I didn't have any trouble whatsoever finding a full-time job; I graduate this coming April with a Bachelor's in CS, and the only company to which I applied hired me. Had I bothered applying to more places I'm quite sure I would have had more offers (and in fact I know several people who were sitting on four or five offers).
Anyway, I have trouble believing there aren't any jobs out there, precisely because of how easy it was for me to get one. It seems to me that difficulty finding a job says more about the person's skill set than about the economy, at least right now...
That said, I am aware that some companies have enacted partial hiring freezes for the time being; however, "company X won't hire me!" is very different from "no company will hire me!".
They had problems with people watching the series during work hours. I mean really, who could resist? That argument almost worked, but it turns out the CEO got punched in the face by Bruce Willis when they were kids, so the ban on Moonlighting went through...
Claiming that programming in Java or.NET (or any other language) is inherently "boring and does little to inspire the best engineers" shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.
The best engineers are not bored by the implementation language - they're bored by poor ideas. Give them a great idea, and they'll do it in Java,.NET, C++, Perl, Haskell, or assembly if they have to, and it will be good, because the best engineers are challenged by great ideas, not languages.
Disclaimer: I'm sort of anti-Java (though that's what my job is going to focus on, shortly), and I prefer C++ to C#, so my defense of Java and.NET is unbiased. Besides, my comments apply to every language.
You're suggesting that his current employer will pay him extra to do side projects?
No, he's suggesting that his current employer will pay to get certifications (hence the "training, certification, degree" examples). This is quite common.
I haven't been to rentacoder since 2004, so maybe they've changed, but memory tells me that 90% of the projects listed there are either someone's homework assignment that they'll pay you an effective $3/hour to do, or the projects expect far too much work for far too little pay (e.g. a whole CMS for $200, as others have mentioned).
I used to know of three or four other equivalent sites, but they were all just as filled with crap as rentacoder. Has the situation improved any?
I met a guy in the Dominican Republic who took a regular car engine out of a car (I would assume the rest of the car was unusable) and hooked it up outside to be his generator... If you're unfamiliar with the DR, their power goes out frequently. He claimed that the car-engine-turned-generator was cheaper than regular generators.
That's what's stupid. I *don't* have filename extension display turned off. Paint saved the file with "ss.png" as the name (not "ss.png.jpeg") but saved it in JPEG format.
I made it a special point to teach my sister how to send me.png screenshots after the first time she sent me a.doc containing a screenshot...
On an unrelated note, Paint is kind of dumb. I typed "ss.png" for the filename, but forgot to change the "file type" dropdown to PNG from JPEG. Took me a rather long time to figure out why my small (300x200) screenshot was 500KB.
So it's not ok to sell something knowing it's illegal, but it's ok to possess it with the same knowledge? Seems like a double standard.
In any case, your logic is flawed - if I have a large quantity of a drug, they'll assume I was going to sell it (and they'll prosecute me for it) even if I never intended to sell it. Should I be set free, according to your logic? If so, how do you separate those who legitimately didn't intend to sell it and those who simply say they didn't intend to sell it? Remember, lie detector tests aren't admissible in court, and so cannot be used as a basis for their release.
What about dealers who are smart enough to only carry small quantities, and get busted for simple possession? Should they be set free simply because they weren't caught for dealing, even if it is known (in some non-court-admissible fashion) that they were dealing their small quantities?
Hopefully you can see that if you let out those jailed for possession, the only way to be fair is to let out those who were jailed for dealing - and vice versa. If you keep in jail those who were jailed for dealing, to be fair you must also keep in jail those who were jailed for possession.
For the record, I was relatively specific; if you read my original post you'll see I gave the example of traffic laws.
Oh, I agree that Comodo's trust needs to be revoked, I was just clarifying that the web won't actually break, since sites using old Comodo certificates will still work, and they'll still be encrypted. The only difference will be that browsers will require user input before proceeding.
Honestly I'd rather see the U.S. move to a full democracy, where every issue is decided by popular vote. I think the senate/house system is outdated and not well-suited to a country of our population.
Agreed - the article author didn't do anything with his fraudulently obtained certificate, so he did nothing more than point out flaws in the system.
It's similar to the journalist who recently successfully transferred ownership of the Empire State Building to himself using forged documents. Sure, using forged documents was illegal, but he was able to obtain legal ownership of the building until he returned it. The journalist did nothing more than point out flaws in the system.
Like I've said elsewhere, sites won't fail to work - users will simply be informed that the certificate is not trusted, but that they can continue if they wish - the same as what happens right now when the remote site uses any self-signed certificate.
Let's drop this nonsense about "breaking the web", ok?
Additionally, the sites with certificates from the revoked CA will still work - the browser will just say "I don't trust this CA, do you want to continue?"
