I've done that. (And often do it.) It has a ton of advantages. My favorite: my days are a few hours longer. Since I don't really need one or two hours more time per day on my own, I simply work 10-hour days. But that means I only need to work 4 days a week . . . instant permanent 3-day weekends!
And the sleep is awesome.
This all, of course, assumes you can get a job where you can get away with it.:P
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical (x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
Sheesh. I work at Google, and I agree. Give us props where we deserve 'em (and, IMHO, we deserve a lot of them:) ) but Yahoo got their Firefox toolbar out first. It's a fact.
Deal with it already and stop rewriting history, Slashdot!
(not opinions of my employer also, blah blah blah)
A while back there was a story on the winners of a computer-generated graphics competition. One of them included a link to a Zazzle page where you could buy a poster. Since I had just moved into my new apartment, I ended up going to search several hundred posters more and finally found three I really liked (yes, there's a lot of crap on the site:P), paid for 'em, and they arrived quickly.
Look great. My only complaint is that one is a *little* lower resolution than I would have hoped - some of the details blur a bit. The others are fine though, so I suspect whoever made that poster just didn't do it in high enough resolution.
"If the security was handled by the compiler" . . . so when some guy goes and writes a binary by hand, it doesn't have to worry about the system security?
Not that anyone would do that. Only virus writers and adware writers would want to bypass the OS security!
Does this sound like possibly the worst idea imaginable to anyone else?
I remember setting up new computers in college. The one guarantee I had with a new computer?
It would be *infested* with dealer-installed spyware.
I even had one computer that tunneled all HTTP requests through an outside server. Which caused a few problems when we needed to go to an HTTP page to register the computer on the network and give it access to anything outside the school network.
"Sorry, I can't access my CENTRAL SPYWARE SERVER. No HTTP for you!"
So, let's summarize the solution here:
Computer full of spyware? No problem! Throw it out and buy another computer equally full of spyware!
I've found that Firefox gets slower and slower as you open and close tabs - there appears to be some "tab opening" code that doesn't scale well. On my work computer it got to the point where opening a new tab took five or six seconds (and it's a 1ghz computer.)
Had to solve it by closing Firefox entirely (which took about 30 seconds to clean up and actually quit). I don't know how fast that might happen on a 200mhz machine, but it's bad enough to be irritating on a 1ghz.
I often program things without really caring if someone takes it and uses it to make money. (Oh no, whatever will I do, my code is useful, what's for dinner?) But every once in a while I have something more complete and polished that I don't want someone to just grab and sell.
Libraries tend to be the former, and I release those BSD. Software projects and games tend to be the latter, and I release those under GPL.
Basically, if I feel like I could sell it in its current form, but don't want to, it gets GPLed just so other people can't trivially profit off me. But if it's not in a sellable form, it gets BSDed so maybe someone else can use it to build on. I'm not obsessive about "free software", I just don't want people profiting off my work without putting at least some of theirs into it.
I predict that once OSX/x86 is released, someone will start producing a commercial Windows emulation package based off WINE. It'll make the setup and execution trivial, and otherwise it will be WINE. They will make a lot of money.
The day Microsoft releases an OSX emulation layer will be the day they've conceded defeat. It will happen.
I find this comment massively amusing coming from "pointyhairedmba".
That said, I . ..
*shudder*
. . . agree completely with the pointyhairedmba.
Presumably you went into this because you were interested in it - sit down, figure out what you're absolutely dying to get into next, then go (figuratively, but only semi-figuratively) kick their doors down and demand a job. Don't stress yourself over getting the absolute maximum pay possible - just get some place you'll be *happy*.
And now, I'm going to wash my brain out with soap and try to forget the first few parts of this reply.
I help run an IRC channel that blocks AOL. Partly it's due to zombies and flooding, but much more commonly it's due to sheer stupidity. Every year or two we try unblocking it, and we get deluged by people demanding we do their homework, and we block it again.
Not all people blocking IP ranges are companies, and of those, I can easily imagine that not all of them find it's worth providing business to AOL users. There are exceptions of course, but on average, AOL users are just plain annoying to deal with.
