You are correct if you consider the strict cost of the currency itself.
However, by its very nature, a currency is only valuable because of one factor: perception of redeemability. That perception comes from stability of the issuing government, knowledge that it's backed in some exchangeable commodity (gold, silver, potatoes, whatever), and universal acceptance by persons and institutions.
The USD, EUR, CHF, and GBP probably fit the bill best on these (other examples being the NZD, AUD, and CND, which are too small to play much of a role internationally.) All of these match all three of the above criteria, and thus are exchangeable.
You may recall that a few years ago, the US issued new, ugly Dollar bills (the ones with the big faces.) In the previous years, the treasury had come up with some anti-counterfiting measures, which were not nearly as advanced as what you see in some currencies, but still a step in the right direction.
One of the credible theories floating around as to why the US took the extra step of issuing visibly new currencies (different layout) was that it had come under pressure from a number of countries with less-than-stable currencies to do so. The reason given was that these countries' shadow economies, which constitute a large portion of their GDP, were based largely on Dollars.
Thus, if the dollar were perceived to be easily counterfeitable (as it no doubt is), it threatens the economic stability of half the third world. So the US had to be seen has doing something visible, e.g. changing the design.
Indubitably that's not the only or maybe even main reason behind the change--however, the moral of the story is that the benefits of adding anti-counterifiting technology to cash go far beyond the actual costs of the technology. If you were in Europe when the Euro came out, you'll no doubt recall the massive publicity about how unforgeable the money was--that's been proven to be a load of hooey, but it still contributed noticeably to the acceptance and stability of the currency.
Now the big brother aspects of it, that's a different story entirely...
I understand the allure of 'replicating' or 'predicting' real-world sports. That's been around since way before even our Mac II baseball games where we shared teams by diskette that we'd created with real players.
The predicting side of this is probably only of interest for people involved in sports betting and serious fanatics--but given the rise of game leagues, online competition has proven pretty well that it can stand on its own, hasn't it?
I can deal with the lack of support, as the devices are well-made. I'll look into the other bits, and may even buy a new one if what you say is correct:-)
I really like PalmOS and its derivatives--I've looked at Zaurus, WindowsCEPocketPCTinyHPCompaqGizmo or whatever it's called, Psion, and a number of others. I bought a Clie 760, because I love the screen quality and the case worksmanship. However, I have three major gripes with Clies.
First, Sony's support is utterly abysmal. I mean it is worse than worst. A friend, who is one of their European product managers, was not surprised when I tried to tell him my tale of woe, trying to get them to replace the screen on my Clie (which I purchased in the US.) The screen scratches easily, which is mainly my fault for not putting a cover on it. Would they replace it (even if I paid for it) in Europe? Fat chance. Talk about helpdesk hell.
PalmOS doesn't, to my knowledge, have an IP stack. I would have thought that, by now, someone would come up with at least a rudimentary way to access network resources. Not too tragic.
The last, worst thing, is that the Clie does not have any concept of a 'filesystem' as I understand it. I can insert a 128MB memory stick, but I cannot run applications from it. I can move files used by applications to that memory stick, but unless they're memory stick-aware Sony Clie apps, they will not find the files.
And, my perennial gripe with the Clie, it's got this cool memory stick import tool, where I can use it as a storage device on a Windows PC (gave up trying to get it all working nicely on my FreeBSD boxes). I can copy files back and forth when the Clie is in its cradle, but I cannot then access those files with my generic applications. Lame.
I would be more than grateful if anyone can suggest a way around this. I know asking for a palmtop
You are not just hired for your technical expertise, but also for your 'fresh' point of view on things. You should offer your way of seeing things, but within a few constraints:
-Go through your project manager. You will inevitably have a 'handler' or stakeholder to whom you report. Your job is to make him look good. Do not go around or above him. Give him your honest assessment of a situation, or present it to a larger body if he prompts you to do so.
-Create a paper trail. Ensure that your opinion is registered, via an email, or whatever, then leave it at that.
-Don't push. Justify and defend your stance if prompted to do so; make sure your good arguments have been made to the person(s) who are responsible for choosing and representing them, and make sure that you support them if they choose to do so. Do not insist, advise.
-Don't insist on credit. Let your superior take credit. If you're competent, it gets around. Do good work for someone, they look good. If the guy who hired and kept the consultant looks good, you look good. If he gets rid of you and the project tanks, he looks bad. Your reputation among your peers does not suffer from this.
-Make people seek your opinion rather than foisting it on them. Given time, professionalism, competence and hard work, it will become clear to your peers and potential clients that you're good. The mark of a good consultant is that people come to you, not the other way around.
-Set an example. This relates to the previous point. As a consultant, you should walk on water. You are called in to do the tasks the permies can't handle, and thus you should hold yourself to a higher standard of conduct and competence. Don't 'go native', but be professional with a degree of empathy for the client's needs.
\I live in Switzerland, so this may not apply to you.\
I'm an IT security and unix consultant/contractor here. Aside from a few years before 2001, when massive numbers of low-skill kids decided to make a quick buck as contractors, consultants are held to a far higher standard than "permies". Much as I hate to say it, there's a sense of elitism among "real" contractors here--these are the hardcore tech guys whom you bring in when something is gefuckt beyond salvation by mere mortals.
