Look we're not even talking about AP maintenance and customization here.
You like car metaphors?
Well maybe you'd like car designs where you'd have to find or pay someone with "special knowledge" to help you configure your car door so that random strangers can't _trivially_ use your car.
When even a few years before there were existing truck designs where you didn't need to do that (e.g. https).
And my main point was: IT WAS ALREADY DONE BETTER BEFORE! Even if https/SSL is not the best, WiFi definitely was FAR FAR worse. So what's with this crap we get?
I'm not asking for much, just a bit of progress.
But I suppose, nobody is really interested in making significantly better stuff. After all in 1968 we already had shared screen collaboration + video audio conferencing, hypertext, etc and that's almost 40 years ago already. Poor guy, look where that got him.
I use Audacity only because it's free and good enough for what I'm using it for.
It's not what I'd call good at all.
For instance if you record something, and the power fails, you don't just risk losing the last few secs of the recording, you risk losing more.
Sure you can write a program to splice the data back (which I did), but it's silly to have to do that.
At one point of time a "new version" (1.2.x) couldn't even record much more than 40+ minutes on some systems due to some silly bug, took them a while to fix it, meanwhile the 1.0.x worked. Makes me afraid of even looking at the source code:).
I see nothing wrong with laying out official rules and guidelines to your staff on how to handle crowds especially hostile ones. You don't want people "improvising" and screwing up big time.
If the actual methods or rules are bad then sure, it's cause for concern.
So how about cut down the "oh noes they have a manual to tell them what to do!", and try to concentrate on what they are being told to do AND what they actually do?
Seriously, if someone puts MCSE on their CV as their "top" certification what does that tell you about their technical/professional abilities?
It's almost like "Certified Crap". I mean you were stupid enough to waste time taking that exam AND put it on your CV like you're proud of it? Worse if you even PAID to sit for it. You'd only get a bit more respect than I reserve for those who pay for those "online doctorates". Unless you wrote "MCSE, but I was young and foolish":).
Now, if you were "MVP" (Microsoft's Most Valuable Professional) that's something worth putting on your CV. Linux/OSS fanatics may still be biased against you, but it's still worth something. Some might not like what you do, but you can provably do stuff.
I don't know much about CCNAs (anyone care to provide horror/amusing stories?;) ), but I still have some respect for CCIEs.
Oh there can be a lifetime crew alright... Just for smaller values of lifetime.
As for colonization, why would you colonize a planet like Mars once you've figured out how to keep humans alive in space for a long time? It's not like Mars is very much better. Might as well stay in space and just send a few people down when necessary.
Embryos are a weird idea. Why not sperm instead?
Anyway this sort of simulation stuff is a silly waste of time, NASA et all should just stick to picking candidates from nuclear submarine crew instead of the Air Force type people they appear to be so fond of. Or at least use the same criteria as in picking sub crew.
If you know your stuff, you should think about what questions to ask them, so you know if they're worth working for.
It's definitely very important to figure out who your boss is going to be (remember sometimes the boss might be "exiting soon"), and what sort of person the boss is.
Might also want to ask what the "staff turnover" is for the department you are joining.
I'd rather fly in something built by the team with a track record where their _released_ stuff hardly ever crashes. Even better if their prototypes didn't crash either - they failed safely.
If a team has a long record of building crap, it is likely to still be building crap years later.
The people who came up with the crappy WiFi standards and implemented them have a lot to answer for. It's just too hard to secure stuff even reasonably.
Most people would probably want their WiFi APs private with a small proportion wanting them public/open However you end up with the opposite- most people not locking down their APs and only a small proprotion doing so, all because it's "too hard". That's quite a poor situation.
AND, just because it's public/open for everyone to use, doesn't mean it has to be unencrypted and insecure!
After all anonymous users can use https sites without having to get certs, enter passwords etc. And even nontech users can manage to use https, even if they may choose not to check the certs and ignore the warnings messages. Believe me with the current standards it's not easy to setup an https-like wifi experience.
IIRC the WiFi standard came after SSL (or the mess that's IPSEC, don't copy the implementation copy the idea). So what's their excuse?
The WiFi standards designers and implementors have really made things pretty bad for the users.
The lazy people who don't filter out ads who click on ads are more likely to buy your stuff anyway.
As for the people who take the trouble to filter out ads for your stuff, they can find your stuff when they want it.
