the point of websites such as facebook, youtube, digg, etc. are not to stay aronud forever. instead, the point is to take advantage of technologies and trends today (broadband, social networking on the web, etc.) to create something interesting for people.
sure, ad revenue off a website is nothing compared to a costco store. but for paying a few hundred bucks to get your site colocated or hosted and then running ads, you can sit back, relax in a chair, and watch money pour into your bank for doing essentially nothing -- IF you made a hit site, that is. And if you didn't, oh well, small investment, a few bucks of hosting. big deal. and if you really made a hit, perhaps someone will buy you out and give you even more money and start taking care of your lawsuits.
i think the real characteristic of web 2.0 sites is low initial risk, and lots of money if you do it well. and then sooner or later your website gets superseded by something else, just like google took over altavista, just like firefox and ie took over ncsa mosaic, and so on. when that happens, you just move on with life, happy that you did something cool for a few years, and happy that you can retire with enough money already.
it's not about keeping the bubble forever. it's all about making a really pretty bubble for as long as it lasts, and then retiring.
im a college student and have flown multiple times between asia and north america. i don't usually get much jet lag at all, but i think that's because college is bad enough.
microsoft bloggers are the pets of their corporation who are WILLING to actually purchase microsoft products and promote the company. why give away vista to those people who *would* pay for it?
instead, give it to the pirates, because they wouldn't pay for it in the first place and they are going to get it anyway. that way, you maximize profits because you get the bucks from the bloggers.
i don't understand the point of these systems. on a related note, does anyone understand BillMeLater? doesn't it just sound like a credit card on top of a credit card and another way to lose your money if someone ID-thefts you?
what's wrong with the bank's debit card (if you want it) and a credit card of your choice?
for that matter my name has already been to mars. let me invent a language where big rock = my name 2 big rocks = friend's name big rock with a sticker with someone else's name = that someone else's name
therefore in this language, my name and my friend's name have been to mars. nobody else's has.
"Dolling determined the refractive index of the material by measuring the "phase velocity" of light as it passed through. His measurements show the structure has a negative refractive index of -0.6 for light with a wavelength of 780 nm.
This value drops to zero at 760 nm and 800 nm, and becomes positive at longer and shorter wavelengths. Previously, the shortest wavelength at which a negative refractive index had been demonstrated was 1400 nm. "
how is this possible? fractional indices would imply that the light is going faster than light in a vacuum. i would expect negative index materials to have indices of less than -1 and no material to be able to have anything between -1 and 1.
who said everything done by the government needs to be unbiased? this isn't the court or the elections or something, this is them deciding on a piece of software to use. for a little crap decision like this they should pick whatever makes them most comfortable and crank out the data everyone wants.
i think mysql is better because of the name... "post-greeeeee-SQL" sounds awful.
yeah, but... if there would possibly be more than 10 arguments, say
$./myscript a b c d e f g h i j k l m and I wanted to print "a0", i would think of doing
print "$10" oops. how does it know the difference between {$1}0 and {$10} ? when I design my variable names, I design them in a way so that such confusion is nonexistent. i also really prefer having my arguments in an array for programming purposes... it also conflicts with the use of $1 in the second clause of a s/(.*) blah/$1/ type clause.
i know you can keep giving me solutions, but basically i find bash scripting to have too non-standard of a syntax. perl for example at least uses, for the most part, C syntax, and anything it invents is over and above that (=~, etc) and not conflicting with it. to me it seems like syntax concept X in every other language does Y in bash and Y in other languages does X in bash.
really, now, for(blah blah blah); mycmd; shouldn't do anything. for(...) mycmd; should. for(...); mycmd; rof; should. why is it for[...]; do mycmd;done; ? it's just way too strange of a syntax for my tastes. i'm not complaining that it has faults - it's just that the nitpicky differences in syntax make it unattractive and steep to learn for someone knowing C, C++, Perl, PHP, basic, etc.
blah, bash scripts. okay. well, i can handle memorizing that, but bash syntax, especially of things like for loops and if statements beats me (see my comment earlier). what beats me is why there is a 'do' in there, why there is a 'done' rather than the would-be bash-ish 'rof' (for backwards) ? and why there are semicolons rather than some sort of { construct...