N.b. that I don't count myself as a Superman like that, just lucky to be in the right places at the right time so far.
I've never contracted in the US, but I recall looking at contract sysadmin jobs during college, paying $17.50 US per hour. Most of my American contractor colleagues' conversations I overhear involve an ambition to go permie, and how shitty contracting is.
This surprises the hell out of me, as I think contractors/consultants here generate sort of a sense of "awe" (crappy word, but I can't think of anything better), as the outsider who comes in to do the _really_ hard stuff, among employees. This can develop into resentment if not handled carefully.
One of my project managers taught me a good lesson for consulting--never cease looking at a job as an "us-vs-them" situation. Deliver more than you promised ahead of schedule and raise the bar all around, but consider yourself as providing a good example. Stokely offers what I consider to be some excellent guidelines of how to go about this.
The idea of a 'caste' system, where the permies look down at contractors amuses me to no end.
You have valid points, however I question their relevance to the situation.
-Is it illegal to make a search engine available off a campus network? No. Unless Princeton network usage policy says otherwise, there is no issue here.
-Regarding the 'Search In' field, let's be frank. You and I both "know" that he was providing what essentially amounts to a warez crawler. Nudge nudge wink win. However, before the law, "patently obvious to anyone with common sense" is not sufficient evidence to convict someone or to win a case. I'll go out on a ledge and compare this to a 'fair use' scenario, where you may use, say, a certain file format to transfer illegal information, or cryptography to engage in illicit acts, but the mere fact that there are legitimate uses for these technologies, and that they were not designed explicitly with malfeasance in mind, prevents legal action against anyone using them just because they're using them.
Same with a search engine that explicitly allows qualifying strings such as 'mpg' or 'mp3'. I realize that it's a big leap between allowing me to enter these strings into google and providing a ready-made interface that already enters them for me, but I don't think the legal difference is that big, or relevant. And even if it were, I fall back on my above argument--there are legal mpg/mp3/avi/divx files not covered by restrictive copyrights. Disputes about illegal material should be handled between the copyright holder and the provider of the material--not a completely neutral intermediary.
Same applies to the filesize filter. He is obviously attempting to qualify searches, and I am positive that he was aware that a lot of these searches would be for pirated material. So what?
As long as the interface did not differentiate between the legality of content, but rather between file format types, I would be shocked to find that there is a case.
If the guy was sharing copyrighted material himself, well, my sympathies as I really dislike the RIAA, but that's a different matter entirely.
Note, I'm not a really hard-core gamer or expert, so take this with a grain of salt, but...
Cheating in online games is always going to be a problem. You won't solve it, but can at least reduce it to the point where a server admin can deal with individual accusations.
-Only send each client information it really needs. -Use checksums on binaries and libraries and things. -Try to get more 'mature' gaming crowds together. I have noticed vast difference playing Battlefield 1942 at various times during the day, such as when it's mostly high school kids, or people with jobs who start playing after dinner, whatever. -Make it clear that cheating sucks and won't be tolerated--this can help catch the remaining people with aimbot screen overlays and things that automated means won't take care of.
Netrek used some anti-cheating mechanism, by embedding an RSA key in every "authorized" client, to which only a few developers known to the "RSA guy" and the Netrek community as a whole had access. Imperfect system, but it reduced use of bots to the point where it didn't really matter.
Also, one thing that a lot of people forget is that a lot of 'active' cheats (mainly bots in action games) fall into one of two categories:
a) Fully-automated -- these are predictable. b) Partially automated -- things like aimbots. Their "owners" probably suck otherwise. If they see you, they'll get off a clean shot, but you don't have to confront them directly to smash them.
I am usually sufficiently gratified when I crush someone I suspect strongly of cheating by knowing it's probably some whiny 13 year old staring at his screen in impotent frustration to not really care about the other 9 out of 10 times he's beat me, not by skill but through some technology he most likely didn't create.
It's theoretically a super-centralized country, with someone like Nicolas Sarkozy (minister of the interior) representing the government andwanting to impose rule after rule, and anyone who disagrees with him is an ignorant baboon, tons of police and rules and taxes and regulation, and...
...most of my French friends' attiude? Bah, too hell with the bastards, I'm driving to see my mistress. Pour me another glass.
When I first read the Neuromancer trilogy (ok, so Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive sucked) around 1991, I hadn't really gotten into the whole social side of the Internet yet. This is to say, I'd mainly dealt with the technology, and played a few games.
I re-read the whole thing about 3 years later, along with Snow Crash, and went "whoah! That's incredible!" Especially in the case of Neuromancer and some other books in its genre, once I had some inkling of what was possible with networked technology, I realized that these works outline the whole proverbial "brave new world".
Let's face it, think about the mind-numbing everyday crap that we do with computers, such as shop online or program or talk to a friend on IRC or play network games. Do you realize just how incredible it really is, when you stop to consider? Now read Neuromancer again, written anno 1984, and think about it. How could books like that not have massively influenced how people go about creating and using technology?
I notice that, in conversation with more luddite friends, I tend to go overboard a bit in preaching the benefits of technology to everyone in the long run. However, reading Neal Stevenson's Cryptonomicon gave me a pretty good, workable idea on how a cryptosphere could be built using today's technology, and its implications for a completely anonymous, secure marketplace.
