askandanswer

This comic came out like 8 years ago.  I feel it's relevant across all sorts of software security systems.

Like I say, we don't know that it's true, but I can well imagine a narrative in which it might be true.
The Post Office puts out its invitation to tender, and several companies, including Fujitsu UK, decide to respond
Now there's a very high-up and ultra-ambitious "suit" in Fujitsu UK who I'll call Mr. Big Suit. (Maybe its a Ms. Big Suit, but I've a gut feeling it was a Mr.) Mr. Big Suit got promoted to where he is not by being particularly clever or competent (which he isn't) but because of a ruthless determination to get things done. He's a "mover and a shaker", and as such has often come in useful to his superiors.
Mr. Big Suit is determined to get the contact, and he will get the contact whatever it takes! 
He knows that with a brand name like Fujitsu behind him, he doesn't have to prove he can deliver the goods. But he does need to undercut the competition. So he instructs his underlings - his department heads - (with a variety of threats and promises) to quote the lowest price possible for each aspect of the project. He tells them that the quote needs to be low, and if he loses this contract because it's too high, he will not be pleased. At all. 
So Mr. Big Suit's underlings give him what he wants and Fujitsu wins the contract. They now need to deliver. They soon find that with the budget they have for this project, they can't afford to employ their best developers on it. So they put together a rag-tag team of assorted people whose salaries they can afford to pay. This rag-tag team does its best, and after a year or so has created a sort-of system which sort-of does the job, and sort-of doesn't. Mr. Big Suit now fears he's heading for a train wreck, so to cut his losses he finally does send in some of his top developers.
The top developers take one look at what the rag-tag team have created and throw up their hands in dismay. "This needs to be rewritten from scratch" they say.
"We haven't the time nor the money for that," says Mr. Big Suit. "What do you think I pay you for? Make it work. Or else!"
So the top developers do their best, but the deadline is looming and new bugs are still popping up like weeds. Their complaints to Mr. Big Suit fall on deaf ears. He has a deadline to meet, and if he doesn't meet it then some Mr. Even Bigger Suit at Head Office will have his hide.
So the top developers battle on. The discovery of bugs slows down, but as the clock strikes twelve no one really believes that they have all been found, but...
"Hey, we don't know that there are any more bugs. Maybe the one we found and corrected earlier this morning was the last!"
The system is delivered on time. Mr. Big Suit gets his bonus. Phew.
Then the problems start.
Postmasters across the country are reporting accounting errors. Fujitsu is consulted.
The news comes to Mr. Big Suit as he sits on the shaded balcony of his office overlooking an ornamental garden. For some months he's experienced a deeply-suppressed dread of this moment, and now it's finally come. But what can he do? Admit that he's made a complete dog's dinner of the entire project? What will that do for the Fujitsu brand name? Share prices will plummet! Thousands of jobs will be put at risk! It will be ALL his fault, and Mr. Even Bigger Suit will skin him alive!
He puts down his Martini (which no longer tastes so good) and thinks hard.
"Well, I did employ my best people," he says. "Only at the end mind you, but there's no need to stress that too much. And what were they doing for those last six months? They were testing! They were looking for bugs!" (Mr. Big Suit isn't exactly sure what a "bug" is, though he has vague a mental image of a beetle crawling around inside a computer chip, eating bits of wire here and there.) "That's what I'll tell them!"
Presently Mr. Big Suit (Fujitsu) sends his reply to Mr. Big Suit (Post Office). "Horizon has been subjected to six months of intensive testing by Fujitsu's top engineers, and we are confident in the product we have supplied." The first statement is 100% true, and the second is only a white lie. After all, who knows if the problems the Post Office is having are any fault of Fujitsu? Perhaps people aren't using it correctly. Perhaps...oh, perhaps anything! We really don't know. Let's play another game of golf and try not to think about it too much.
Meanwhile Mr. Big Suit (Post Office) is at a total loss. The figures are right in front of him in black and white. Money has gone missing. Fujitsu has assured him that they are not to blame. And they are Fujitsu after all. If its anything to do with computers they should know!
So what else could be the explanation? The famous words of Sherlock Holmes drift across his mind...
"Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth!"
The rest is history.

(I just posted this as a round-robin e-mail at work, but some of you guys may be interested too)
This article is actually over a month old, but I only read it yesterday after web-searching about this week’s news of the Post Office/Fujitsu/Horizon appeals.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252496560/Fujitsu-bosses-knew-about-Post-Office-Horizon-IT-flaws-says-insider
(Just in case you’re unfamiliar with the story, about 20 years ago Fujitsu was commissioned to develop an IT system for the British Post Office. This was called “Horizon”. Shortly after it was installed, money started disappearing from branch accounts. Fujitsu insisted there was nothing wrong with their system, so the Post Office concluded that its own employees were stealing. Almost 1,000 were sacked, made bankrupt by repaying the money, or even sent to prison. Now it turns out the system was full of bugs, convictions are being overturned, and the Post Office is asking for a government bail-out to pay all the compensation that’s going to be claimed. Furthermore, Fujitsu executives who testified of the infallibility of their system are now likely to be prosecuted for perjury.) 
The “insider information” in this article could be the disgruntled ramblings of an angry ex-employee, so hopefully the government inquiry will get to the real truth of the matter. Nevertheless, I think there are some important lessons here that we should pass on to students:
The importance of formal methods in the high-level planning of a project, particularly a large project involving a large number of coders. Each developer should know exactly what his/her component of the system should do, and what it should not be allowed to do. The importance of robust testing. Make sure each component of a system works correctly in isolation before connecting it to other components written by other developers. (This is what I was taught as a 1st year undergraduate learning Pascal. We always had to show evidence that each sub-program we wrote had been tested individually.) The importance of continued vigilance. Even with the best formal methods and the best testing, there WILL still be bugs. It is NOT more likely that 900 previously honest postal employees suddenly turned criminal, than that there may be a bug in a system someone has told you is infallible. (And this applies even if that "someone" represents a big-brand name like Fujitsu.) Happy Easter.

