When I look at resumes, I could care less whether the applicant's degree is from CalTech or East Podunk Community College -- but I do care that they have one. It (generally) shows that they've got the ability to function alone in an environment away from mommy and daddy, and to supervise themselves for an extended period of time in order to reach a lofty goal. In a corporate environment, that ability is just as important as the skills assumed to accompany a degree.
Nobody is going to toss your resume simply because your degree isn't from an Ivy League school. The interview is where you have to prove your worth, not the "Education" line of your resume.
So basically, what I want to know is, can an applicant function effectively in my environment, and how well do they know their stuff. The origin of your schooling determines neither -- it's completely up to you.
> Each gear in bycicle tranny weights about.6 pounds
Er, I don't know how you came by this figure, but unless your bike is built from cast iron, it's not very accurate. If it were, it would mean that the "tranny" alone would weigh up to 18 pounds -- which is more than many bikes weigh in whole...:)
First thing that comes to mind: having the barn cleaner chain jump its drive sprocket halfway through a run in the winter. What does that mean? Well, a barn cleaner is basically a chain with "paddles" on it, that snakes its way through the gutter that the cows shit in. The chain is driven by a large electric motor, and the paddles pull the shit through the gutter, outside up a ramp, and into a manure spreader, which was previously parked underneath the high point of the ramp. The electric drive motor sits at the top of the ramp, where the chain does a 180 and goes back into the barn. Naturally, this is the point where the chain always decides to jump the sprocket. And always after half a load was complete, so the spreader was significantly loaded. So how do you fix it? Well, you go outside in the bitter cold of upstate New York with no gloves on (because you need fine finger control to adjust the workings of the machine), climb up into the spreader (which is now half full), reach up above your head, and restring the shit-covered chain back on to the shit-covered sprocket, while standing knee-deep in shit and having shit drop down on to you. At least the shit keeps your fingers warm.
> But my point was that he price points weren't > factual at all and he just made it up to back > up his argument.
I assume by now you've seen my other post, detailing the pages with the exact prices I quoted. Even without that post, it would have been quite simple to discover that I had not made up those numbers. And you flame _me_ for not doing my research? It is to laugh.
Hmm, interesting. I'm don't think the album I saw is the same one you're referring to though -- the buy.com link for it says it's Sony/Columbia and doesn't mention anything about interviews or hint that there is new material on it. In any case, I didn't pick that one for any particular reason, it just happened to be the one I clicked on.
Yes, that's a good point. The "instant gratification" thing is, as far as I see, the only advantage this service has over traditional means. But it comes at a pretty hefty price, IMO. Restrictive copy protection, reduced quality, no physical backup, etc. Ah, I take that back, there is one other advantage -- you don't have to buy a whole album to get one track. Still, I'm not betting on it. Online music services can not possibly be successful until they offer the consumer more for less. That is certainly not the case here. Until then, physical media will continue to rule.
LOL, yeah, I just pulled figures like $12.69 and $10.98 out of my ass because I had already formed a negative opinion about a site I had never heard of before. Good call.
Here's the digital version:
http://www.buymusic.com/category3.aspx?loc=18280
Search the page for the text "priest". See that part that says "Album Price: $12.69", mmmmkay? The buy.com SKU you provided is not the same album. It's this one:
Hmm, let's see, here's a "best of" Judas Priest album. I can do a one-time download of a crippled non-CD-quality set of copy protected files that only work on a subset of machines for $12.69. Or, on the buy.com music page, I can buy the same album, at a higher quality, on physical media, in a universal format with no copy protection, including inserts with pictures, lyrics, etc., for $10.98. Gee, that's a tough choice...
I don't think so... I just scanned the logs for the past two weeks, searching for lines where the user agent contained "aol" but the remote hostname didn't. In about 7 million lines, I found only 920 matches. 752 of those were from marketscore.com, I would guess as a result of their proxy caching service: http://www.marketscore.com/e/surffaster.asp. Heh, like that will have any effect on AOL users. So, that leaves 168 hits, which is certainly not enough to offset the immense 17% drop in traffic.
> Unless you send several kinds of no-cache headers
We do, but that's not a factor. Caching is irrelevant if the cache hit percentage stays the same.
We may not be counting every single hit, but the way we counted in 2000 is the same way we count today. So we're still comparing apples to apples, regardless of any caching.