In fact, a startup I worked for based a fair amount of its technology on this concept, and some of the things we worked on back then (albeit I'm not claiming we invented them) such as M-payments, peer-to-peer trust and reputation-based transaction networks, decentralized commercial exchange) is starting to find its way into the mainstream.
Let's face it, the future is now, and to a large degree because of a bunch of nerds who were inspired by some piece of sci fi they read at some point, and by the masses who were willing to believe it could be possible.
"User" of _what_ exactly? This is not AOL, this is the great big wild and woolly Internet that nobody runs, remember?
I like the idea someone came up with not-too-long ago of a communications 'escrow' system, whereby anybody wishing to send me any form of communication would be required to acquire some form of credit by paying into an account. $x for a phone call, $y for an email, etc., with changes in price for different permutations (time of day, size of communication, etc.)
The premise of this whole idea was that, unlike paying someone for the privilege of sending someone else spam (the whole idea of 'e-stamp' is a stretch, because when you buy a postage stamp, you are essentially paying your bit to the international post office system to deliver your mail--I have my doubts that an electronic communications tariff would really go to all those mom and pop providers out there), with a communications escrow system you are guaranteeing me money if I don't accept your right to communicate with me.
So, say Alice wants to send Bob an email, she has to agree to deposit $.25 in an account. If Bob agrees to accept her communications, she gets back the $.25. If Bob dislikes it, he keeps the quarter.
It's not very thought-through, but I find it a far more interesting approach to the unsolicited communications problem than the usual hue and cry of "force a tax on anyone wanting to spam". It addresses the issue between the individuals involved in a communication, and ensures that legitimate comms remain free.
Charging a non-retrievable-under-any-circumstances mandatory fee for every email sent, regardless of how small, has the potential to snowball into a behemoth that throttles Internet communications. After all, wasn't the first US federal income tax rate somewhere around half a percent or so? If email carries a mandatory charge, that has to go to _someone_, _somewhere_, and that's not going to be the recipient. How willing do you think that someone is going to be to ever give up that source of revenue?
Do not install Linux, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Put Windows 98 on the damn thing, install PCAnywhere and a reasonable personal firewall package that they can't break (ZoneAlarm works just fine) and tell them not to touch ANYTHING that's not on the desktop. In fact, put a piece of sticky tape with 'WHEN IN DOUBT, HIT CANCEL' across the top of the monitor.
I've managed to keep my girlfriend's parents' $100 P166 up and running for ages now like that. I got them a cable modem, they can check their email and play their card games and look at web sites, and they're happy campers. What more could I ask?
And on those occasions when I have to stop by and actually sit down in front of the thing, it usually takes me about 15 minutes (5 to fix and 10 to reboot) and I get a free home-cooked meal out of it...
This is one of my favorite topics whenever games come up, but an interesting trend I've seen with Netrek, a multiplayer graphical (albeit fairly primitive) free online space combat game.
It's been around in various forms since the early 1980s, going from text-only iterations, to xhost-and-telnet on unix/VMS, to client-server, to multicolored, to multiplatform. Funny enough, even though the action is comparatively clunky-looking (10 updates/second) and the graphics look like they belong on a mobile phone (ships are 24x24 pixel bitmaps) the game still has a very large following, even a league.
I like comparing this sort of thing to chess--a game becomes refined over time, while games lacking the potential for such maturity are just forgotton. Frankly I don't think that the rules of chess have changed within my lifetime; that's because the game is as balanced as it's going to get.
When Quake first came out and went online, we scoffed at it as a flash-in-the-pan that wouldn't last. We were partially right, as you'd probably be hard-pressed to find people who play Quake I anymore. However, the whole FPS genre matured enough to get people to play it fairly seriously. Same with games like StarCraft (look at how much it's played in Korea.)
I think this goes to show that, parallel to the 'newer-and-flashier-is-better' way of looking at game development, as well as the need for constant innovation, there are proven game types, which evolve to the point that the gameplay is almost perfect and thus supersedes the actual way the game looks. As the author of the piece hinted, you put movie character faces on any FPS and name it after that film, but fundamentally the gameplay wouldn't change.
To be honest, I've looked at doing some sort of community-oriented teaching in IT (get people interested in it, show them how stuff works, whatnot.) Unfortunately, there isn't that much around here that would let me do this kind of thing evenings (I work as an IT consultant so I don't have time during the day.)
Sort of a 'geek corps' for non-third world cities would be a nice idea, and I'm sure quite a few people in IT (seeing as how we're all in it just for love of the subject matter, not the money:) would be a great opportunity to pass on some clue.
Authentication is usually based on some sort of combination of these three factors:
-What you know (username/password)
-What you have (token, e.g. smart card)
-What you are (biometrics)
Username/password is a _good_ authentication mechanism for CERTAIN scenarios. And, as we all know, there is no such thing as absolute security even combining the above factors (users writing PIN codes on a hardware token, etc.) But a heterogenous environment combined with good policies (and judicious application of the clue bat to users every now and then) sure reduce the fear factor with your passwords.
Sort of off topic, but it beats arguing about the problems of passwords.
I'm really surprised nobody has brought up Ferris Bueller so far. You know, all the scenes where he speaks to the camera?
