AHH, I see the confusion. I *DID* say that people actually working in the field were the exception. I'm not speaking of them. I'm speaking of "muggles". Doctors, nurses, mechanics, engineers, lawyers, secretaries, etc. People not in the "DP" department.
I was still in Elementary school in the '70s. I knew exactly one family that had a computer and it was a TRS-80. Mostly because the dad was an electronics engineer. My dad used a computer at work (civil engineer) but really didn't know how it worked beyond the programs he used. He also had a scientific calculator in the early '70s. A true rarity at a time when even a 4-banger cost $50 (and that was real money then).
At that time, balancing the check book was generally done un-aided with pencil and paper math. At most, a simple calculator might be involved. Why would anyone in that time feel that they NEEDed a computer to balance the check book? Especially given how much it cost. My friend's dad didn't evenm use their TRS-80 to balance the checkbook, it was too cumbersome for that.
My next-door neighbor was a programmer on a mainframe (COBOL IIRC) but didn't have a computer at home. I imagine he is now one of those 60+ who does have a clue about computers.
My contact with computers beyond the TRS-80 was dialing into the school system's mainframe with a Honeywell terminal as part of a summer program for gifted students. Very occasionally, we used punch cards.
By the '80s when I was in high school, we started getting C64s when the price came down but our parents weren't even vaguely interested in them and had no idea how they worked. I would guess perhaps 10% of the students used and understood computers. Another 20-30% saw them as advanced game consoles.
By the late '80s I had an XT clone with the v20 upgrade. I was building and repairing PCs. The customers were definitly using them by rote and had no idea how they actually worked.
Kinda like those people taking their statins like clockwork in spite of no proof that they do any good whatsoever. And all those people avoiding salt. And the people eating the trans-fat laden margarine because the fats in butter are harmful. How about those people alternately eating and not eating eggs because they are either good for you or lethal in any amount?
When "science" and "medicine" give such crappy advice, is it any wonder people start listening to woo from other sources too?
What did an adult in 1977 need a spreadsheet for at home? More to the point, what did they need it for badly enough to spend $1300 (in 1977 dollars) on?
I was there. I saw it. I helped them. It was certainly by rote. They understood the computer like they understood an instamatic camera. In the '70s, for the most part if there was a computer at work, it was a vt100 terminal connected to a mainframe or a mini. IT was still called "DP". In the '80s, the PC started to take hold.
Cough and cold tablets are a stimulant, but not amphetamines. Otherwise nobody would bother with the lithium and iodine, they'd just eat a whole pack of cold pills.
Adderall is actually amphetamine (not methamphetamine), so it is safer than meth but not as safe as cold pills. It's actually the stuff bikers were so in to in the '60s.
Nah, what does the employer care if after 5 years they develop an untreatable and disabling neurological disorder? They'll just burn 'em and churn 'em like always.
Sure, but they were slow, expensive, and didn't do anything that the average Joe needed to do, so most people in that era didn't buy one. $1300 was a giant pile of money in '77.
The C64 wasn't until '82. It really brought the price down but still wasn't cheap at nearly $600. Most of the adults who bought one did it for their kids. They became a lot more affordable a couple years later.
But even then, most adults had little reason to have a computer at home and most who used one at work did so by rote. They didn't need to know how the things worked in order to do their job, so they didn't.
The mid to late '90s was when computers in the home became the rule rather than the exception. A 30 something then is a 50 something today.
HST works the same way. They routinely (and algorithmicly) place a bunch of orders they have no intention of actually executing. That's how they manage to jump in between legitimate trades so they can skim a penny or two off the top.
There's your answer. He did exactly what they do, but did it cleverly enough to remove the speed advantage. As a result, the money flowed the 'wrong' way and so Wall Street's pet investigators must put a stop to it.
They do have uncanny accuracy for telling drugs from not drugs. They are also a pack animal and want to please their master. So it doesn't take them long to learn when their master will be pleased if they act like there's drugs in a car. It takes quite a while longer to teach them the fine points of the Constitution.
