You probably aren't socially inept, you just haven't met the right people.
That's why I like working with programmers, because they seem to accept me for what I am, and they either don't have girlfriends or don't rub it in (well, not much anyways:).
well maybe it's time for programmers to throw off the shackles of the oppressors and start writing good open source code that doesn't need the overhead of an advertising and sales machine run by weasels to sell it to the public.
just think, if you're out of work, maybe you can write excellent programs, and put all the ms-centric programmers out of work too.
it is sort of funny though to see how geeks sort of expect the worst to happen in this economic downturn. We're never far away from what we were like in school.
maybe this is why we still don't have natural language parsing. because programmers are so anal retentive they refuse to understand something unless it conforms to artificial grammar rules they were taught by frustrated latin teachers.
natural language is flexible, fault-tolerant, ever-evolving. None of which applies to programs as they are currently written.
Anyhow, it's true that the end of the bubble spells disaster for some talented but unsocial techies.
Is this a good thing, that people capable of contributing are ignored because they are not good at playing the "social" game?
If it's not a good thing, then don't play along. When someone says something like "he does a good job, but he doesn't fit in", voice your disagreement.
Otherwise, the socially adept "cool" kids from high school will be in power again, and you'll be left sucking up to them, pretending to be like them even though you really sympathize with the socially maladroit geek who's being treated unfairly.
*sigh* when we finally get to a virtual office environment, maybe then the geeks won't be so targeted; if you can't see them (or only see avatars of them), the cool kids won't be able to use their non-verbal games to smack down the geeks as much. one can hope at least.
How about that store down the street that needs someone to stock the shelves?
I used to have jobs like this; the problem is, they suck. Especially for someone like me who sucks at schmoozing and smalltalk. I thought maybe I'd found my niche in the programming world where I feel so much more comfortable.
Instead of stocking shelves, I would want to figure out how to automate the process. Supermarket shopping could be so much better than it is. But I guess it's all the rage these days to go back to the old tried and true ways and stagnate for a while.
It's probably your own attitude holding you back, not external factors.
wtf is that supposed to mean? that employers once again are making hiring decisions based on subjective criteria like "smiles a lot", "makes good smalltalk", "fits in", "looks good" instead of "gets the job done"?
damn, I suffered for years because I'm socially inept, then I finally get a job where it didn't matter what my attitude is like so long as I get the job done. But now it's all turning back again, and the competent but socially-inept like me will once again suffer. damn you'd have thought my kind would have been weeded out of the gene pool before now.
Would you rather sit in front of an X-ray machine at the doctor's office knowing that the software controlling how much radiation you are exposed to was written by a long-haired, Jolt drinking stay-up-till-3AM-every-night-pounding-out-code software poet?
Personally, I like for the code that I write to be well-organized, clearly written (stressing ease of reading well over clerverness or trickiness), and to emphasize correctness and maintainability, rather than to be cute, to be clever, or tricky, or to be written to impress someone with my haxoring skillz.
What does long hair, staying up till 3am, or drinking jolt have to do with the quality of the code you produce? If the guy cut his hair would it make him a better programmer? Or do all responsible programmers have short hair and work regular hours?
and I don't know why you'd not want them prosecuted
I just don't think you're going to solve the problem. In fact, you might make it even worse.
Crime went down during the 90s; maybe because with the economy doing well people had less incentive to break the law (not because of increased threats of prosecution -- or why has crime started to go up again now?).
I'd compare more to something like valdalism.
really? maybe it's more like a boycott, or picketing in front of a business. They didn't break into the guy's servers. And no one forced the owners of the compromised machines to download the trojans. (OK this last point may be the weakest part of my argument...)
I just think society as a whole would be better off if people like wicked could be shown more information about the effects of their exploits. Educate him. Find out what his incentive is to start ddos attacks and attack the problem right there. That, imho, is the most efficient way to prevent future problems.
putting him in jail may satisfy your thirst for revenge but won't stop other attacks very efficiently.
hiv positive people can live a long time now before getting aids if they ever do. besides your bf and all the others are going to die anyways. Just tell them.
I agree. Also his delight that wicked would soon be prosecutable is troubling to me. Relying on enforcement to solve the problem of ddos is like the war on drugs.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but enforcement is unlikely to deter. He seems to have dealt with it in the right way, and didn't even suffer $5000 worth damage, in fact he probably has gained business because of the publicity. I realize that if the attack had not been subject to filtering, he might have been down a lot longer, but it seems that tools should be developed to defeat such attacks or at least minimize their harm. And educate the kids doing it, communicate with them (as he did), find out why they're doing it, get them to think about what they're doing and the effect of their actions on real people.
ok I'm idealistic. but the status quo of relying on enforcement doesn't work very well either.
I propose that it is conceivable to build a login system where no one server receives an entire piece of a login. The login name is split into two character pieces, for example, and sent to as many servers as necessary along with an MD5/SHA1 sum of the full username - each server verifying that there exists a login name with those two letters in that particular position, and they are associated with that particular cryptographic sum, and nothing more. Notice that the controlling server (the one that you're logging in to) never sees any piece of the login name - but is merely informed (by the client) which machines (in no particular order) the login name pieces were sent to. A similar trick could then be played with the password - sending pieces of the password to some password verification servers, with a cryptographic sum of the verified login name. So, each server never has a record of full login names, and no server ever is sent the full login name.
that's a lot of complexity to protect free stuff. think finding out why someone would want to fuck with the server might be more effective in minimizing such incidents?
how about letting the other shop know? they are likely to be grateful, the problem will be fixed so the innocent will be protected. and you might generate a little good will for non-ms shops.
that abstraction exists to decouple the application from the processor. plus the abstraction makes the code easier and quicker to write, debug, and maintain.