Frankly, I would differentiate between something like a personal web page or diary or whatever other exhibitionist crap someone wants to put up on the internet (gawd I hate the term 'blog') and the kind of infotainment we're talking about here.
I see lots of parallels to public access TV. You could get some pretty quality, amusing and informative stuff (like someone reminding you that life moves pretty fast, so if you don't stop and look around every once in a while, life might just pass you by) but a large majority of random pointless drivel running about.
Rant rant rant. And that didn't all just have a point...
This variant of the game Netrek, which completely revamped the gameplay of the original and added a ton of 'features', many of which tended to irritate purists of the game. The client developers added a little outline kitchen sink which would pop up on the screen when a given button was pushed, along with the phrase 'Kitchen sink activated! Bad guys beware!'
Just a piece of trivia for you, and a great game at that.
Well, we know that asteroid impacts are unsafe at any speed. I think that Congress should mandate airbags on asteroids. Just think of it, when the next Siberian asteroid hits, you'll just hear an explosive "THWUP!", and large sections of remote forest will be gently flattened by a big inflated cushion.
Next, we'll have NBC panic-mongering about the federal asteroid impact research scene by rigging tests with Saturn V rocket boosters hidden on the things. "See how it explodes on impact?"
Maybe, when we have warm fuzzies about the North Koreans again, we can get one of the things classified as a replacement 'axis of evil' member.
In any case all this running around yelling about the asteroid threat is pretty misplaced, thanks to the helpful tips from the department of homeland security (duck tape all your windows! Stock up on gummi bears!)
As an American citizen, I feel pretty safe from the things, anyway--it doesn't at all fit into my way of life (nobody to sue if one hits, really.)
On the other hand, if we ever catch wind that one's going to hit L.A., we can convince some of the locals that they're aliens on a mission of peace, so they'll go stand directly under it, waving signs that read "welcome to earth!". Should cushion the impact a bit. Or maybe we'll just issue Powerbooks to every wild-eyed scientists out there--that'll let them completely scramble the asteroid's central computer and cause it to self-destruct.
In any case, even if it takes out half the planet, it won't be that serious. After all, the internet is designed to route around the occasional localized outage; as long as I can still get my morning comics online, all's well in my world.
My grandfather is 90. He is in perfect mental and physical health, and "officially" worked as an attorney until a few years ago. He still occasionally takes depositions and adjudicates some lesser disputes.
Aside from the fact that that side of the family has a history of longevity, I believe that the two reasons why he kept going were (a) he didn't feel like quitting, because he enjoyed his job, and (b) he worked in a field (partner in a mid-sized law firm) where nobody could dictate to him when to retire. His expertise grew over time.
In Europe, a lot of societies which have historically cherished the idea of retirement at age 65 with a generous pension are starting to re-think this concept, primarily because the pension funds simply won't be able to keep up with the glut of baby boomers retiring soon, but also because peoples' attitude towards work is changing.
Lack of job security nowadays means that, while you may show professionalism towards an employer, you do not display the traditional "loyalty for life". As I can tell, it is in the nature of companies to act in a manner they perceive to be economically rational (regardless of whether it is or not)--this takes precedence over keeping old Smithers but-he's-only-got-2-years-to-go-until-retirement around at all costs. Concurrently, people are discovering that they are far more mobile in the labor market, recession or not, than they once were, and employers generally seem to recognize that fact.
Especially in IT, where actual hands-on know-how may become obsolescent fairly quickly, but experience in how to manage that know-how (project management, design, business-side consulting, etc.) grows over time. I can imagine that we will see an increase in the number of over-40 employees going part-time consultant, and simply not quitting at 65. I don't know about you, but I love my line of work, and can't really imagine just stopping dead in my tracks one day to go play shuffleboard with a bunch of walking corpses.
So a classical "employment-until-pension"? No. A "job for life"? Definitely. I don't know about you, but I would love to still be a part-time IT consultant when I'm 70.
I seem to remember reading about a Soviet 50 megaton nuke. A warhead of that size wouldn't be usable against ground targets, as the force of the blast would cause it to bury itself and reduce the actual damage--or something. I'm no physicist.
Anyway, the upshot was that these things would be far less economical in terms of distributed damage than lots of small MIRV'ed warheads.
Instead, supposedly, a Soviet nuclear attack would have been designed to blanket the US with a nationwide series of mega-EMP pulses prior to actual ground target attacks.
I couldn't find a good link, but a description of some Russian/Soviet delivery vehicles is here
Ditto here in Switzerland with the strict controls on usage of your AHV (same as SSN) number.
To be perfectly honest, though, I am firmly of the belief that the only thing keeping the government from tracking me via that number is the fact that they, being the government, tend to be too bumbling and uncoordinated to ever get around to it.
The problem I have with ID numbers isn't the fact that they exist (things have serial numbers, it's a fact of life.) It's that they are often used for cross-purpose identification (passport # for hotel rooms, for example.)
The issue I see with privacy in this case is that my contactability will be basically dictated to me (rather than being given a portable 'alias', whose final destination I fully control myself.)
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct if you consider the strict cost of the currency itself.
However, by its very nature, a currency is only valuable because of one factor: perception of redeemability. That perception comes from stability of the issuing government, knowledge that it's backed in some exchangeable commodity (gold, silver, potatoes, whatever), and universal acceptance by persons and institutions.