* BS or MS in Computer Science or equivalent (PhD a plus).
For all the people saying "sure, that's what it used to be like, but it's not now" - I got a job at Google a year ago. I've dropped out of college twice and high school once. The highest diploma I have is a middle school diploma.
You know what? The instant you say "Well, they won't hire me, I don't have the checkboxes" you've just shot yourself in the foot. Don't pay any attention to that. Work up a good resume (open-source experience would probably help - I competed a lot in www.topcoder.com, and I know a lot of people who've gotten into Google the same way, many not even close to the top ten) and send it in. Follow up. Learn how to get connections.
The listed requirements are usually surprisingly unimportant. They don't want to know if you have a series of checkboxes. They want to know if you can code.
(And yes, there are places that just care about the checkboxes. Yes, not graduating will make things *harder*. But not impossible - and I wouldn't want to work at any of those places anyway.)
I've got kind of a weird system brewing in the back of my head. I have RDP set up on my home computer (think VNC, only faster, and Windows). Ideally I want to log in to that. But I don't want it open 24/7, so I have the port completely closed. What I *will* have (don't have it yet) is a few ports open to a virtual private server I own. I connect to the virtual private, type in a one-time password, and it sends an instruction to my home computer to open a port to a certain IP for a minute. During which time I connect to it via Remote Desktop and use my home computer.
Since my home computer has passwords saved, of course, I wouldn't need to type in passwords from here. This assumes the connection is secure from being hijacked (I don't honestly know if it is) and there's a little vulnerability where someone could immediately RDP into my computer again, from the same IP, with the password that they've presumably just logged, since *that's* not a one-time password. (I suppose I could try to set it up to only allow one connection in.) But they'd only have a minute to do it in.
Of course, the point is entirely moot since I haven't set any of this stuff up - it turned out I needed a laptop for work, so they gave me a laptop, and I've just been using that with ssh and cygwin. Heh.
No, you don't have to admire evil. You do have to admire technical skill. Would you seriously stop saying "wow, that supersonic plane, that's a marvel of engineering" the second someone flew it into an office building?
Of course you're not going to say "wow, he's really evil, that's quite impressive" (well . . . I would, but that's another story.) But if someone's skilled at something that can be used both for good and for evil, you're perfectly within your rights to admire that.
Of course, the same problem that Fort Knox would have still applies here, and more so - bring a car (suitcase) with a home-built nuke over, park it moderately close (close enough to be close, far enough away to not arouse suspicion), set timer for 24 hours, catch Greyhound bus (escape boat) to a location a few states away. Boomy. I suspect it would be harder on the elevator, but it also sounds more vulnerable to large-scale explosives than Fort Knox.
So efficient is this potential new technology, said Wolkow, that "the question now about the battery life in your laptop would go away. Your battery today would run your computer all week or all month instead of three to four hours."
Of course, by the time we *can* build CPUs with this technology, we'll be able to build the equivalent of your current laptop into a watch or a cellphone - and the new generation of molecular-CPU laptops will be the same size, massively more powerful, and run for three to four hours. Doh.
Not only that, but because the microelectronics could eventually be made out of molecules, some computer parts could be biodegradable since molecules can be broken down into small bits.
"Made out of molecules"? What do you think they're made out of now? Rainbows and unicorns?
That said, this is damn cool. Miniturization is unstoppable! (At least until these molecular transistors become used in everything - I'm not quite sure where we'll go from there.)
Slashdot Mirror
I've done that. (And often do it.) It has a ton of advantages. My favorite: my days are a few hours longer. Since I don't really need one or two hours more time per day on my own, I simply work 10-hour days. But that means I only need to work 4 days a week . . . instant permanent 3-day weekends!
:P
And the sleep is awesome.
This all, of course, assumes you can get a job where you can get away with it.
The Mac car puttered along at 5mph, but damn did it look pretty.
The SCO car just clamped onto the back of the Linux car for the entire race.
The Amiga car was a marvel of engineering, but fell into a ditch two miles in.
And the Hurd car will be ready to race any day now. Really.
Also missing . . .