i wish there was an easy way to make filenames lowercase in mass. because i transfer images from my camera and sometimes they come up as IMG_1234.JPG and sometimes as img_1234.jpg and it screws with my website scripts if they're not all the same extension (.JPG !=.jpg). so often i want to make an entire directory of filenames lowercase. the only trouble is there's no clear-cut way to do this, doing it in one line is hard, and googling for it always seems to give me a bunch of shareware or a complicated.tar.gz file instead of a single line to do what i wanted. i usually end up writing a Perl script, but it seems such an overkill and it seems that it ought to be easy and simple to do as a command.
why? 1. because i can't remember the awful syntax of the bash if statement. isn't it something like
if[[""$X$$"" == ""$Y""]];;... fi ? 2. how about accepting command line arguments in bash? in perl it's just $ARGV[0]. nice and simple and like C++ (except for the offset by one) so i don't want to have to bother learning another one. 3. because i can't bother learning how to do a regular expression in bash. in perl it's simple with =~/.../ and =~s/.../.../ and it was bad enough that PHP isn't like that. 4. because bash seems to think that sometimes you use x and sometimes you use $x
x="hi"
echo $x
i really don't want to learn this language. so i just use Perl everytime i need a script. it works.
"I don't have google toolbar though.. Nor any toolbar for that matter."
The only reason why I don't run toolbars myself is because I want my browser to start up as fast as possible. I run Firefox 1.5.0.2 on Linux on a 1.7 GHz and it takes already 8 seconds to start up and after running it for a few hours it memory leaks like crazy and consumes 50% of my processor. Firefox 2.0 segfaults. It's silly. Everything else on my Linux system is running perfectly. I can't deal with a toolbar on top of this.
Not exactly. Well, I don't know because I can't speak for Google. But likely, as a search engine and provider of many services, they have to go along with whatever the public uses. They aren't the driving force behind people deciding on an OS or a browser. A lot of other factors go into the public's decision of what browser to use. Google simply takes whatever the public uses, and designs their site to work accordingly. Google's websites have generally been extremely simple (okay, except for all the crazy apps like Gmail and spreadsheets, but that still is supported by 80%+ of browsers if you combine IE and Firefox)
It isn't Google's job to tell people what browser to use. It would be a bad strategy for them to try to. It's like Target trying to design their spoons to only work with their own cereal.
MIT here, but I'm sure any other university that has major CS research might find similar stuff. The pizza, plates, napkins, flashlights, t-shirts, notepads, etc are commonplace stuff and everyone has them. Bigger stuff like speakers, lava lamps, etc. typically come if you're staffing an event sponsored by Google (we have a robotics competition that is... they give us money to help us run the competition, we let them advertise in many ways in return).
The #1 thing that has kept me liking Google is their lack of using force as a way to get consumers to adopt their products. Microsoft and AOL are very aggressive in promoting their products and try to shape their users' habits to their profit rather than catering to consumer needs to gain profit. Google, on the other hand, just comes out with wild stuff that is just so good that people flock to it. Gmail blew away Hotmail and Yahoo for a little while with the 1-gigabyte of storage space. Google maps with the Flash-based interface was just awesome. Nothing was ever forced on me. I use Google's products only because I want to.
I don't use Microsoft's products because I want to. I use them (on occasion) because I'm forced to by the standards of others (Word documents, argh) that Microsoft has carefully crafted. I don't have to use Google maps or Froogle or anything at work. But if it's the best out there, I use it!
I sincerely hope that this does not change. Preinstalling Google toolbar on computers is a little pushing it, in my opinion.
You ought to be at a university. Students at my school use Google speakers. I have 13 Google T-Shirts myself. There are Google whistles, Google flashlights, Google notebooks. I have a friend with a Google lava lamp, too. All of the above given for free by Google. You'd be surprised what kinds of things they give away in the academic domain to try to recruit people and advertise. Personally I think it's a great company, but Google software certainly isn't the limit:)
"Some people suggest that you always hate the top dog."