The USD, EUR, CHF, and GBP probably fit the bill best on these (other examples being the NZD, AUD, and CND, which are too small to play much of a role internationally.) All of these match all three of the above criteria, and thus are exchangeable.
You may recall that a few years ago, the US issued new, ugly Dollar bills (the ones with the big faces.) In the previous years, the treasury had come up with some anti-counterfiting measures, which were not nearly as advanced as what you see in some currencies, but still a step in the right direction.
One of the credible theories floating around as to why the US took the extra step of issuing visibly new currencies (different layout) was that it had come under pressure from a number
of countries with less-than-stable currencies to do so. The reason given was that these countries' shadow economies, which constitute a large portion of their GDP, were based largely on Dollars.
Thus, if the dollar were perceived to be easily counterfeitable (as it no doubt is), it threatens the economic stability of half the third world. So the US had to be seen has doing something visible, e.g. changing the design.
Indubitably that's not the only or maybe even main reason behind the change--however, the moral of the story is that the benefits of adding anti-counterifiting technology to cash go far beyond the actual costs of the technology. If you were in Europe when the Euro came out, you'll no doubt recall the massive publicity about how unforgeable the money was--that's been proven to be a load of hooey, but it still contributed noticeably to the acceptance and stability of the currency.
Now the big brother aspects of it, that's a different story entirely...
I understand the allure of 'replicating' or 'predicting' real-world sports. That's been around since way before even our Mac II baseball games where we shared teams by diskette that we'd created with real players.
The predicting side of this is probably only of interest for people involved in sports betting and serious fanatics--but given the rise of game leagues, online competition has proven pretty well that it can stand on its own, hasn't it?
The first example of this that I'm aware of is the International Netrek League.
Hmm...ok I'll grant that I'm using an early Clie.
I can deal with the lack of support, as the devices are well-made. I'll look into the other bits, and may even buy a new one if what you say is correct
I really like PalmOS and its derivatives--I've looked at Zaurus, WindowsCEPocketPCTinyHPCompaqGizmo or whatever it's called, Psion, and a number of others. I bought a Clie 760, because I love the screen quality and the case worksmanship. However, I have three major gripes with Clies.
First, Sony's support is utterly abysmal. I mean it is worse than worst. A friend, who is one of their European product managers, was not surprised when I tried to tell him my tale of woe, trying to get them to replace the screen on my Clie (which I purchased in the US.) The screen scratches easily, which is mainly my fault for not putting a cover on it. Would they replace it (even if I paid for it) in Europe? Fat chance. Talk about helpdesk hell.
PalmOS doesn't, to my knowledge, have an IP stack. I would have thought that, by now, someone would come up with at least a rudimentary way to access network resources. Not too tragic.
The last, worst thing, is that the Clie does not have any concept of a 'filesystem' as I understand it. I can insert a 128MB memory stick, but I cannot run applications from it. I can move files used by applications to that memory stick, but unless they're memory stick-aware Sony Clie apps, they will not find the files.
And, my perennial gripe with the Clie, it's got this cool memory stick import tool, where I can use it as a storage device on a Windows PC (gave up trying to get it all working nicely on my FreeBSD boxes). I can copy files back and forth when the Clie is in its cradle, but I cannot then access those files with my generic applications. Lame.
I would be more than grateful if anyone can suggest a way around this. I know asking for a palmtop
You are not just hired for your technical expertise, but also for your 'fresh' point of view on things. You should offer your way of seeing things, but within a few constraints:
-Go through your project manager. You will inevitably have a 'handler' or stakeholder to whom you report. Your job is to make him look good. Do not go around or above him. Give him your honest assessment of a situation, or present it to a larger body if he prompts you to do so.
-Create a paper trail. Ensure that your opinion is registered, via an email, or whatever, then leave it at that.
-Don't push. Justify and defend your stance if prompted to do so; make sure your good arguments have been made to the person(s) who are responsible for choosing and representing them, and make sure that you support them if they choose to do so. Do not insist, advise.
-Don't insist on credit. Let your superior take credit. If you're competent, it gets around. Do good work for someone, they look good. If the guy who hired and kept the consultant looks good, you look good. If he gets rid of you and the project tanks, he looks bad. Your reputation among your peers does not suffer from this.
-Make people seek your opinion rather than foisting it on them. Given time, professionalism, competence and hard work, it will become clear to your peers and potential clients that you're good. The mark of a good consultant is that people come to you, not the other way around.
-Set an example. This relates to the previous point. As a consultant, you should walk on water. You are called in to do the tasks the permies can't handle, and thus you should hold yourself to a higher standard of conduct and competence. Don't 'go native', but be professional with a degree of empathy for the client's needs.
-Mr. Pager
-The guy chain smoking
-Old Sleepless
-We-fear-him-but-we're-doomed-without-
-Coolie on Duty
-"Sir"
\I live in Switzerland, so this may not apply to you.\
I'm an IT security and unix consultant/contractor here. Aside from a few years before 2001, when massive numbers of low-skill kids decided to make a quick buck as contractors, consultants are held to a far higher standard than "permies". Much as I hate to say it, there's a sense of elitism among "real" contractors here--these are the hardcore tech guys whom you bring in when something is gefuckt beyond salvation by mere mortals.