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
(x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
(For some strange reason the Slashdot filter doesn't like this post. I can't imagine why.)
Sheesh. I work at Google, and I agree. Give us props where we deserve 'em (and, IMHO, we deserve a lot of them :) ) but Yahoo got their Firefox toolbar out first. It's a fact.
Deal with it already and stop rewriting history, Slashdot!
(not opinions of my employer also, blah blah blah)
A while back there was a story on the winners of a computer-generated graphics competition. One of them included a link to a Zazzle page where you could buy a poster. Since I had just moved into my new apartment, I ended up going to search several hundred posters more and finally found three I really liked (yes, there's a lot of crap on the site :P), paid for 'em, and they arrived quickly.
Look great. My only complaint is that one is a *little* lower resolution than I would have hoped - some of the details blur a bit. The others are fine though, so I suspect whoever made that poster just didn't do it in high enough resolution.
Recommended.
Eh?
"If the security was handled by the compiler" . . . so when some guy goes and writes a binary by hand, it doesn't have to worry about the system security?
Not that anyone would do that. Only virus writers and adware writers would want to bypass the OS security!
Does this sound like possibly the worst idea imaginable to anyone else?
I remember setting up new computers in college. The one guarantee I had with a new computer?
It would be *infested* with dealer-installed spyware.
I even had one computer that tunneled all HTTP requests through an outside server. Which caused a few problems when we needed to go to an HTTP page to register the computer on the network and give it access to anything outside the school network.
"Sorry, I can't access my CENTRAL SPYWARE SERVER. No HTTP for you!"
So, let's summarize the solution here:
Computer full of spyware? No problem! Throw it out and buy another computer equally full of spyware!
PROBLEM SOLVED!
I've found that Firefox gets slower and slower as you open and close tabs - there appears to be some "tab opening" code that doesn't scale well. On my work computer it got to the point where opening a new tab took five or six seconds (and it's a 1ghz computer.)
Had to solve it by closing Firefox entirely (which took about 30 seconds to clean up and actually quit). I don't know how fast that might happen on a 200mhz machine, but it's bad enough to be irritating on a 1ghz.
"I think the idea of having a 19" rack at home is every techs dream."
Know what I mean, know what I mean? Say no more! Wink wink, nudge nudge.
Is she a . . . goer?
Or if they only had a version for WinXP SP2 and we'll verify your serial number for legitimacy first.
I don't see a problem with this at all, honestly.
I often program things without really caring if someone takes it and uses it to make money. (Oh no, whatever will I do, my code is useful, what's for dinner?) But every once in a while I have something more complete and polished that I don't want someone to just grab and sell.
Libraries tend to be the former, and I release those BSD. Software projects and games tend to be the latter, and I release those under GPL.
Basically, if I feel like I could sell it in its current form, but don't want to, it gets GPLed just so other people can't trivially profit off me. But if it's not in a sellable form, it gets BSDed so maybe someone else can use it to build on. I'm not obsessive about "free software", I just don't want people profiting off my work without putting at least some of theirs into it.
I predict that once OSX/x86 is released, someone will start producing a commercial Windows emulation package based off WINE. It'll make the setup and execution trivial, and otherwise it will be WINE. They will make a lot of money.
The day Microsoft releases an OSX emulation layer will be the day they've conceded defeat. It will happen.
Man, I would pay money for a video of that meeting.
"Next motion on the table: Removing rider bills and criminal penalties for bribery. All in favor?"
."
". .
"All opposed?"
(chorus of nays)
"Motion fails."
That's why.
When you update your installation and suddenly all your scripts break.
Alternatively, when you keep having to add new data on the *end*, instead of next to the columns that it's logically related to.
I find this comment massively amusing coming from "pointyhairedmba".
.
That said, I . .
*shudder*
. . . agree completely with the pointyhairedmba.
Presumably you went into this because you were interested in it - sit down, figure out what you're absolutely dying to get into next, then go (figuratively, but only semi-figuratively) kick their doors down and demand a job. Don't stress yourself over getting the absolute maximum pay possible - just get some place you'll be *happy*.
And now, I'm going to wash my brain out with soap and try to forget the first few parts of this reply.