It's easy to just claim there must have been drugs in the car at one time and write it off.
Even if you bought your car brand new, you cannot be sure that nobody on the assembly line had drugs on them nor that a salesman at the dealership never rolled one in the car.
The dog sniffing around your car is not considered a search of the car (because it's searching the area around the car that is not part of your personal property.
Am I the only one who sees that as the "adult" version of siblings in the back seat: "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you!".
It's broken because it subverts democratic representation and allows the already fantastically wealthy to get a bit more wealthy at the expense of moving everyone else closer to a situation like East Germany before the fall.
The thing is, it wouldn't just suck for people who know what they're doing. VOIP and some games won't work well that way either. Anything like that needs to be seen as a stopgap only running in parallel with IPv6 deployment. There actually are people claiming that more NATting faster is an actual solution to the problem INSTEAD of IPv6.
It's important not to mistake the bridge to the solution for the actual solution.
One way it might help is that it will make IPv4 feel very much like the second class citizen.
I have no doubt you will have a few id10t's calling rattling off (fake) credentials or actually meaning they managed people who did those things.
But honestly, is it so much to ask that the card flipper automatically ping the customer's router and others on their street before haranguing them to reboot their modem, router, PC, car, cell phone, and cat before even considering the possibility that they might know what they're doing?
Quite honestly, with some very basic training and proper tools, there's no reason any of my connection down calls should take more than 30 seconds to result in a truck roll even if they don't believe a word I say. For that matter, with proper monitoring, the truck should be rolling by the time I call.
To top it off, in addition to better customer satisfaction, they would save money by keeping the calls short and especially by avoiding rolling a contractor truck that has no ability to fix the actual problem on the line.
In the general case, 60+ year old adults DO have the most problem with that simply because computers were not part of their life until recently. There are, as usual, exceptions in the form of people who actually worked in the field and so had access to computers (and a reason to access them) much longer.
It'snot that younger people are somehow smarter or better, it's just that they have had longer (in general) to learn about computers.
The experience thing goes both ways. I found it amusing in a "Kids React" video where they were looking at an old desk phone and were thoroughly confused about things like rotary dialing. The best comment though was that it was too bulky to fit in your backpack, clearly not understanding that it was expected to remain on the desk. Again, not a matter of intelligence or other virtue, just a matter of life experience.
ISPs are a problem here, but so are equipment vendors. There has been a push for v6 over 2 or three hardware upgrade cycles. In theory, the vast majority of hardware in an ISPs plant should be just awaiting configuration. Alas, much of that equipment was only v6 checkbox capable rather than meaningfully capable. Cisco sold a lot of gear that used the custom ASICs to route v4 and the anemic CPU to route v6. It all looked fine in the demo, but falls right down under a production load.
Part of the problem is that the incumbents have massive blocks of IP addresses that they got when they were handed out like water. Back when nobody really looked at the justification section of the IP request. It's the new players that have a real problem getting addresses assigned. Next I suppose there will be a place to attach your latest colonoscopy report.
But it isn't feasible. On the server side, you can stuff a number of virtual websites behind a single IP, but many customers want their own VM (sometimes for very good reasons). There are things other than http(s) on the net.
On the client side, there is a matter of administrative control. Who will own the NAT device that you and your neighbors all sit behind so that you can be NATed behind a single IP? Do you want to leave it up to your ISP if a rule can be added to the NAT box so you can ssh into your network through a selected port? What if your neighbor wants the same port for something else?
It sounds more like a desperate last resort than a real solution. Compared to that kind of pain, upgrading to IPv6 is a no-brainer.
Slashdot Mirror
AHH, I see the confusion. I *DID* say that people actually working in the field were the exception. I'm not speaking of them. I'm speaking of "muggles". Doctors, nurses, mechanics, engineers, lawyers, secretaries, etc. People not in the "DP" department.
I was still in Elementary school in the '70s. I knew exactly one family that had a computer and it was a TRS-80. Mostly because the dad was an electronics engineer. My dad used a computer at work (civil engineer) but really didn't know how it worked beyond the programs he used. He also had a scientific calculator in the early '70s. A true rarity at a time when even a 4-banger cost $50 (and that was real money then).