N.b. that I don't count myself as a Superman like that, just lucky to be in the right places at the right time so far.
I've never contracted in the US, but I recall looking at contract sysadmin jobs during college, paying $17.50 US per hour. Most of my American contractor colleagues' conversations I overhear involve an ambition to go permie, and how shitty contracting is.
This surprises the hell out of me, as I think contractors/consultants here generate sort of a sense of "awe" (crappy word, but I can't think of anything better), as the outsider who comes in to do the _really_ hard stuff, among employees. This can develop into resentment if not handled carefully.
One of my project managers taught me a good lesson for consulting--never cease looking at a job as an "us-vs-them" situation. Deliver more than you promised ahead of schedule and raise the bar all around, but consider yourself as providing a good example. Stokely offers what I consider to be some excellent guidelines of how to go about this.
The idea of a 'caste' system, where the permies look down at contractors amuses me to no end.
You have valid points, however I question their relevance to the situation.
-Is it illegal to make a search engine available off a campus network? No. Unless Princeton network usage policy says otherwise, there is no issue here.
-Regarding the 'Search In' field, let's be frank. You and I both "know" that he was providing what essentially amounts to a warez crawler. Nudge nudge wink win. However, before the law, "patently obvious to anyone with common sense" is not sufficient evidence to convict someone or to win a case. I'll go out on a ledge and compare this to a 'fair use' scenario, where you may use, say, a certain file format to transfer illegal information, or cryptography to engage in illicit acts, but the mere fact that there are legitimate uses for these technologies, and that they were not designed explicitly with malfeasance in mind, prevents legal action against anyone using them just because they're using them.
Same with a search engine that explicitly allows qualifying strings such as 'mpg' or 'mp3'. I realize that it's a big leap between allowing me to enter these strings into google and providing a ready-made interface that already enters them for me, but I don't think the legal difference is that big, or relevant. And even if it were, I fall back on my above argument--there are legal mpg/mp3/avi/divx files not covered by restrictive copyrights. Disputes about illegal material should be handled between the copyright holder and the provider of the material--not a completely neutral intermediary.
Same applies to the filesize filter. He is obviously attempting to qualify searches, and I am positive that he was aware that a lot of these searches would be for pirated material. So what?
As long as the interface did not differentiate between the legality of content, but rather between file format types, I would be shocked to find that there is a case.
If the guy was sharing copyrighted material himself, well, my sympathies as I really dislike the RIAA, but that's a different matter entirely.
Note, I'm not a really hard-core gamer or expert, so take this with a grain of salt, but...
Cheating in online games is always going to be a problem. You won't solve it, but can at least reduce it to the point where a server admin can deal with individual accusations.
-Only send each client information it really needs.
-Use checksums on binaries and libraries and things.
-Try to get more 'mature' gaming crowds together. I have noticed vast difference playing Battlefield 1942 at various times during the day, such as when it's mostly high school kids, or people with jobs who start playing after dinner, whatever.
-Make it clear that cheating sucks and won't be tolerated--this can help catch the remaining people with aimbot screen overlays and things that automated means won't take care of.
Netrek used some anti-cheating mechanism, by embedding an RSA key in every "authorized" client, to which only a few developers known to the "RSA guy" and the Netrek community as a whole had access. Imperfect system, but it reduced use of bots to the point where it didn't really matter.
Also, one thing that a lot of people forget is that a lot of 'active' cheats (mainly bots in action games) fall into one of two categories:
a) Fully-automated -- these are predictable.
b) Partially automated -- things like aimbots. Their "owners" probably suck otherwise. If they see you, they'll get off a clean shot, but you don't have to confront them directly to smash them.
I am usually sufficiently gratified when I crush someone I suspect strongly of cheating by knowing it's probably some whiny 13 year old staring at his screen in impotent frustration to not really care about the other 9 out of 10 times he's beat me, not by skill but through some technology he most likely didn't create.
I've got to say, I love France sometimes.
It's theoretically a super-centralized country, with someone like Nicolas Sarkozy (minister of the interior) representing the government andwanting to impose rule after rule, and anyone who disagrees with him is an ignorant baboon, tons of police and rules and taxes and regulation, and...
You have to respect that somehow...
When I first read the Neuromancer trilogy (ok, so Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive sucked) around 1991, I hadn't really gotten into the whole social side of the Internet yet. This is to say, I'd mainly dealt with the technology, and played a few games.
I re-read the whole thing about 3 years later, along with Snow Crash, and went "whoah! That's incredible!" Especially in the case of Neuromancer and some other books in its genre, once I had some inkling of what was possible with networked technology, I realized that these works outline the whole proverbial "brave new world".
Let's face it, think about the mind-numbing everyday crap that we do with computers, such as shop online or program or talk to a friend on IRC or play network games. Do you realize just how incredible it really is, when you stop to consider? Now read Neuromancer again, written anno 1984, and think about it. How could books like that not have massively influenced how people go about creating and using technology?
I notice that, in conversation with more luddite friends, I tend to go overboard a bit in preaching the benefits of technology to everyone in the long run. However, reading Neal Stevenson's Cryptonomicon gave me a pretty good, workable idea on how a cryptosphere could be built using today's technology, and its implications for a completely anonymous, secure marketplace.