Not true. I hate M$, I hate AOL, but I like Google. It's the business strategies people take when they get to the top. I'm sure many of you like Google too (maybe some don't). But for their business practices, for their work environment, for their people, etc., if I had a start-up, I wouldn't mind being bought out by Google because I wouldn't mind my work becoming a part of theirs. I'd easily say no to M$ or AOL though for example. Okay, and by Google's business practices I mean:
- numerous efforts to make more information available to people at no cost
- making things easy for the common person while STILL being suitable for an advanced user
- listening to user feedback and taking it into account in development
- realizing with what the user wants, not shaping the user's habits by their own will as much
- work environment for employees that promotes thinking and life and fun and flexibility
etc. google's definitely at the top of their niche. microsoft has the largest OS share too, but microsoft don't do many of these things.
well, same here, i don't do it every day of course. but what good is a researcher that doesn't ponder ideas when they are bored? like say getting 1 day per week unsupervised (at work) to do whatever you want and hopefully think of something good? and if the company requires an employee to work so many hours that they don't get such said unsupervised time, that company is spoiling lives by turning people with beautiful innovative minds into dull ones. and i wouldn't hire anyone who came out of such a company. i'd rather hire from people who had worked at places that permit such exploration. google, pixar, universities, etc etc etc. jp morgan? hell no. they think work == life over there.
1. Accounting issues and fraud happen all the time these days. Every time a worker misrepresents his work hours is an accounting fraud. Either way, the punishment shouldn't be jail time, it should be related and proportional to what was misrepresented. The punishment should be a direct, monitored way to help remedy the problem, not throw the guy in jail. In the case of bittorent, perhaps the first offense should result in being requried to purchase what they shared. next offense, double that. double that. etc. it's a reasonable price to pay that will go up in cost pretty fast but still keep the guy's mind in commission for contributing to whatever job he does for the world. many people that file-share are doing something for the world and they shouldn't be stopped from that by being put in jail. people committing *direct* harm (shoplifting, murder, violence, rape, etc.) should be put in jail. people that are causing threats (speeding on the road being a potential danger to others, filesharing being a potential danger to company profits, etc.) should not.
2. I know this is off-topic, but: (a) There is such a thing as "heya, I just felt like selling a thousand shares, so I did". (b) If you have access to insider information, you're at an advantage. Others can just go suck it up. If they want the information, they should submit their resume to the company, get a job, go up the corporate ladder, and try again. If they aren't willing to, tough luck. (c) Insider trading is permitted in everything else, for example. If I know the price of apples is going up next week, they aren't going to jail me for buying a bunch this week. If a scientist finds out an EASY way to turn graphite into diamonds in mass quantities such that the price of diamonds will fall, he isn't restricted from selling all his diamonds before he publishes his paper. (d) Free capitalism means buy and sell what you want, when you want. Not based on where you got information from. (e) Stock trade data should be a state functions, not path-dependent functions. Where information comes from should not count. The only thing that should count is who bought and sold what and when. It's like asking me how I got into a city and arresting me for using bridge X and not arresting me if I used bridge Y. If the state of the bridges are unchanged, all that should matter is my initial and final location. Period. If the state of the bridges are changed because of me, then we have a problem. (f) Good analytic skills are equivalent to insider trading. Just because a guy has an awesome brain shouldn't mean he should be restricted from using it ("I think a merger between companies A and B would be so succussful this month that I don't see a reason they won't! So I'll buy a million shares. Also maybe I'll suggest the merge to them to prod them and maybe they will merge!"). If someone else found a way to achieve the equivalent information that the guy with the awesome brain can get ("I heard from the CEO in a private discussion that they might merge this month"), great! Both should be allowed to trade! (g) In a world of 6 billion people it's plausible that a guy has a lot of money to throw around, and not having insider information access, decides to just buy a million shares of something for the hell of it. And then if it goes up a ton he'll be accused of insider trading, but maybe he really isn't.
imho, if i were an employer i wouldn't hire anybody that said all their work was classified. a programmer is worthless unless they actually took enough interest to do *some* amount of coding OUTSIDE the job.
Slashdot Mirror
there is no "bubble" in web 2.0.
the point of websites such as facebook, youtube, digg, etc. are not to stay aronud forever. instead, the point is to take advantage of technologies and trends today (broadband, social networking on the web, etc.) to create something interesting for people.
sure, ad revenue off a website is nothing compared to a costco store. but for paying a few hundred bucks to get your site colocated or hosted and then running ads, you can sit back, relax in a chair, and watch money pour into your bank for doing essentially nothing -- IF you made a hit site, that is. And if you didn't, oh well, small investment, a few bucks of hosting. big deal. and if you really made a hit, perhaps someone will buy you out and give you even more money and start taking care of your lawsuits.
