So Grub goes out, uses bandwidth, and then returns some results to the home base. It's really distributed bandwidth more than distributed computation.
I bet one of the big successes in Folding and distributed.net is that many people run the clients on work boxes, knowing that there's little actual overhead incurred to their work. How different that is for a URL sucker.
If their mail servers are swamped with 880,000,000 emails daily from dictionary attack, I'd think the easiest solution would be to throttle the mail servers. "Oh, I got an invalid recipient, I'll pause 5 seconds before I respond." (Adjust 5 seconds to whatever makes most sense) For most legit users, that shouldn't be a problem. For the spammers, it means they can make at most 17280 attempts per day per MTA.
Why are you asking us? Ask your legal department. See how long it takes for your company lawyer to laugh you out of her office.
Or are you trying to find ammo to help get the idea past your company lawyer? "Hey, look, these 12 people on Slashdot said that they thought it was legal, can we do it, too?"
They're round because if they're round, no matter which way you turn them, they can't fall in the hole.
Right. That's common geek knowledge.
Now what's the 2nd reason?
Re:Don't forget to CC their boss....
on
The Tyranny of Email
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I, too, am a pointy-hair, and I have this problem on a project I'm overseeing. One of my programmers is paired up with a programmer from the mainframe side of the house. The MF programmer was cc:ing me on every request she made of my programmer, in the same sort of "if I cc: Andy, then she'll do it."
It's really insulting to me and my team, because the implication is "Tricia has to be nudged to make this happen."
I sent an email saying specifically "I don't need to be cc:'d on every email about the project. If there is a problem with the project, I'm sure Tricia will tell me about it. If you feel that something is not being done to your satisfaction, please let me know directly and I'll take care of the situation."
Whats wrong with the consumer wanting to know how pricing is done? I know why business don't want consumer to know, but there is nothing wrong with consumer trying to find out.
Nothing ethically wrong with it, but it's pointless. Your concern as a consumer isn't how the pricing is arrived at, but which price is best for you.
If you go buy a car, and you pay $10,000 at one place, or you can go to the place next door that gives you $2,000 trade-in on anything you can get onto the lot, but the car is $13,000, then which is better?
If you get free shipping from one place, but the other place has higher list price, which is better?
It all depends on the bottom line, not how that bottom line was arrived at.
It's called "discriminatory pricing", and is not at all illegal or unethical. Look at your local movie theater. Say they charge $2 for kids and $7 for adults. Why? Because they'd have a family of four pay $18 dollars, rather than that family not go at all because it's $28. 1 x $18 > 0 x $28
Same thing with cheap night. Tuesdays, all seats are $2, because they'd rather have some people at $2/seat, rather than no people at $7/seat.
What really baffles me is that people think they're entitled to know what goes on behind the scenes when businesses set prices, or base buying decisions on that. "They're charging $7 for shipping when it only costs then a dollar!" So what? Is the total value of getting the items to your house worth it, or isn't it?
There's nothing I can change about that to convince interviewers I can do the job.
This is completely untrue. You convince the interviewer you can do the job by actually doing the job.
Run, do not walk, to your local bookstore and pick up a copy of Nick Corcodilos' stellar Ask The Headhunter. Also be sure to visit his website at asktheheadhunter.com.
Change your way of thinking about the interview.
Control it by showing the interviewer who you are. This doesn't mean the aforementioned thoughtful "mmmm" and "yeah" to BS the interviwer into thinking you're listening.
Your statement that Clear Channel owns "every radio station" is obviously intended as hyperbole, but I don't want anyone to think it's literally true.
As to legitimizing one of the oldest forms of piracy, that doesn't make sense because in this case, the musicians are specifically authorizing the recordings, rather than having the recordings made without their consent.
It seems like you're just finding things to gripe and make snarky comments about.
Nickel sensors? We've had technology like this for years, at least since the early 80s.
Whenever I was at the arcade or Bugsy's Subs, and I lost my last man playing Berzerk,
the machine would say "coin detected in pocket!" If we had working quarter sensors back in the 80s, then what's the big deal with nickel sensors now?
Re:You lost me on the incredible leap of logic...
on
XML and Perl
·
· Score: 1
Of course, many (most?) of the Perl XML modules aren't doing the parsing directly, but calling the expat library, which is not Perl at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet one of the big successes in Folding and distributed.net is that many people run the clients on work boxes, knowing that there's little actual overhead incurred to their work. How different that is for a URL sucker.