It's similar to the spam situation. People who actually don't filter the spam, dig through lots of garbage or nonsensical text (to bypass filters) and actually believe the semicoherent spiel, are the sort of customers the spammers/scammers want. e.g. stupid.
"Unfortunately, there doesn't exist a single social graph (or even multiple which interoperate) that's comprehensive and decentralized. Rather, there exists hundreds of disperse social graphs, most of dubious quality and many of them walled gardens"
And why is that such a problem? I'm quite happy with that state of things in the "social graph" arena.
"People are getting sick of registering and re-declaring their friends on every site"
1) Really? Some people (esp teens?) seem very happy to have new opportunities to redeclare their friends. Or erm start a new "friend collection". 2) Do they actually do that? Who's forcing them to anyway?
Better yet, can someone show me where the Bible says that belief in evolution is incompatible with _following_Jesus_ (i.e. being a Christian).
So if it is not, why are so many Christians making such a big deal about it? The last I checked there are only a few fundamental requirements (amongst them believing that Jesus exists)
Why don't Christians concentrate on doing what Jesus _clearly_ told them to do?
I'm a Christian who believes that evolution is a likely explanation[1], I find it rather strange that many Christians make a belief in "Creationism" to be a core/required part of their faith, when that is not even required by the Nicene Creed. You don't even have to be aware of the entire Nicene Creed to be a Christian. A Christian is someone who follows Jesus (implies they need to have some idea of who Jesus is etc).
In my opinion _requiring_ additional beliefs for people to become a Christian gets dangerously close to heresy. Sure while stuff like the Nicene creed says God is the maker of all things, but the meaning is quite different from "creationism". Nobody would say God directly made the x86 (and in fact some may believe the Devil did it, or was that Windows?;) ).
As for types of Gods- Christians believe in a God who actively participates in his creation and actually cares what happens. Which is reasonable enough- after all it's not very practical otherwise. It does also make things a bit more interesting tho...
[1] Even if God miraculously created the entire universe 6000 years ago, he has appeared to have created a consistent history to go along with it. I do wonder that when Jesus turned water into wine whether the wine had a history consistent with the quality of the wine produced, similar for the fish and bread when feeding the various thousands.
If you look at the miracles it just doesn't seem to be his normal style to create everything without "audience participation";). A father can make stuff without help from his children but it is often better for them if they take part. And if the children aren't in a mood to learn anything, hey free-will.
Yeah, but selling fuel is a bit different from selling comms connections.
When you sell fuel the fuel cost is a substantial part of the price.
Whereas once you've paid for the expensive comms equipment, sending/receiving electrons down the line doesn't really cost you very much more.
It only costs you money because someone else you're connecting to is trying to get you to pay for their expensive comms equipment (and for their yachts and private jets).
So you could get a bunch of people charging each other super high prices but the bulk of it cancels out, and the people at the edges (aka subscribers) are where the real money is extracted from.
If people are really interested they can go add up all the comms equipment and fibre laying that was required, and then amortize it and then they can figure out how bandwidth can cost and if the Telcos are being "too big a parasite and not enough of a symbiote".
That sort of thing is usually a regulator's job, but that's not very Free Market Capitalism I guess.
Yeah, it should be a black shift - where your company stops buying lots of expensive Sun hardware and shifts from being "in the red" to "back in black".;).
When a XP bug is fixed, chances are stuff gets better for the user or Microsoft. When a Vista bug is fixed, chances are stuff gets better for the **AA or Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Look we're not even talking about AP maintenance and customization here.
You like car metaphors?
Well maybe you'd like car designs where you'd have to find or pay someone with "special knowledge" to help you configure your car door so that random strangers can't _trivially_ use your car.
When even a few years before there were existing truck designs where you didn't need to do that (e.g. https).
And my main point was: IT WAS ALREADY DONE BETTER BEFORE! Even if https/SSL is not the best, WiFi definitely was FAR FAR worse. So what's with this crap we get?
I'm not asking for much, just a bit of progress.
But I suppose, nobody is really interested in making significantly better stuff. After all in 1968 we already had shared screen collaboration + video audio conferencing, hypertext, etc and that's almost 40 years ago already. Poor guy, look where that got him.
I use Audacity only because it's free and good enough for what I'm using it for.
:).