So what we want to happen is what will happen - users will be warned that the site's certificate was not signed by a trusted CA, but the site will still work if the user wants to continue anyway. What exactly is the problem, timeOday?
Why do you assume Microsoft wouldn't fix it? I've seen root certificate updates in my Windows Update list on various occasions, so they do actually make changes and updates to the list.
Do you really think Joe Sixpack is smart enough to know how to do that, even if he is given step-by-step instructions? You appear to be overestimating the intelligence of the average person.
Since when were Visa and friends interested in security? It's cheaper for them to just refund fraudulent charges than it is to try and stop the charges from occurring in the first place (which of course means they did it wrong in the first place, but that's beside the point).
You jest, but in reality the root CAs certify themselves. That's why we have this whole trust model in the first place. If we don't trust the root CAs, who can we trust? Of course, if a root CA is misbehaving, then we need to make them untrusted...
I bought a $1400 laptop a year and a half ago that came with a GeForce Go 7300 with "256" MB RAM (that is, 128 dedicated and 128 shared with system RAM). I could build an equivalent (actually better) desktop right now for around $500.
I can run pretty much everything, though not with all the eye candy turned on, and not at high resolutions - but then, that's not really why I play games. Also, I've never seen a PC game come out at more than $50 (and I rarely buy until it gets cheaper), though admittedly I rarely buy at brick-and-mortar stores anymore so I don't know what they charge there.
My point is that you don't need a $2000 PC to play new games, you just need a lower-mid-range PC with a discrete video card.
So what you're complaining about:
They should write the games so that if you have a video card that costs twice what an Xbox costs you'll get the graphics, yet if you have a normal $50 video card the game will still play.
... is exactly what they do. Valve's games are an especially good example of this. Maybe you should stop hiding under that rock?
Are you really comparing a regime change to the legalization of drugs? When a regime changes, then the previous regime's laws generally go with it...
Anyway, you know I was speaking in generalities, right? All generalizations fall apart somewhere. I was referring to relatively minor offenses (when compared to things like murder) being made legal, I was not referring to things like slavery.
Well, enjoy your time in jail. Meanwhile, I'll be on the outside, free to get the law changed. It's somewhat more difficult (though admittedly not impossible) to do that from behind bars.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't have any trouble whatsoever finding a full-time job; I graduate this coming April with a Bachelor's in CS, and the only company to which I applied hired me. Had I bothered applying to more places I'm quite sure I would have had more offers (and in fact I know several people who were sitting on four or five offers).
Anyway, I have trouble believing there aren't any jobs out there, precisely because of how easy it was for me to get one. It seems to me that difficulty finding a job says more about the person's skill set than about the economy, at least right now...
That said, I am aware that some companies have enacted partial hiring freezes for the time being; however, "company X won't hire me!" is very different from "no company will hire me!".
They had problems with people watching the series during work hours. I mean really, who could resist? That argument almost worked, but it turns out the CEO got punched in the face by Bruce Willis when they were kids, so the ban on Moonlighting went through...
Claiming that programming in Java or .NET (or any other language) is inherently "boring and does little to inspire the best engineers" shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.
The best engineers are not bored by the implementation language - they're bored by poor ideas. Give them a great idea, and they'll do it in Java, .NET, C++, Perl, Haskell, or assembly if they have to, and it will be good, because the best engineers are challenged by great ideas, not languages.
Disclaimer: I'm sort of anti-Java (though that's what my job is going to focus on, shortly), and I prefer C++ to C#, so my defense of Java and .NET is unbiased. Besides, my comments apply to every language.
You're suggesting that his current employer will pay him extra to do side projects?
No, he's suggesting that his current employer will pay to get certifications (hence the "training, certification, degree" examples). This is quite common.
I haven't been to rentacoder since 2004, so maybe they've changed, but memory tells me that 90% of the projects listed there are either someone's homework assignment that they'll pay you an effective $3/hour to do, or the projects expect far too much work for far too little pay (e.g. a whole CMS for $200, as others have mentioned).
I used to know of three or four other equivalent sites, but they were all just as filled with crap as rentacoder. Has the situation improved any?
I met a guy in the Dominican Republic who took a regular car engine out of a car (I would assume the rest of the car was unusable) and hooked it up outside to be his generator... If you're unfamiliar with the DR, their power goes out frequently. He claimed that the car-engine-turned-generator was cheaper than regular generators.
That's what's stupid. I *don't* have filename extension display turned off. Paint saved the file with "ss.png" as the name (not "ss.png.jpeg") but saved it in JPEG format.
I made it a special point to teach my sister how to send me .png screenshots after the first time she sent me a .doc containing a screenshot...