So... What did he say that made him so offensive?

I can envisage a scenario where mortality was the default outcome for all who did not choose Lucifer. Perhaps an active choice for God was not needed for an opportunity in mortality, maybe the only requirement was to not choose Lucifer. This approach would be consistent with a merciful and loving God who wanted the best for His children, and might not violate the laws of justice. 
I've sometimes thought that if there were fence sitters back then, they might be those in mortality who live in a time and place and regime where organised religion is not allowed. They didn't choose "religion" back then so they don't have it now. Purely speculative.

They were passing through on their way from a bar of lead to a speck of gold.

They were passing through on their way from a bar of lead to a speck of gold.

They were passing through on their way from a bar of lead to a speck of gold.

I’ve just done a brief fact check on this and am happy to report the following:
6:55:10 seconds – 100,000,000,002 neutrinos through left thumb
6:55:12 seconds 99,999,999,981 neutrinos through right thumb
6:55:14 seconds 100,000,000,104 neutrinos through tip of nose
6:55:16 seconds 100,000,000,046 neutrinos through left middle toenail
The theory seems to be substantially correct.

Your left thumb is slightly larger than the right. Maybe you need to cut your nails.
Your nose is pretty good-sized, but your left middle toenail is strangely large. I think the Bible says to be wary of people with large middle toenails. Something about it being better to live on the corner of a roof than with someone that has a large left middle toenail.

I’ve just done a brief fact check on this and am happy to report the following:
6:55:10 seconds – 100,000,000,002 neutrinos through left thumb
6:55:12 seconds 99,999,999,981 neutrinos through right thumb
6:55:14 seconds 100,000,000,104 neutrinos through tip of nose
6:55:16 seconds 100,000,000,046 neutrinos through left middle toenail
The theory seems to be substantially correct.

Did you ask them where they were all going?

https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2011.554

Pro tip: if you see a critical source use ellipses (the little "..." you sometimes see in quotations) when referencing something that was ostensibly said by a church leader or presented in official material, find the original citation and read it in full. 
Critics of the church - and others - frequently play games with people by using ellipses to change the context of various citations. 
In one extreme situation I personally encountered, a critic took two paragraphs from one of Young's sermons that were talking about unrelated topics, inverted their order, and used ellipses to stitch them together as if they were all about one single thing. When I pointed out what she'd done and showed everyone the real citation, she tried to do a "my bad" and then couldn't understand why no one would trust any of her citations until we saw them for ourselves. 

Update
He was baptised about an hour ago. I assisted with his confirmation. A new journey begins.

Update
He was baptised about an hour ago. I assisted with his confirmation. A new journey begins.

Update
He was baptised about an hour ago. I assisted with his confirmation. A new journey begins.

Update
He was baptised about an hour ago. I assisted with his confirmation. A new journey begins.

Update
He was baptised about an hour ago. I assisted with his confirmation. A new journey begins.

Update
He was baptised about an hour ago. I assisted with his confirmation. A new journey begins.

Along with several others on this forum I recently re-read the thread you wrote, I think back in 2016, for Sunday21 explaining/summarising the Book of Mormon. I also noted the great many highly appreciative comments of your work. 

Along with several others on this forum I recently re-read the thread you wrote, I think back in 2016, for Sunday21 explaining/summarising the Book of Mormon. I also noted the great many highly appreciative comments of your work. 

Along with several others on this forum I recently re-read the thread you wrote, I think back in 2016, for Sunday21 explaining/summarising the Book of Mormon. I also noted the great many highly appreciative comments of your work. 

I agree that God is a God of order. Nevertheless, remember Paul lamenting how "now we see through a glass, darkly". Many divine things are hidden from us in this state. The doctrine of the veil of forgetfulness illustrates that God actively keeps things from us until his own due time has arrived to accomplish his purposes.
A&A stole my Pauline thunder. I guess I should have read further. Not a single point I made above was not made earlier, and probably better, than my effort. Story of my life. 

I think it's more a case of, God would like for things to be as clear for man as they are for him, but before we are ready for that clarity, it would destroy us.  So to prepare us to receive the clarity, he gives us parables and "blurry" versions ("through a glass, darkly") and as we choose to be led into the light, we see more and more clearly.  Etc.
(So, not so much that God wants things blurry as that in his mercy, he leaves things blurry, lest we be destroyed by the clarity.)