It's not what I'd call good at all.
For instance if you record something, and the power fails, you don't just risk losing the last few secs of the recording, you risk losing more.
Sure you can write a program to splice the data back (which I did), but it's silly to have to do that.
At one point of time a "new version" (1.2.x) couldn't even record much more than 40+ minutes on some systems due to some silly bug, took them a while to fix it, meanwhile the 1.0.x worked. Makes me afraid of even looking at the source code
I see nothing wrong with laying out official rules and guidelines to your staff on how to handle crowds especially hostile ones. You don't want people "improvising" and screwing up big time.
If the actual methods or rules are bad then sure, it's cause for concern.
So how about cut down the "oh noes they have a manual to tell them what to do!", and try to concentrate on what they are being told to do AND what they actually do?
Yeah lawsuit from the families of the recently deceased who committed suicide after breaking an arm and being told "even a girl can beat it".
;).
It's Japan after all
No, if they pass they should be blacklisted ;).
:).
;) ), but I still have some respect for CCIEs.
Seriously, if someone puts MCSE on their CV as their "top" certification what does that tell you about their technical/professional abilities?
It's almost like "Certified Crap". I mean you were stupid enough to waste time taking that exam AND put it on your CV like you're proud of it? Worse if you even PAID to sit for it. You'd only get a bit more respect than I reserve for those who pay for those "online doctorates". Unless you wrote "MCSE, but I was young and foolish"
Now, if you were "MVP" (Microsoft's Most Valuable Professional) that's something worth putting on your CV. Linux/OSS fanatics may still be biased against you, but it's still worth something. Some might not like what you do, but you can provably do stuff.
I don't know much about CCNAs (anyone care to provide horror/amusing stories?
If I'm hiring, an MCSE on your CV counts as a negative.
Especially if:
1) You personally paid for it and wanted it
2) You thought it was a good idea to put it on your CV.
CCIE is still ok I guess.
Oh there can be a lifetime crew alright... Just for smaller values of lifetime.
As for colonization, why would you colonize a planet like Mars once you've figured out how to keep humans alive in space for a long time? It's not like Mars is very much better. Might as well stay in space and just send a few people down when necessary.
Embryos are a weird idea. Why not sperm instead?
Anyway this sort of simulation stuff is a silly waste of time, NASA et all should just stick to picking candidates from nuclear submarine crew instead of the Air Force type people they appear to be so fond of. Or at least use the same criteria as in picking sub crew.
Yeah, I told my friend to call it "Voted off the planet" or "Vote them off the planet".
The voting options: keep, return and one-way.
We can start with orbital missions first.
If you know your stuff, you should think about what questions to ask them, so you know if they're worth working for.
It's definitely very important to figure out who your boss is going to be (remember sometimes the boss might be "exiting soon"), and what sort of person the boss is.
Might also want to ask what the "staff turnover" is for the department you are joining.
Just like Windows?
I'd rather fly in something built by the team with a track record where their _released_ stuff hardly ever crashes. Even better if their prototypes didn't crash either - they failed safely.
If a team has a long record of building crap, it is likely to still be building crap years later.
If that's the law then it sounds fair enough to me.
Just like the many other laws preventing minors from doing/getting stuff unless their parents/guardians approve.
The people who came up with the crappy WiFi standards and implemented them have a lot to answer for. It's just too hard to secure stuff even reasonably.
Most people would probably want their WiFi APs private with a small proportion wanting them public/open However you end up with the opposite- most people not locking down their APs and only a small proprotion doing so, all because it's "too hard". That's quite a poor situation.
AND, just because it's public/open for everyone to use, doesn't mean it has to be unencrypted and insecure!
After all anonymous users can use https sites without having to get certs, enter passwords etc. And even nontech users can manage to use https, even if they may choose not to check the certs and ignore the warnings messages. Believe me with the current standards it's not easy to setup an https-like wifi experience.
IIRC the WiFi standard came after SSL (or the mess that's IPSEC, don't copy the implementation copy the idea). So what's their excuse?
The WiFi standards designers and implementors have really made things pretty bad for the users.
They don't have to monitor every residence.
:).
First take samples of large areas. From the results, figure out what you want to target - heroin, cocaine etc, and which area.
Take samples from smaller and smaller areas.