i think the real characteristic of web 2.0 sites is low initial risk, and lots of money if you do it well. and then sooner or later your website gets superseded by something else, just like google took over altavista, just like firefox and ie took over ncsa mosaic, and so on. when that happens, you just move on with life, happy that you did something cool for a few years, and happy that you can retire with enough money already.
it's not about keeping the bubble forever. it's all about making a really pretty bubble for as long as it lasts, and then retiring.
im a college student and have flown multiple times between asia and north america. i don't usually get much jet lag at all, but i think that's because college is bad enough.
microsoft bloggers are the pets of their corporation who are WILLING to actually purchase microsoft products and promote the company. why give away vista to those people who *would* pay for it?
instead, give it to the pirates, because they wouldn't pay for it in the first place and they are going to get it anyway. that way, you maximize profits because you get the bucks from the bloggers.
i don't understand the point of these systems. on a related note, does anyone understand BillMeLater? doesn't it just sound like a credit card on top of a credit card and another way to lose your money if someone ID-thefts you?
what's wrong with the bank's debit card (if you want it) and a credit card of your choice?
for that matter my name has already been to mars. let me invent a language where
big rock = my name
2 big rocks = friend's name
big rock with a sticker with someone else's name = that someone else's name
therefore in this language, my name and my friend's name have been to mars. nobody else's has.
didn't nasa already try to do this with the polar lander? (and crashed?)
also, isn't this worthless because a mini-disc will probably deteriorate by the time aliens find it?
"Google buys DejaNews"
"Google buys YouTube for 1.65 billion"
"Google buys Endexon"
"Google buys NASA"
"Dolling determined the refractive index of the material by measuring the "phase velocity" of light as it passed through. His measurements show the structure has a negative refractive index of -0.6 for light with a wavelength of 780 nm.
This value drops to zero at 760 nm and 800 nm, and becomes positive at longer and shorter wavelengths. Previously, the shortest wavelength at which a negative refractive index had been demonstrated was 1400 nm. "
how is this possible? fractional indices would imply that the light is going faster than light in a vacuum. i would expect negative index materials to have indices of less than -1 and no material to be able to have anything between -1 and 1.
i'd be seriously interested in knowing what sort of motors would power that.
who said everything done by the government needs to be unbiased? this isn't the court or the elections or something, this is them deciding on a piece of software to use. for a little crap decision like this they should pick whatever makes them most comfortable and crank out the data everyone wants.
i think mysql is better because of the name... "post-greeeeee-SQL" sounds awful.
on a related note, if you try to mount a windows SMB share with Samba in linux ...
/mnt/photos/test $ ls /mnt/photos/test $ mv ibm.JPG ibm.jpg /mnt/photos/test $ mv ibm.JPG ibm.foo /mnt/photos/test $ mv ibm.foo ibm.jpg /mnt/photos/test $ ls
dheera@may-the-force-be-with-you
ibm.JPG
dheera@may-the-force-be-with-you
mv: `ibm.JPG' and `ibm.jpg' are the same file ----- AAAAAAAARGH
dheera@may-the-force-be-with-you
dheera@may-the-force-be-with-you
dheera@may-the-force-be-with-you
ibm.jpg
grumble...
yeah, but... if there would possibly be more than 10 arguments, say ./myscript a b c d e f g h i j k l m
$
and I wanted to print "a0", i would think of doing
print "$10"
oops. how does it know the difference between {$1}0 and {$10} ?
when I design my variable names, I design them in a way so that such confusion is nonexistent.
i also really prefer having my arguments in an array for programming purposes... it also conflicts with the use of $1 in the second clause of a s/(.*) blah/$1/ type clause.
i know you can keep giving me solutions, but basically i find bash scripting to have too non-standard of a syntax. perl for example at least uses, for the most part, C syntax, and anything it invents is over and above that (=~, etc) and not conflicting with it. to me it seems like syntax concept X in every other language does Y in bash and Y in other languages does X in bash.
really, now, for(blah blah blah); mycmd; shouldn't do anything. for(...) mycmd; should. for(...); mycmd; rof; should. why is it for[...]; do mycmd;done; ? it's just way too strange of a syntax for my tastes. i'm not complaining that it has faults - it's just that the nitpicky differences in syntax make it unattractive and steep to learn for someone knowing C, C++, Perl, PHP, basic, etc.