In fact, a startup I worked for based a fair amount of its technology on this concept, and some of the things we worked on back then (albeit I'm not claiming we invented them) such as M-payments, peer-to-peer trust and reputation-based transaction networks, decentralized commercial exchange) is starting to find its way into the mainstream.
Let's face it, the future is now, and to a large degree because of a bunch of nerds who were inspired by some piece of sci fi they read at some point, and by the masses who were willing to believe it could be possible.
"User" of _what_ exactly? This is not AOL, this is the great big wild and woolly Internet that nobody runs, remember?
I like the idea someone came up with not-too-long ago of a communications 'escrow' system, whereby anybody wishing to send me any form of communication would be required to acquire some form of credit by paying into an account. $x for a phone call, $y for an email, etc., with changes in price for different permutations (time of day, size of communication, etc.)
The premise of this whole idea was that, unlike paying someone for the privilege of sending someone else spam (the whole idea of 'e-stamp' is a stretch, because when you buy a postage stamp, you are essentially paying your bit to the international post office system to deliver your mail--I have my doubts that an electronic communications tariff would really go to all those mom and pop providers out there), with a communications escrow system you are guaranteeing me money if I don't accept your right to communicate with me.
So, say Alice wants to send Bob an email, she has to agree to deposit $.25 in an account. If Bob agrees to accept her communications, she gets back the $.25. If Bob dislikes it, he keeps the quarter.
It's not very thought-through, but I find it a far more interesting approach to the unsolicited communications problem than the usual hue and cry of "force a tax on anyone wanting to spam". It addresses the issue between the individuals involved in a communication, and ensures that legitimate comms remain free.
Charging a non-retrievable-under-any-circumstances mandatory fee for every email sent, regardless of how small, has the potential to snowball into a behemoth that throttles Internet communications. After all, wasn't the first US federal income tax rate somewhere around half a percent or so? If email carries a mandatory charge, that has to go to _someone_, _somewhere_, and that's not going to be the recipient. How willing do you think that someone is going to be to ever give up that source of revenue?
Unfortunately I can't find the link. Anyone?
Do not install Linux, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Put Windows 98 on the damn thing, install PCAnywhere and a reasonable personal firewall package that they can't break (ZoneAlarm works just fine) and tell them not to touch ANYTHING that's not on the desktop. In fact, put a piece of sticky tape with 'WHEN IN DOUBT, HIT CANCEL' across the top of the monitor.
I've managed to keep my girlfriend's parents' $100 P166 up and running for ages now like that. I got them a cable modem, they can check their email and play their card games and look at web sites, and they're happy campers. What more could I ask?
And on those occasions when I have to stop by and actually sit down in front of the thing, it usually takes me about 15 minutes (5 to fix and 10 to reboot) and I get a free home-cooked meal out of it...
This is one of my favorite topics whenever games come up, but an interesting trend I've seen with Netrek, a multiplayer graphical (albeit fairly primitive) free online space combat game.
It's been around in various forms since the early 1980s, going from text-only iterations, to xhost-and-telnet on unix/VMS, to client-server, to multicolored, to multiplatform. Funny enough, even though the action is comparatively clunky-looking (10 updates/second) and the graphics look like they belong on a mobile phone (ships are 24x24 pixel bitmaps) the game still has a very large following, even a league.
I like comparing this sort of thing to chess--a game becomes refined over time, while games lacking the potential for such maturity are just forgotton. Frankly I don't think that the rules of chess have changed within my lifetime; that's because the game is as balanced as it's going to get.
When Quake first came out and went online, we scoffed at it as a flash-in-the-pan that wouldn't last. We were partially right, as you'd probably be hard-pressed to find people who play Quake I anymore. However, the whole FPS genre matured enough to get people to play it fairly seriously. Same with games like StarCraft (look at how much it's played in Korea.)
I think this goes to show that, parallel to the 'newer-and-flashier-is-better' way of looking at game development, as well as the need for constant innovation, there are proven game types, which evolve to the point that the gameplay is almost perfect and thus supersedes the actual way the game looks. As the author of the piece hinted, you put movie character faces on any FPS and name it after that film, but fundamentally the gameplay wouldn't change.
This is a great post, please mod up.
To be honest, I've looked at doing some sort of community-oriented teaching in IT (get people interested in it, show them how stuff works, whatnot.) Unfortunately, there isn't that much around here that would let me do this kind of thing evenings (I work as an IT consultant so I don't have time during the day.)
Sort of a 'geek corps' for non-third world cities would be a nice idea, and I'm sure quite a few people in IT (seeing as how we're all in it just for love of the subject matter, not the money
Authentication is usually based on some sort of combination of these three factors:
-What you know (username/password)
-What you have (token, e.g. smart card)
-What you are (biometrics)
Username/password is a _good_ authentication mechanism for CERTAIN scenarios. And, as we all know, there is no such thing as absolute security even combining the above factors (users writing PIN codes on a hardware token, etc.) But a heterogenous environment combined with good policies (and judicious application of the clue bat to users every now and then) sure reduce the fear factor with your passwords.
Sort of off topic, but it beats arguing about the problems of passwords.
I'm really surprised nobody has brought up Ferris Bueller so far. You know, all the scenes where he speaks to the camera?
Frankly, I would differentiate between something like a personal web page or diary or whatever other exhibitionist crap someone wants to put up on the internet (gawd I hate the term 'blog') and the kind of infotainment we're talking about here.