I wonder what broadband ISPs think of Grub.
No animal. No hand-tools. Must not be ORA.
Their accountants, I'd assume.
Why is "conquer the desktop" a goal? Is it actually a goal for anyone?
If their mail servers are swamped with 880,000,000 emails daily from dictionary attack, I'd think the easiest solution would be to throttle the mail servers. "Oh, I got an invalid recipient, I'll pause 5 seconds before I respond." (Adjust 5 seconds to whatever makes most sense) For most legit users, that shouldn't be a problem. For the spammers, it means they can make at most 17280 attempts per day per MTA.
Or are you trying to find ammo to help get the idea past your company lawyer? "Hey, look, these 12 people on Slashdot said that they thought it was legal, can we do it, too?"
What kind of bear? Do your friends live near a forest? A zoo? A bar populated by large hairy gay men?
Or, using my WWW::Mechanize module,
Right. That's common geek knowledge.
Now what's the 2nd reason?
It's really insulting to me and my team, because the implication is "Tricia has to be nudged to make this happen."
I sent an email saying specifically "I don't need to be cc:'d on every email about the project. If there is a problem with the project, I'm sure Tricia will tell me about it. If you feel that something is not being done to your satisfaction, please let me know directly and I'll take care of the situation."
I haven't had a CYA cc: since.
Interesting that that quote is Jarkko's sig. Jarkko is the Perl 5.8 pumpking.
Nothing ethically wrong with it, but it's pointless. Your concern as a consumer isn't how the pricing is arrived at, but which price is best for you.
If you go buy a car, and you pay $10,000 at one place, or you can go to the place next door that gives you $2,000 trade-in on anything you can get onto the lot, but the car is $13,000, then which is better?
If you get free shipping from one place, but the other place has higher list price, which is better?
It all depends on the bottom line, not how that bottom line was arrived at.
It's called "discriminatory pricing", and is not at all illegal or unethical. Look at your local movie theater. Say they charge $2 for kids and $7 for adults. Why? Because they'd have a family of four pay $18 dollars, rather than that family not go at all because it's $28. 1 x $18 > 0 x $28
Same thing with cheap night. Tuesdays, all seats are $2, because they'd rather have some people at $2/seat, rather than no people at $7/seat.
What really baffles me is that people think they're entitled to know what goes on behind the scenes when businesses set prices, or base buying decisions on that. "They're charging $7 for shipping when it only costs then a dollar!" So what? Is the total value of getting the items to your house worth it, or isn't it?
Love,
Mom
That disc isn't free. The vendor (should have) paid Microsoft for bundling it with the machine. That cost is passed on to the buyer.
Also referred to as "the Microsoft tax".
This is completely untrue. You convince the interviewer you can do the job by actually doing the job.
Run, do not walk, to your local bookstore and pick up a copy of Nick Corcodilos' stellar Ask The Headhunter. Also be sure to visit his website at asktheheadhunter.com.
Change your way of thinking about the interview. Control it by showing the interviewer who you are. This doesn't mean the aforementioned thoughtful "mmmm" and "yeah" to BS the interviwer into thinking you're listening.
Get Nick's book. You will not be sorry.
I hope Best Buy will take it back even though I opened it.
What you need is a good Buzzword Bingo card. Just print off a page, and then reload to get a fresh card. Print up a stack for your next all-company meeting.
Please read the original "The Problem With Music" by Steve Albini from which Courtney stole much of her manifesto.
As to legitimizing one of the oldest forms of piracy, that doesn't make sense because in this case, the musicians are specifically authorizing the recordings, rather than having the recordings made without their consent.
It seems like you're just finding things to gripe and make snarky comments about.
Whenever I was at the arcade or Bugsy's Subs, and I lost my last man playing Berzerk, the machine would say "coin detected in pocket!" If we had working quarter sensors back in the 80s, then what's the big deal with nickel sensors now?
Of course, many (most?) of the Perl XML modules aren't doing the parsing directly, but calling the expat library, which is not Perl at all.
You were watching her mouth?
I like my formatting better.
It's not as if it's just any "[t]wo MIT grad students". Garfinkel has written more than a handful of security books over the years.