Slashdot Mirror
trim the fat from yogurt, not the company!
I agree :)
That's why I like working with programmers, because they seem to accept me for what I am, and they either don't have girlfriends or don't rub it in (well, not much anyways :).
well maybe it's time for programmers to throw off the shackles of the oppressors and start writing good open source code that doesn't need the overhead of an advertising and sales machine run by weasels to sell it to the public.
just think, if you're out of work, maybe you can write excellent programs, and put all the ms-centric programmers out of work too.
it is sort of funny though to see how geeks sort of expect the worst to happen in this economic downturn. We're never far away from what we were like in school.
what it means if the rumor is true.
obvious.
maybe this is why we still don't have natural language parsing. because programmers are so anal retentive they refuse to understand something unless it conforms to artificial grammar rules they were taught by frustrated latin teachers.
natural language is flexible, fault-tolerant, ever-evolving. None of which applies to programs as they are currently written.
Is this a good thing, that people capable of contributing are ignored because they are not good at playing the "social" game?
If it's not a good thing, then don't play along. When someone says something like "he does a good job, but he doesn't fit in", voice your disagreement.
Otherwise, the socially adept "cool" kids from high school will be in power again, and you'll be left sucking up to them, pretending to be like them even though you really sympathize with the socially maladroit geek who's being treated unfairly.
*sigh* when we finally get to a virtual office environment, maybe then the geeks won't be so targeted; if you can't see them (or only see avatars of them), the cool kids won't be able to use their non-verbal games to smack down the geeks as much. one can hope at least.
I used to have jobs like this; the problem is, they suck. Especially for someone like me who sucks at schmoozing and smalltalk. I thought maybe I'd found my niche in the programming world where I feel so much more comfortable.
Instead of stocking shelves, I would want to figure out how to automate the process. Supermarket shopping could be so much better than it is. But I guess it's all the rage these days to go back to the old tried and true ways and stagnate for a while.
the point is NOT: haha, you lost your high-paying interesting job, now come join the rest of us at our shitty jobs, things are never going to change.
wtf is that supposed to mean? that employers once again are making hiring decisions based on subjective criteria like "smiles a lot", "makes good smalltalk", "fits in", "looks good" instead of "gets the job done"?
damn, I suffered for years because I'm socially inept, then I finally get a job where it didn't matter what my attitude is like so long as I get the job done. But now it's all turning back again, and the competent but socially-inept like me will once again suffer. damn you'd have thought my kind would have been weeded out of the gene pool before now.
I didn't read it; should I not be reading this now?
(not as research projects, but commerically available) so we're getting there?
that one was buried. Not everyone reads every word of every article. I for one am glad they reposted it in a more prominent position.
I wish it would keep track of which messages I'd already read and not redisplay those unless I choose. Doesn't seem like that hard of a thing to code.
Personally, I like for the code that I write to be well-organized, clearly written (stressing ease of reading well over clerverness or trickiness), and to emphasize correctness and maintainability, rather than to be cute, to be clever, or tricky, or to be written to impress someone with my haxoring skillz.
What does long hair, staying up till 3am, or drinking jolt have to do with the quality of the code you produce? If the guy cut his hair would it make him a better programmer? Or do all responsible programmers have short hair and work regular hours?
I would mod this up if I had points.
I just don't think you're going to solve the problem. In fact, you might make it even worse. Crime went down during the 90s; maybe because with the economy doing well people had less incentive to break the law (not because of increased threats of prosecution -- or why has crime started to go up again now?).
I'd compare more to something like valdalism.
really? maybe it's more like a boycott, or picketing in front of a business. They didn't break into the guy's servers. And no one forced the owners of the compromised machines to download the trojans. (OK this last point may be the weakest part of my argument...)
I just think society as a whole would be better off if people like wicked could be shown more information about the effects of their exploits. Educate him. Find out what his incentive is to start ddos attacks and attack the problem right there. That, imho, is the most efficient way to prevent future problems.
putting him in jail may satisfy your thirst for revenge but won't stop other attacks very efficiently.
hiv positive people can live a long time now before getting aids if they ever do. besides your bf and all the others are going to die anyways. Just tell them.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but enforcement is unlikely to deter. He seems to have dealt with it in the right way, and didn't even suffer $5000 worth damage, in fact he probably has gained business because of the publicity. I realize that if the attack had not been subject to filtering, he might have been down a lot longer, but it seems that tools should be developed to defeat such attacks or at least minimize their harm. And educate the kids doing it, communicate with them (as he did), find out why they're doing it, get them to think about what they're doing and the effect of their actions on real people.
ok I'm idealistic. but the status quo of relying on enforcement doesn't work very well either.
developers get admin rights over their machines :)
that's a lot of complexity to protect free stuff. think finding out why someone would want to fuck with the server might be more effective in minimizing such incidents?
everyone should have admin priveleges on their machine!
[...] who's the owner now?
who cares? enjoy the art dude. why so concerned with property?
they should have just done it in java from the start.
This build has been compiled and run on:
Linux RedHat 6.1 (2.2.12-20)
Linux RedHat 7.0 (2.2.16-22)
can't run it on windows, bwahahahaha
if I had points I would mod this up dude
how about letting the other shop know? they are likely to be grateful, the problem will be fixed so the innocent will be protected. and you might generate a little good will for non-ms shops.
that abstraction exists to decouple the application from the processor. plus the abstraction makes the code easier and quicker to write, debug, and maintain.