I see lots of parallels to public access TV. You could get some pretty quality, amusing and informative stuff (like someone reminding you that life moves pretty fast, so if you don't stop and look around every
once in a while, life might just pass you by) but a large majority of random pointless drivel running about.
Rant rant rant. And that didn't all just have a point...
The Paradise game client already had a kitchen sink (version 2.2p8).
This variant of the game Netrek, which completely revamped the gameplay of the original and added a ton of 'features', many of which tended to irritate purists of the game. The client developers added a little outline kitchen sink which would pop up on the screen when a given button was pushed, along with the phrase 'Kitchen sink activated! Bad guys beware!'
Just a piece of trivia for you, and a great game at that.
Well, we know that asteroid impacts are unsafe at any speed. I think that Congress should mandate airbags on asteroids. Just think of it, when the next Siberian asteroid hits, you'll just hear an explosive "THWUP!", and large sections of remote forest will be gently flattened by a big inflated cushion.
Next, we'll have NBC panic-mongering about the federal asteroid impact research scene by rigging tests with Saturn V rocket boosters hidden on the things. "See how it explodes on impact?"
Maybe, when we have warm fuzzies about the North Koreans again, we can get one of the things classified as a replacement 'axis of evil' member.
In any case all this running around yelling about the asteroid threat is pretty misplaced, thanks to the helpful tips from the department of homeland security (duck tape all your windows! Stock up on gummi bears!)
As an American citizen, I feel pretty safe from the things, anyway--it doesn't at all fit into my way of life (nobody to sue if one hits, really.)
On the other hand, if we ever catch wind that one's going to hit L.A., we can convince some of the locals that they're aliens on a mission of peace, so they'll go stand directly under it, waving signs that read "welcome to earth!". Should cushion the impact a bit. Or maybe we'll just issue Powerbooks to every wild-eyed scientists out there--that'll let them completely scramble the asteroid's central computer and cause it to self-destruct.
In any case, even if it takes out half the planet, it won't be that serious. After all, the internet is designed to route around the occasional localized outage; as long as I can still get my morning comics online, all's well in my world.
Where's the 'so what' in this presentation?
The single worst one I ever had was 'action item' used as a verb--"can you please action this item?"
Yes. Both my mother and I have the same problem on our X20s. I'm caving in and buying a new battery.
My grandfather is 90. He is in perfect mental and physical health, and "officially" worked as an attorney until a few years ago. He still occasionally takes depositions and adjudicates some lesser disputes.
Aside from the fact that that side of the family has a history of longevity, I believe that the two reasons why he kept going were (a) he didn't feel like quitting, because he enjoyed his job, and (b) he worked in a field (partner in a mid-sized law firm) where nobody could dictate to him when to retire. His expertise grew over time.
In Europe, a lot of societies which have historically cherished the idea of retirement at age 65 with a generous pension are starting to re-think this concept, primarily because the pension funds simply won't be able to keep up with the glut of baby boomers retiring soon, but also because peoples' attitude towards work is changing.
Lack of job security nowadays means that, while you may show professionalism towards an employer, you do not display the traditional "loyalty for life". As I can tell, it is in the nature of companies to act in a manner they perceive to be economically rational (regardless of whether it is or not)--this takes precedence over keeping old Smithers but-he's-only-got-2-years-to-go-until-retirement around at all costs. Concurrently, people are discovering that they are far more mobile in the labor market, recession or not, than they once were, and employers generally seem to recognize that fact.
Especially in IT, where actual hands-on know-how may become obsolescent fairly quickly, but experience in how to manage that know-how (project management, design, business-side consulting, etc.) grows over time. I can imagine that we will see an increase in the number of over-40 employees going part-time consultant, and simply not quitting at 65. I don't know about you, but I love my line of work, and can't really imagine just stopping dead in my tracks one day to go play shuffleboard with a bunch of walking corpses.
So a classical "employment-until-pension"? No. A "job for life"? Definitely. I don't know about you, but I would love to still be a part-time IT consultant when I'm 70.
I seem to remember reading about a Soviet 50 megaton nuke. A warhead of that size wouldn't be usable against ground targets, as the force of the blast would cause it to bury itself and reduce the actual damage--or something. I'm no physicist.
Anyway, the upshot was that these things would be far less economical in terms of distributed damage than lots of small MIRV'ed warheads.
Instead, supposedly, a Soviet nuclear attack would have been designed to blanket the US with a nationwide series of mega-EMP pulses prior to actual ground target attacks.
I couldn't find a good link, but a description of some Russian/Soviet delivery vehicles is here
Ditto here in Switzerland with the strict controls on usage of your AHV (same as SSN) number.
To be perfectly honest, though, I am firmly of the belief that the only thing keeping the government from tracking me via that number is the fact that they, being the government, tend to be too bumbling and uncoordinated to ever get around to it.
The problem I have with ID numbers isn't the fact that they exist (things have serial numbers, it's a fact of life.) It's that they are often used for cross-purpose identification (passport # for hotel rooms, for example.)
The issue I see with privacy in this case is that my contactability will be basically dictated to me (rather than being given a portable 'alias', whose final destination I fully control myself.)
Wups, forgot to un-italicize that quote...