Unless AOL has amazingly improved their caching technique in the past two years, the overall number of hits that end up on my servers has significantly dropped. I don't think you can argue that a 17% drop in hits can be attributed to an increase in cache hit percentage.
I run about 1000 websites. Analyzing the logs for all sites combined over the past few years, the drop in AOL activity is pretty staggering. AOL alone used to account for 25% of all our traffic. As of today, it's down to about 8%.
Jan 1 2000: 24.97% Jan 1 2001: 17.08% Jan 2002: 12.32% Feb 2002: 11.89% Mar 2002: 11.41% Apr 2002: 11.42% May 2002: 11.26% Jun 2002: 10.36% Jul 2002: 8.22% Aug 2002: 10.16% Sep 2002: 9.97% Oct 14 2002: 8.12%
AOL is still holding the #1 slot, but not by much. In January of this year, it had a 6% advantage over the #2 spot, now held by attbi.com. Now, that margin is down to about 2.5%.
Well I added the newly updated mod_ssl, and it worked fine. Don't know if that was the difference, or something else I had been fiddling with. I'm ok now though, so I'm going to poke around anymore.
Yah, I use "make distclean" before each compile -- that inherently removes the cache file. The same update on three other machines worked just fine though, so there's something funky going on with this particular one. Perhaps it's time for some... as my buddy Tom says... percussive maintenance.:)
PHP now has register_globals turned off by default -- don't you remember those big compile-time warnings that said, "PHP NOW HAS REGISTER_GLOBALS OFF BY DEFAULT!":)
What you're seeing is correct behavior. You need to either use the $_SERVER, $_GET, and $_POST variables or set register_globals=on in your php.ini file.
> Retina scans in Pamela Andersen's movie - > faked by reflctive contacts
Ah ha ha... you do know what the word "fiction" means, right?
> No security measure is perfect.
Certainly not, nobody ever claimed that. (Well, ok, Larry Ellison did.) The point is not that other methods are perfect, it's that passwords alone stink.
> I let him do his worst and then that's it. > They usually just do a bit of exploring
LOL, jeez, no wonder you think passwords are sufficient -- people hacking into your systems seems to be an everyday occurance for you.
> Then after a short time they go away
Think again. They install root kits to hide their presence from you and then use your machine to launch attacks on others.
> Just limit the damage if someone gets the password
That's a very naive viewpoint. You've obviously never seen an active password sniffer / cracker at work on your LAN -- else you'd be significantly more paranoid.
> That way when (not if) an account is breached > you can track what's been done,
If your view of security is not "don't let them in", but "track what they do when they get in", then you've already lost the battle. Passwords are not meant to provide an audit trail, they're meant to do only one thing -- provide security. Since you say "when (not if)", you obviously agree that they don't even sufficiently serve that purpose. Point proven.
> Sounds like enforced password formats and > mandatory changing of passwords would help
These measures only force users to choose an easily guessable algorithm instead of an easily guessable password. Make your passwords expire every 30 days, and your users will switch from password == userid to password == month name.
Grepping my firewall logs for hits to port 1433, I find 1078 hits since midnight, from 39 unique IP addresses.
The majority appear to be dynamic residential addresses -- attbi.com, swbell.net, pacbell.net. Only a few resolve to static addresses. Here's one of the sites that probed me:
Certifications only show that you've been able to memorize answers from a practice test, they're no indication that you actually know what you're doing. Get a degree. It does not neccessarily show that you know what you're doing either... but it does show that you have the ability to achieve a goal that requires more commitment than a few MCRT (Microsoft Certified Reboot Technician) classes. That ability, and not neccessarily the knowledge associated with a degree, is very important to an employer. College gives you an opportunity to develop skills that you can't get living at home. It forces you to learn to discipline yourself, instead of hating your parents for doing so. Having this skill is also very important to an employer. Do you think I want to hire somebody who has to have their mom yell at them to get out of bed in the morning? Think of college as a "halfway house" to the real world. As a bonus, you'll make the best friends of your life.
Slashdot Mirror
... at zombo.com.
When I look at resumes, I could care less whether the applicant's degree is from CalTech or East Podunk Community College -- but I do care that they have one. It (generally) shows that they've got the ability to function alone in an environment away from mommy and daddy, and to supervise themselves for an extended period of time in order to reach a lofty goal. In a corporate environment, that ability is just as important as the skills assumed to accompany a degree.