At that time, balancing the check book was generally done un-aided with pencil and paper math. At most, a simple calculator might be involved. Why would anyone in that time feel that they NEEDed a computer to balance the check book? Especially given how much it cost. My friend's dad didn't evenm use their TRS-80 to balance the checkbook, it was too cumbersome for that.
My next-door neighbor was a programmer on a mainframe (COBOL IIRC) but didn't have a computer at home. I imagine he is now one of those 60+ who does have a clue about computers.
My contact with computers beyond the TRS-80 was dialing into the school system's mainframe with a Honeywell terminal as part of a summer program for gifted students. Very occasionally, we used punch cards.
By the '80s when I was in high school, we started getting C64s when the price came down but our parents weren't even vaguely interested in them and had no idea how they worked. I would guess perhaps 10% of the students used and understood computers. Another 20-30% saw them as advanced game consoles.
By the late '80s I had an XT clone with the v20 upgrade. I was building and repairing PCs. The customers were definitly using them by rote and had no idea how they actually worked.
Kinda like those people taking their statins like clockwork in spite of no proof that they do any good whatsoever. And all those people avoiding salt. And the people eating the trans-fat laden margarine because the fats in butter are harmful. How about those people alternately eating and not eating eggs because they are either good for you or lethal in any amount?
When "science" and "medicine" give such crappy advice, is it any wonder people start listening to woo from other sources too?
More to the point, frankly W wanted to be a war president like his daddy and he found a poor excuse to make it happen.
What did an adult in 1977 need a spreadsheet for at home? More to the point, what did they need it for badly enough to spend $1300 (in 1977 dollars) on?
I was there. I saw it. I helped them. It was certainly by rote. They understood the computer like they understood an instamatic camera. In the '70s, for the most part if there was a computer at work, it was a vt100 terminal connected to a mainframe or a mini. IT was still called "DP". In the '80s, the PC started to take hold.
Cough and cold tablets are a stimulant, but not amphetamines. Otherwise nobody would bother with the lithium and iodine, they'd just eat a whole pack of cold pills.
Adderall is actually amphetamine (not methamphetamine), so it is safer than meth but not as safe as cold pills. It's actually the stuff bikers were so in to in the '60s.
Nah, what does the employer care if after 5 years they develop an untreatable and disabling neurological disorder? They'll just burn 'em and churn 'em like always.
Meth and coffee are a world apart in strength and effect. Meth and Adderall, not so much.
Sure, but they were slow, expensive, and didn't do anything that the average Joe needed to do, so most people in that era didn't buy one. $1300 was a giant pile of money in '77.
The C64 wasn't until '82. It really brought the price down but still wasn't cheap at nearly $600. Most of the adults who bought one did it for their kids. They became a lot more affordable a couple years later.
But even then, most adults had little reason to have a computer at home and most who used one at work did so by rote. They didn't need to know how the things worked in order to do their job, so they didn't.
The mid to late '90s was when computers in the home became the rule rather than the exception. A 30 something then is a 50 something today.
I'm not an expert, but I know enough about it.
Much like I know how oops insurance works even though I'm not a wise guy.
HST works the same way. They routinely (and algorithmicly) place a bunch of orders they have no intention of actually executing. That's how they manage to jump in between legitimate trades so they can skim a penny or two off the top.
There's your answer. He did exactly what they do, but did it cleverly enough to remove the speed advantage. As a result, the money flowed the 'wrong' way and so Wall Street's pet investigators must put a stop to it.
Sounds like the way practically all institutional high speed traders work. So the crime is apparently that the money flowed the wrong way.
You should be able to cancel whatever part hasn't already been paired with a matching sell order. But once it gets paired up, it's yours.
A bullet can also enter a person who has not committed a crime when given a cue by its "handler."
That would be why we don't accept a bullet entering a person as "probable cause" to believe the shooting is justified.
It's fine to use the dogs to find drugs. It is not fine to consider the dog alerting to be probable cause.