how i wish i could type @dir=~tr/A-Z/a-z/ at the prompt and be done with it...
blah, bash scripts. okay. well, i can handle memorizing that, but bash syntax, especially of things like for loops and if statements beats me (see my comment earlier). what beats me is why there is a 'do' in there, why there is a 'done' rather than the would-be bash-ish 'rof' (for backwards) ? and why there are semicolons rather than some sort of { construct...
i wish there was an easy way to make filenames lowercase in mass. because i transfer images from my camera and sometimes they come up as IMG_1234.JPG and sometimes as img_1234.jpg and it screws with my website scripts if they're not all the same extension (.JPG != .jpg). so often i want to make an entire directory of filenames lowercase. the only trouble is there's no clear-cut way to do this, doing it in one line is hard, and googling for it always seems to give me a bunch of shareware or a complicated .tar.gz file instead of a single line to do what i wanted. i usually end up writing a Perl script, but it seems such an overkill and it seems that it ought to be easy and simple to do as a command.
Yuck, I never use bash scripts. I always use Perl scripts. I just do things like
... fi ?
#!/usr/bin/perl
system("blah");
system("blah");
if(perl code perl code) {
system("blah");
}
etc.
why?
1. because i can't remember the awful syntax of the bash if statement. isn't it something like
if[[""$X$$"" == ""$Y""]];;
2. how about accepting command line arguments in bash? in perl it's just $ARGV[0]. nice and simple and like C++ (except for the offset by one) so i don't want to have to bother learning another one.
3. because i can't bother learning how to do a regular expression in bash. in perl it's simple with =~/.../ and =~s/.../.../ and it was bad enough that PHP isn't like that.
4. because bash seems to think that sometimes you use x and sometimes you use $x
x="hi"
echo $x
i really don't want to learn this language. so i just use Perl everytime i need a script. it works.
"I don't have google toolbar though.. Nor any toolbar for that matter."
The only reason why I don't run toolbars myself is because I want my browser to start up as fast as possible. I run Firefox 1.5.0.2 on Linux on a 1.7 GHz and it takes already 8 seconds to start up and after running it for a few hours it memory leaks like crazy and consumes 50% of my processor. Firefox 2.0 segfaults. It's silly. Everything else on my Linux system is running perfectly. I can't deal with a toolbar on top of this.
Not exactly. Well, I don't know because I can't speak for Google. But likely, as a search engine and provider of many services, they have to go along with whatever the public uses. They aren't the driving force behind people deciding on an OS or a browser. A lot of other factors go into the public's decision of what browser to use. Google simply takes whatever the public uses, and designs their site to work accordingly. Google's websites have generally been extremely simple (okay, except for all the crazy apps like Gmail and spreadsheets, but that still is supported by 80%+ of browsers if you combine IE and Firefox) It isn't Google's job to tell people what browser to use. It would be a bad strategy for them to try to. It's like Target trying to design their spoons to only work with their own cereal.
MIT here, but I'm sure any other university that has major CS research might find similar stuff. The pizza, plates, napkins, flashlights, t-shirts, notepads, etc are commonplace stuff and everyone has them. Bigger stuff like speakers, lava lamps, etc. typically come if you're staffing an event sponsored by Google (we have a robotics competition that is... they give us money to help us run the competition, we let them advertise in many ways in return).
The #1 thing that has kept me liking Google is their lack of using force as a way to get consumers to adopt their products. Microsoft and AOL are very aggressive in promoting their products and try to shape their users' habits to their profit rather than catering to consumer needs to gain profit. Google, on the other hand, just comes out with wild stuff that is just so good that people flock to it. Gmail blew away Hotmail and Yahoo for a little while with the 1-gigabyte of storage space. Google maps with the Flash-based interface was just awesome. Nothing was ever forced on me. I use Google's products only because I want to.
I don't use Microsoft's products because I want to. I use them (on occasion) because I'm forced to by the standards of others (Word documents, argh) that Microsoft has carefully crafted. I don't have to use Google maps or Froogle or anything at work. But if it's the best out there, I use it!
I sincerely hope that this does not change. Preinstalling Google toolbar on computers is a little pushing it, in my opinion.