Nobody is going to toss your resume simply because your degree isn't from an Ivy League school. The interview is where you have to prove your worth, not the "Education" line of your resume.
So basically, what I want to know is, can an applicant function effectively in my environment, and how well do they know their stuff. The origin of your schooling determines neither -- it's completely up to you.
> Each gear in bycicle tranny weights about .6 pounds
:)
Er, I don't know how you came by this figure, but unless your bike is built from cast iron, it's not very accurate. If it were, it would mean that the "tranny" alone would weigh up to 18 pounds -- which is more than many bikes weigh in whole...
> I'll take my Model M any day.
They can have mine when they pry it from my cold dead hands.
First thing that comes to mind: having the barn cleaner chain jump its drive sprocket halfway through a run in the winter. What does that mean? Well, a barn cleaner is basically a chain with "paddles" on it, that snakes its way through the gutter that the cows shit in. The chain is driven by a large electric motor, and the paddles pull the shit through the gutter, outside up a ramp, and into a manure spreader, which was previously parked underneath the high point of the ramp. The electric drive motor sits at the top of the ramp, where the chain does a 180 and goes back into the barn. Naturally, this is the point where the chain always decides to jump the sprocket. And always after half a load was complete, so the spreader was significantly loaded. So how do you fix it? Well, you go outside in the bitter cold of upstate New York with no gloves on (because you need fine finger control to adjust the workings of the machine), climb up into the spreader (which is now half full), reach up above your head, and restring the shit-covered chain back on to the shit-covered sprocket, while standing knee-deep in shit and having shit drop down on to you. At least the shit keeps your fingers warm.
> But my point was that he price points weren't
> factual at all and he just made it up to back
> up his argument.
I assume by now you've seen my other post, detailing the pages with the exact prices I quoted. Even without that post, it would have been quite simple to discover that I had not made up those numbers. And you flame _me_ for not doing my research? It is to laugh.
<sound of crickets>
Hmm, interesting. I'm don't think the album I saw is the same one you're referring to though -- the buy.com link for it says it's Sony/Columbia and doesn't mention anything about interviews or hint that there is new material on it. In any case, I didn't pick that one for any particular reason, it just happened to be the one I clicked on.
Yes, that's a good point. The "instant gratification" thing is, as far as I see, the only advantage this service has over traditional means. But it comes at a pretty hefty price, IMO. Restrictive copy protection, reduced quality, no physical backup, etc. Ah, I take that back, there is one other advantage -- you don't have to buy a whole album to get one track. Still, I'm not betting on it. Online music services can not possibly be successful until they offer the consumer more for less. That is certainly not the case here. Until then, physical media will continue to rule.
LOL, yeah, I just pulled figures like $12.69 and $10.98 out of my ass because I had already formed a negative opinion about a site I had never heard of before. Good call.
0
2 27 &loc=109
Here's the digital version:
http://www.buymusic.com/category3.aspx?loc=1828
Search the page for the text "priest". See that part that says "Album Price: $12.69", mmmmkay? The buy.com SKU you provided is not the same album. It's this one:
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=60108
You were saying something about research?
Hmm, let's see, here's a "best of" Judas Priest album. I can do a one-time download of a crippled non-CD-quality set of copy protected files that only work on a subset of machines for $12.69. Or, on the buy.com music page, I can buy the same album, at a higher quality, on physical media, in a universal format with no copy protection, including inserts with pictures, lyrics, etc., for $10.98. Gee, that's a tough choice...
I don't think so... I just scanned the logs for the past two weeks, searching for lines where the user agent contained "aol" but the remote hostname didn't. In about 7 million lines, I found only 920 matches. 752 of those were from marketscore.com, I would guess as a result of their proxy caching service: http://www.marketscore.com/e/surffaster.asp. Heh, like that will have any effect on AOL users. So, that leaves 168 hits, which is certainly not enough to offset the immense 17% drop in traffic.
> Unless you send several kinds of no-cache headers
We do, but that's not a factor. Caching is irrelevant if the cache hit percentage stays the same.
We may not be counting every single hit, but the way we counted in 2000 is the same way we count today. So we're still comparing apples to apples, regardless of any caching.
Unless AOL has amazingly improved their caching technique in the past two years, the overall number of hits that end up on my servers has significantly dropped. I don't think you can argue that a 17% drop in hits can be attributed to an increase in cache hit percentage.