Given there'll probably be a large number of users, bust the relevant houses of the people who aren't your friends/relatives/cronies
Well an appealing system is better than one with a lack of appeal right?
Q: How many free market economists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Free market economists don't change lightbulbs, they prefer to theorize in dark while waiting for Adam Smith's invisible hand to change it for them
It's also self selecting.
The lazy people who don't filter out ads who click on ads are more likely to buy your stuff anyway.
As for the people who take the trouble to filter out ads for your stuff, they can find your stuff when they want it.
It's similar to the spam situation. People who actually don't filter the spam, dig through lots of garbage or nonsensical text (to bypass filters) and actually believe the semicoherent spiel, are the sort of customers the spammers/scammers want. e.g. stupid.
"Unfortunately, there doesn't exist a single social graph (or even multiple which interoperate) that's comprehensive and decentralized. Rather, there exists hundreds of disperse social graphs, most of dubious quality and many of them walled gardens"
And why is that such a problem? I'm quite happy with that state of things in the "social graph" arena.
"People are getting sick of registering and re-declaring their friends on every site"
1) Really? Some people (esp teens?) seem very happy to have new opportunities to redeclare their friends. Or erm start a new "friend collection".
2) Do they actually do that? Who's forcing them to anyway?
Better yet, can someone show me where the Bible says that belief in evolution is incompatible with _following_Jesus_ (i.e. being a Christian).
So if it is not, why are so many Christians making such a big deal about it? The last I checked there are only a few fundamental requirements (amongst them believing that Jesus exists)
Why don't Christians concentrate on doing what Jesus _clearly_ told them to do?
I'm a Christian who believes that evolution is a likely explanation[1], I find it rather strange that many Christians make a belief in "Creationism" to be a core/required part of their faith, when that is not even required by the Nicene Creed. You don't even have to be aware of the entire Nicene Creed to be a Christian. A Christian is someone who follows Jesus (implies they need to have some idea of who Jesus is etc).
;) ).
;). A father can make stuff without help from his children but it is often better for them if they take part. And if the children aren't in a mood to learn anything, hey free-will.
In my opinion _requiring_ additional beliefs for people to become a Christian gets dangerously close to heresy. Sure while stuff like the Nicene creed says God is the maker of all things, but the meaning is quite different from "creationism". Nobody would say God directly made the x86 (and in fact some may believe the Devil did it, or was that Windows?
As for types of Gods- Christians believe in a God who actively participates in his creation and actually cares what happens. Which is reasonable enough- after all it's not very practical otherwise. It does also make things a bit more interesting tho...
[1] Even if God miraculously created the entire universe 6000 years ago, he has appeared to have created a consistent history to go along with it. I do wonder that when Jesus turned water into wine whether the wine had a history consistent with the quality of the wine produced, similar for the fish and bread when feeding the various thousands.
If you look at the miracles it just doesn't seem to be his normal style to create everything without "audience participation"
Maybe we should ask what Juniper Networks thinks.
;).
I think they'll be very happy to help to prevent cisco related failures of the internet
Yeah, but selling fuel is a bit different from selling comms connections.
When you sell fuel the fuel cost is a substantial part of the price.
Whereas once you've paid for the expensive comms equipment, sending/receiving electrons down the line doesn't really cost you very much more.
It only costs you money because someone else you're connecting to is trying to get you to pay for their expensive comms equipment (and for their yachts and private jets).
So you could get a bunch of people charging each other super high prices but the bulk of it cancels out, and the people at the edges (aka subscribers) are where the real money is extracted from.
If people are really interested they can go add up all the comms equipment and fibre laying that was required, and then amortize it and then they can figure out how bandwidth can cost and if the Telcos are being "too big a parasite and not enough of a symbiote".
That sort of thing is usually a regulator's job, but that's not very Free Market Capitalism I guess.
Yeah, it should be a black shift - where your company stops buying lots of expensive Sun hardware and shifts from being "in the red" to "back in black". ;).
Uh, both sides could be wrong.
;)
You're not a coder are you?
When a XP bug is fixed, chances are stuff gets better for the user or Microsoft.
;).
When a Vista bug is fixed, chances are stuff gets better for the **AA or Microsoft.
Priorities have changed a bit
Yes I know. What I don't know: is the limiting factor really because the power plant will be damaged, or is it because the poor fishies will die?
90F sounds rather low for a "risk damage to power plant" level.