You ought to be at a university. Students at my school use Google speakers. I have 13 Google T-Shirts myself. There are Google whistles, Google flashlights, Google notebooks. I have a friend with a Google lava lamp, too. All of the above given for free by Google. You'd be surprised what kinds of things they give away in the academic domain to try to recruit people and advertise. Personally I think it's a great company, but Google software certainly isn't the limit :)
"Some people suggest that you always hate the top dog."
Not true. I hate M$, I hate AOL, but I like Google. It's the business strategies people take when they get to the top. I'm sure many of you like Google too (maybe some don't). But for their business practices, for their work environment, for their people, etc., if I had a start-up, I wouldn't mind being bought out by Google because I wouldn't mind my work becoming a part of theirs. I'd easily say no to M$ or AOL though for example. Okay, and by Google's business practices I mean:
- numerous efforts to make more information available to people at no cost
- making things easy for the common person while STILL being suitable for an advanced user
- listening to user feedback and taking it into account in development
- realizing with what the user wants, not shaping the user's habits by their own will as much
- work environment for employees that promotes thinking and life and fun and flexibility
etc.
google's definitely at the top of their niche. microsoft has the largest OS share too, but microsoft don't do many of these things.
well, same here, i don't do it every day of course. but what good is a researcher that doesn't ponder ideas when they are bored? like say getting 1 day per week unsupervised (at work) to do whatever you want and hopefully think of something good? and if the company requires an employee to work so many hours that they don't get such said unsupervised time, that company is spoiling lives by turning people with beautiful innovative minds into dull ones. and i wouldn't hire anyone who came out of such a company. i'd rather hire from people who had worked at places that permit such exploration. google, pixar, universities, etc etc etc. jp morgan? hell no. they think work == life over there.
1. Accounting issues and fraud happen all the time these days. Every time a worker misrepresents his work hours is an accounting fraud. Either way, the punishment shouldn't be jail time, it should be related and proportional to what was misrepresented. The punishment should be a direct, monitored way to help remedy the problem, not throw the guy in jail. In the case of bittorent, perhaps the first offense should result in being requried to purchase what they shared. next offense, double that. double that. etc. it's a reasonable price to pay that will go up in cost pretty fast but still keep the guy's mind in commission for contributing to whatever job he does for the world. many people that file-share are doing something for the world and they shouldn't be stopped from that by being put in jail. people committing *direct* harm (shoplifting, murder, violence, rape, etc.) should be put in jail. people that are causing threats (speeding on the road being a potential danger to others, filesharing being a potential danger to company profits, etc.) should not.
2. I know this is off-topic, but:
(a) There is such a thing as "heya, I just felt like selling a thousand shares, so I did".
(b) If you have access to insider information, you're at an advantage. Others can just go suck it up. If they want the information, they should submit their resume to the company, get a job, go up the corporate ladder, and try again. If they aren't willing to, tough luck.
(c) Insider trading is permitted in everything else, for example. If I know the price of apples is going up next week, they aren't going to jail me for buying a bunch this week. If a scientist finds out an EASY way to turn graphite into diamonds in mass quantities such that the price of diamonds will fall, he isn't restricted from selling all his diamonds before he publishes his paper.
(d) Free capitalism means buy and sell what you want, when you want. Not based on where you got information from.
(e) Stock trade data should be a state functions, not path-dependent functions. Where information comes from should not count. The only thing that should count is who bought and sold what and when. It's like asking me how I got into a city and arresting me for using bridge X and not arresting me if I used bridge Y. If the state of the bridges are unchanged, all that should matter is my initial and final location. Period. If the state of the bridges are changed because of me, then we have a problem.
(f) Good analytic skills are equivalent to insider trading. Just because a guy has an awesome brain shouldn't mean he should be restricted from using it ("I think a merger between companies A and B would be so succussful this month that I don't see a reason they won't! So I'll buy a million shares. Also maybe I'll suggest the merge to them to prod them and maybe they will merge!"). If someone else found a way to achieve the equivalent information that the guy with the awesome brain can get ("I heard from the CEO in a private discussion that they might merge this month"), great! Both should be allowed to trade!
(g) In a world of 6 billion people it's plausible that a guy has a lot of money to throw around, and not having insider information access, decides to just buy a million shares of something for the hell of it. And then if it goes up a ton he'll be accused of insider trading, but maybe he really isn't.
imho, if i were an employer i wouldn't hire anybody that said all their work was classified. a programmer is worthless unless they actually took enough interest to do *some* amount of coding OUTSIDE the job.