On an unrelated note, Paint is kind of dumb. I typed "ss.png" for the filename, but forgot to change the "file type" dropdown to PNG from JPEG. Took me a rather long time to figure out why my small (300x200) screenshot was 500KB.
So it's not ok to sell something knowing it's illegal, but it's ok to possess it with the same knowledge? Seems like a double standard.
In any case, your logic is flawed - if I have a large quantity of a drug, they'll assume I was going to sell it (and they'll prosecute me for it) even if I never intended to sell it. Should I be set free, according to your logic? If so, how do you separate those who legitimately didn't intend to sell it and those who simply say they didn't intend to sell it? Remember, lie detector tests aren't admissible in court, and so cannot be used as a basis for their release.
What about dealers who are smart enough to only carry small quantities, and get busted for simple possession? Should they be set free simply because they weren't caught for dealing, even if it is known (in some non-court-admissible fashion) that they were dealing their small quantities?
Hopefully you can see that if you let out those jailed for possession, the only way to be fair is to let out those who were jailed for dealing - and vice versa. If you keep in jail those who were jailed for dealing, to be fair you must also keep in jail those who were jailed for possession.
For the record, I was relatively specific; if you read my original post you'll see I gave the example of traffic laws.
Oh, I agree that Comodo's trust needs to be revoked, I was just clarifying that the web won't actually break, since sites using old Comodo certificates will still work, and they'll still be encrypted. The only difference will be that browsers will require user input before proceeding.
Point taken.
Honestly I'd rather see the U.S. move to a full democracy, where every issue is decided by popular vote. I think the senate/house system is outdated and not well-suited to a country of our population.
Agreed - the article author didn't do anything with his fraudulently obtained certificate, so he did nothing more than point out flaws in the system.
It's similar to the journalist who recently successfully transferred ownership of the Empire State Building to himself using forged documents. Sure, using forged documents was illegal, but he was able to obtain legal ownership of the building until he returned it. The journalist did nothing more than point out flaws in the system.
Like I've said elsewhere, sites won't fail to work - users will simply be informed that the certificate is not trusted, but that they can continue if they wish - the same as what happens right now when the remote site uses any self-signed certificate.
Let's drop this nonsense about "breaking the web", ok?
I like your idea, but I think there are too many people scared of giving the government control over one more thing, so it won't ever happen :(
Additionally, the sites with certificates from the revoked CA will still work - the browser will just say "I don't trust this CA, do you want to continue?"
So what we want to happen is what will happen - users will be warned that the site's certificate was not signed by a trusted CA, but the site will still work if the user wants to continue anyway. What exactly is the problem, timeOday?
Why do you assume Microsoft wouldn't fix it? I've seen root certificate updates in my Windows Update list on various occasions, so they do actually make changes and updates to the list.
Do you really think Joe Sixpack is smart enough to know how to do that, even if he is given step-by-step instructions? You appear to be overestimating the intelligence of the average person.
Since when were Visa and friends interested in security? It's cheaper for them to just refund fraudulent charges than it is to try and stop the charges from occurring in the first place (which of course means they did it wrong in the first place, but that's beside the point).
You jest, but in reality the root CAs certify themselves. That's why we have this whole trust model in the first place. If we don't trust the root CAs, who can we trust? Of course, if a root CA is misbehaving, then we need to make them untrusted...
I bought a $1400 laptop a year and a half ago that came with a GeForce Go 7300 with "256" MB RAM (that is, 128 dedicated and 128 shared with system RAM). I could build an equivalent (actually better) desktop right now for around $500.
I can run pretty much everything, though not with all the eye candy turned on, and not at high resolutions - but then, that's not really why I play games. Also, I've never seen a PC game come out at more than $50 (and I rarely buy until it gets cheaper), though admittedly I rarely buy at brick-and-mortar stores anymore so I don't know what they charge there.
My point is that you don't need a $2000 PC to play new games, you just need a lower-mid-range PC with a discrete video card.
So what you're complaining about:
They should write the games so that if you have a video card that costs twice what an Xbox costs you'll get the graphics, yet if you have a normal $50 video card the game will still play.
... is exactly what they do. Valve's games are an especially good example of this. Maybe you should stop hiding under that rock?
I didn't say it will work :P
Are you really comparing a regime change to the legalization of drugs? When a regime changes, then the previous regime's laws generally go with it...
Anyway, you know I was speaking in generalities, right? All generalizations fall apart somewhere. I was referring to relatively minor offenses (when compared to things like murder) being made legal, I was not referring to things like slavery.
Did you contact your congressional representative about it?
Well, enjoy your time in jail. Meanwhile, I'll be on the outside, free to get the law changed. It's somewhat more difficult (though admittedly not impossible) to do that from behind bars.
I'm using the default list (Easylist USA) for Adblock Plus and it blocks Google's ads just fine.