I help run an IRC channel that blocks AOL. Partly it's due to zombies and flooding, but much more commonly it's due to sheer stupidity. Every year or two we try unblocking it, and we get deluged by people demanding we do their homework, and we block it again.
Not all people blocking IP ranges are companies, and of those, I can easily imagine that not all of them find it's worth providing business to AOL users. There are exceptions of course, but on average, AOL users are just plain annoying to deal with.
Don't you mean "scientists"?
Or "explorers"?
Requirements include:
* BS or MS in Computer Science or equivalent (PhD a plus).
For all the people saying "sure, that's what it used to be like, but it's not now" - I got a job at Google a year ago. I've dropped out of college twice and high school once. The highest diploma I have is a middle school diploma.
You know what? The instant you say "Well, they won't hire me, I don't have the checkboxes" you've just shot yourself in the foot. Don't pay any attention to that. Work up a good resume (open-source experience would probably help - I competed a lot in www.topcoder.com, and I know a lot of people who've gotten into Google the same way, many not even close to the top ten) and send it in. Follow up. Learn how to get connections.
The listed requirements are usually surprisingly unimportant. They don't want to know if you have a series of checkboxes. They want to know if you can code.
(And yes, there are places that just care about the checkboxes. Yes, not graduating will make things *harder*. But not impossible - and I wouldn't want to work at any of those places anyway.)
I've got kind of a weird system brewing in the back of my head. I have RDP set up on my home computer (think VNC, only faster, and Windows). Ideally I want to log in to that. But I don't want it open 24/7, so I have the port completely closed. What I *will* have (don't have it yet) is a few ports open to a virtual private server I own. I connect to the virtual private, type in a one-time password, and it sends an instruction to my home computer to open a port to a certain IP for a minute. During which time I connect to it via Remote Desktop and use my home computer.
:)
Since my home computer has passwords saved, of course, I wouldn't need to type in passwords from here. This assumes the connection is secure from being hijacked (I don't honestly know if it is) and there's a little vulnerability where someone could immediately RDP into my computer again, from the same IP, with the password that they've presumably just logged, since *that's* not a one-time password. (I suppose I could try to set it up to only allow one connection in.) But they'd only have a minute to do it in.
Of course, the point is entirely moot since I haven't set any of this stuff up - it turned out I needed a laptop for work, so they gave me a laptop, and I've just been using that with ssh and cygwin. Heh.
But that's the plan.
Oh yeah, that sounds real believable.
"For our first attempt, we're going to scan both San Francisco *and* all of Europe."
One step a time here.
No, you don't have to admire evil. You do have to admire technical skill. Would you seriously stop saying "wow, that supersonic plane, that's a marvel of engineering" the second someone flew it into an office building?
Of course you're not going to say "wow, he's really evil, that's quite impressive" (well . . . I would, but that's another story.) But if someone's skilled at something that can be used both for good and for evil, you're perfectly within your rights to admire that.
Of course, the same problem that Fort Knox would have still applies here, and more so - bring a car (suitcase) with a home-built nuke over, park it moderately close (close enough to be close, far enough away to not arouse suspicion), set timer for 24 hours, catch Greyhound bus (escape boat) to a location a few states away. Boomy. I suspect it would be harder on the elevator, but it also sounds more vulnerable to large-scale explosives than Fort Knox.
Not like there's anything we can do about that.
So efficient is this potential new technology, said Wolkow, that "the question now about the battery life in your laptop would go away. Your battery today would run your computer all week or all month instead of three to four hours."
Of course, by the time we *can* build CPUs with this technology, we'll be able to build the equivalent of your current laptop into a watch or a cellphone - and the new generation of molecular-CPU laptops will be the same size, massively more powerful, and run for three to four hours. Doh.
Not only that, but because the microelectronics could eventually be made out of molecules, some computer parts could be biodegradable since molecules can be broken down into small bits.
"Made out of molecules"? What do you think they're made out of now? Rainbows and unicorns?
That said, this is damn cool. Miniturization is unstoppable! (At least until these molecular transistors become used in everything - I'm not quite sure where we'll go from there.)