They do have uncanny accuracy for telling drugs from not drugs. They are also a pack animal and want to please their master. So it doesn't take them long to learn when their master will be pleased if they act like there's drugs in a car. It takes quite a while longer to teach them the fine points of the Constitution.
It's easy to just claim there must have been drugs in the car at one time and write it off.
Even if you bought your car brand new, you cannot be sure that nobody on the assembly line had drugs on them nor that a salesman at the dealership never rolled one in the car.
What do you base the claim of consistency on? I haven't seen any analysis showing any consistency at all in the field.
The dog sniffing around your car is not considered a search of the car (because it's searching the area around the car that is not part of your personal property.
Am I the only one who sees that as the "adult" version of siblings in the back seat: "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you!".
It's broken because it subverts democratic representation and allows the already fantastically wealthy to get a bit more wealthy at the expense of moving everyone else closer to a situation like East Germany before the fall.
The thing is, it wouldn't just suck for people who know what they're doing. VOIP and some games won't work well that way either. Anything like that needs to be seen as a stopgap only running in parallel with IPv6 deployment. There actually are people claiming that more NATting faster is an actual solution to the problem INSTEAD of IPv6.
It's important not to mistake the bridge to the solution for the actual solution.
One way it might help is that it will make IPv4 feel very much like the second class citizen.
I have no doubt you will have a few id10t's calling rattling off (fake) credentials or actually meaning they managed people who did those things.
But honestly, is it so much to ask that the card flipper automatically ping the customer's router and others on their street before haranguing them to reboot their modem, router, PC, car, cell phone, and cat before even considering the possibility that they might know what they're doing?
Quite honestly, with some very basic training and proper tools, there's no reason any of my connection down calls should take more than 30 seconds to result in a truck roll even if they don't believe a word I say. For that matter, with proper monitoring, the truck should be rolling by the time I call.
To top it off, in addition to better customer satisfaction, they would save money by keeping the calls short and especially by avoiding rolling a contractor truck that has no ability to fix the actual problem on the line.
In the general case, 60+ year old adults DO have the most problem with that simply because computers were not part of their life until recently. There are, as usual, exceptions in the form of people who actually worked in the field and so had access to computers (and a reason to access them) much longer.
It'snot that younger people are somehow smarter or better, it's just that they have had longer (in general) to learn about computers.
The experience thing goes both ways. I found it amusing in a "Kids React" video where they were looking at an old desk phone and were thoroughly confused about things like rotary dialing. The best comment though was that it was too bulky to fit in your backpack, clearly not understanding that it was expected to remain on the desk. Again, not a matter of intelligence or other virtue, just a matter of life experience.
ISPs are a problem here, but so are equipment vendors. There has been a push for v6 over 2 or three hardware upgrade cycles. In theory, the vast majority of hardware in an ISPs plant should be just awaiting configuration. Alas, much of that equipment was only v6 checkbox capable rather than meaningfully capable. Cisco sold a lot of gear that used the custom ASICs to route v4 and the anemic CPU to route v6. It all looked fine in the demo, but falls right down under a production load.
Part of the problem is that the incumbents have massive blocks of IP addresses that they got when they were handed out like water. Back when nobody really looked at the justification section of the IP request. It's the new players that have a real problem getting addresses assigned. Next I suppose there will be a place to attach your latest colonoscopy report.
But it isn't feasible. On the server side, you can stuff a number of virtual websites behind a single IP, but many customers want their own VM (sometimes for very good reasons). There are things other than http(s) on the net.
On the client side, there is a matter of administrative control. Who will own the NAT device that you and your neighbors all sit behind so that you can be NATed behind a single IP? Do you want to leave it up to your ISP if a rule can be added to the NAT box so you can ssh into your network through a selected port? What if your neighbor wants the same port for something else?
It sounds more like a desperate last resort than a real solution. Compared to that kind of pain, upgrading to IPv6 is a no-brainer.
That's interesting. I hereby amend my comment: s/lettuce/regular non-medicated lettuce/