I run about 1000 websites. Analyzing the logs for all sites combined over the past few years, the drop in AOL activity is pretty staggering. AOL alone used to account for 25% of all our traffic. As of today, it's down to about 8%.
Jan 1 2000: 24.97%
Jan 1 2001: 17.08%
Jan 2002: 12.32%
Feb 2002: 11.89%
Mar 2002: 11.41%
Apr 2002: 11.42%
May 2002: 11.26%
Jun 2002: 10.36%
Jul 2002: 8.22%
Aug 2002: 10.16%
Sep 2002: 9.97%
Oct 14 2002: 8.12%
AOL is still holding the #1 slot, but not by much. In January of this year, it had a 6% advantage over the #2 spot, now held by attbi.com. Now, that margin is down to about 2.5%.
... I'll believe it when I believe it.
Well I added the newly updated mod_ssl, and it worked fine. Don't know if that was the difference, or something else I had been fiddling with. I'm ok now though, so I'm going to poke around anymore.
Yah, I use "make distclean" before each compile -- that inherently removes the cache file. The same update on three other machines worked just fine though, so there's something funky going on with this particular one. Perhaps it's time for some... as my buddy Tom says... percussive maintenance. :)
PHP now has register_globals turned off by default -- don't you remember those big compile-time warnings that said, "PHP NOW HAS REGISTER_GLOBALS OFF BY DEFAULT!" :)
What you're seeing is correct behavior. You need to either use the $_SERVER, $_GET, and $_POST variables or set register_globals=on in your php.ini file.
Oh sweat. Is this just me, or does 1.3.26 break PHP? I recompiled PHP 4.2.1 from source, but I still get this message when trying to start Apache:
/usr/local/apache/libexec/libphp4.so is garbled - perhaps this is not an Apache module DS
API module structure `php4_module' in file
O?
My arse. I don't care what OS it's running -- if it's plugged into the network, then it has remote accessibility.
> I'll bet it was every bit as intrusion-resistant as advertised.
Hence the phrase "marketing hype"...
... for me to poop on!
> Retina scans in Pamela Andersen's movie -
> faked by reflctive contacts
Ah ha ha... you do know what the word "fiction" means, right?
> No security measure is perfect.
Certainly not, nobody ever claimed that. (Well, ok, Larry Ellison did.) The point is not that other methods are perfect, it's that passwords alone stink.
> I let him do his worst and then that's it.
> They usually just do a bit of exploring
LOL, jeez, no wonder you think passwords are sufficient -- people hacking into your systems seems to be an everyday occurance for you.
> Then after a short time they go away
Think again. They install root kits to hide their presence from you and then use your machine to launch attacks on others.
> Just limit the damage if someone gets the password
That's a very naive viewpoint. You've obviously never seen an active password sniffer / cracker at work on your LAN -- else you'd be significantly more paranoid.
> That way when (not if) an account is breached
> you can track what's been done,
If your view of security is not "don't let them in", but "track what they do when they get in", then you've already lost the battle. Passwords are not meant to provide an audit trail, they're meant to do only one thing -- provide security. Since you say "when (not if)", you obviously agree that they don't even sufficiently serve that purpose. Point proven.
> Sounds like enforced password formats and
> mandatory changing of passwords would help
These measures only force users to choose an easily guessable algorithm instead of an easily guessable password. Make your passwords expire every 30 days, and your users will switch from password == userid to password == month name.
> Already over a thousand compromised system
Grepping my firewall logs for hits to port 1433, I find 1078 hits since midnight, from 39 unique IP addresses.
The majority appear to be dynamic residential addresses -- attbi.com, swbell.net, pacbell.net. Only a few resolve to static addresses. Here's one of the sites that probed me:
http://210.90.207.4/admin.inc
LMAO!
Certifications only show that you've been able to memorize answers from a practice test, they're no indication that you actually know what you're doing. Get a degree. It does not neccessarily show that you know what you're doing either... but it does show that you have the ability to achieve a goal that requires more commitment than a few MCRT (Microsoft Certified Reboot Technician) classes. That ability, and not neccessarily the knowledge associated with a degree, is very important to an employer. College gives you an opportunity to develop skills that you can't get living at home. It forces you to learn to discipline yourself, instead of hating your parents for doing so. Having this skill is also very important to an employer. Do you think I want to hire somebody who has to have their mom yell at them to get out of bed in the morning? Think of college as a "halfway house" to the real world. As a bonus, you'll make the best friends of your life.