpenSolaris could do no wrong. And then you decided that OpenSolaris had "too many broken promises" for you.

Now you are an Apple freak.

I absolutely respect our friends who happen to prefer Apple Macs. Please do not take this as an attack upon people who happen to prefer them. There is much good to be said about Apple Macs, today.

But please make up your mind, Kaiwai. It's bad enough that people like me are consistently Linux zealots^Wadvocates. But when a person keeps shifting around...

And, yeah, I do try to stay on the "advocate" side of the fence, and avoid the "zealot" side. So should we all.

Edited 2008-08-03 23:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 10

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I find Jeff Atwood to have tackled this issue better then anyone else I have ever read. This is one of those posts that really shook how I look at the world.

When it comes to software development, if you profess expertise, if you pitch yourself as an authority, you're either lying to us, or lying to yourself. In our heart of hearts, we know: the real progress is made by the amateurs. They're so busy living software they don't usually have time to pontificate at length about the breadth of their legendary expertise. If I've learned anything in my career, it is that approaching software development as an expert, as someone who has already discovered everything there is to know about a given topic, is the one surest way to fail.

Experts are, if anything, more suspect than the amateurs, because they're less honest. Regardless, you absolutely should question everything I write here, in the same way you question everything you've ever read online -- or anywhere else for that matter. Your own research and data should trump any claims you read from anyone, no matter how much of an authority or expert you, I, Google, or the general community at large may believe them to be


This is an ongoing theme on Jeffs blog. We all suck at this, it is just a matter of degree. All we can really do is strive to suck less every year. This knowledge is the difference between an amateur and a profession in this industry.

I suppose it's also an issue of personal style. To me, writing without a strong voice, writing filled with second guessing and disclaimers, is tedious and difficult to slog through. I go out of my way to write in a strong voice because it's more effective. But whenever I post in a strong voice, it is also an implied invitation to a discussion, a discussion where I often change my opinion and invariably learn a great deal about the topic at hand. I believe in the principle of strong opinions, weakly held:

"A couple years ago, I was talking the Institute's Bob Johansen about wisdom, and he explained that -- to deal with an uncertain future and still move forward – they advise people to have "strong opinions, which are weakly held." They've been giving this advice for years, and I understand that it was first developed by [former] Institute Director Paul Saffo. Bob explained that weak opinions are problematic because people aren't inspired to develop the best arguments possible for them, or to put forth the energy required to test them. Bob explained that it was just as important, however, to not be too attached to what you believe because, otherwise, it undermines your ability to "see" and "hear" evidence that clashes with your opinions. This is what psychologists sometimes call the problem of "confirmation bias."
"

When I read that for the first time, something fundamental clicked inside of me. As I have been maturing as a person, I have been scratching at the edges of this idea, but have never put it that succinctly. Having weak opinions is useless, and shows a lack of both passion and knowledge, but strong opinions must be balanced with humility (the realization that you suck), and must be weakly held. A strong opinion, weakly held is an invitation to a stimulating discussion on a topic you are passionate about. A strong opinion held strongly without humility is a call to jihad.

Anyways, I love Jeff's writing (even when I don't agree with him) The post I pulled that stuff from is here, I would highly encourage anyone who gets enjoys posting in a place like this (osnews is pretty much the 'nam of tech forums) to read it a few times, as it will probably do you some good.
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001124.html

Reply Parent Score: 8