Not really. You're post is asinine, but you'd never admit it.
And I've hacked a few CDMA phones in my day.
A SIM card consists of an IMSI, some keys, service access data, PIN, PUK and some room for crappy phone book storage, basically.
But it is basically just data. The thing that makes the SIM card concept unique is the physical smartcard use itself.
CDMA phones being cell phones have to have similar data, but there is actually no standardized storage mechanism in the phone. It simply has to comply with the CDMA standards for air interface use, how it is stored in the phone precisely doesn't matter and there is not cohesive standardized "SIM card equivalent". Sorry.
(And this has nothing to do with working with the Market, you could use any generic identifier system.
Now, if you have what it takes, then either demonstrate with solid reasoning why my logic is faulty or admit that you cannot.
Your logical deduction may not be faulty, so I'll at least admit that I can't find fault with it and concede.
But I'll go on to say that a number of your premises are dubious or detached from reality and you are a dilettante and without clue about economic realities and the complexity of the real world outside your inane logic puzzles, and even if you are allowed to use Windows, I don't hold Microsoft responsible. Sorry.
If the lock manufacturer kept advertising "more secure than ever!" you might have a case. If Ford advertised "more maintainence-free than ever!"
God you must be quite sheltered, as I have seen such claims numerous times from such companies.
They still market how many miles the car can go before scheduled maintenance. And lock manufacturers that add another pin use that wording almost verbatim. Besides, "more secure than ever" is a relative measure, and arguably true even if the security is still poor.
It pretty clear that Slava at RethinkDB is clueless about his problem. Sure, he has trouble finding top people. It apparently has never occurred to him that top people probably don't want to work there. I'm sorry, but from what I can see, it looks positively inane. My version of hell, because I like far tougher problems than can happen in that area.
It seems like its possible. I do like that they are upfront with their salary/stock options. (Stock options that *may* be worth something if this company of geniuses manages to come up with something that could be marketable to a buyout). Pure statistics alone, they will not.
And I can buy that the management is very technically able (as has been cited here), but not so realistic about hiring.
Probably read too much Joel on Software. Remember that tripe? He's implicitly and explicitly telling you to go about insisting on hiring future Nobel prize laureates and programmers that have their consciousness tuned for a power-conserving compact bytecode, so their skills can be applied to a recently web-enabled bugtracker in a job that will probably pay slightly better than the mean (this is essentially what the part about giving them better benefits/pay means) for similar work (ie not that much for that labor pool).
As a data point, I consider myself slightly above average, but not quite Turing or Dijkstra, and I was making their Engineer II level pay in a region of the East Coast with far lower cost of living (but not in the deep sticks either) a few years after high school. I can't imagine those smarter than me are so cavalier about the risk/benefit ratio of jumping to a startup with no product ready to go.
I point out my case, because I think if they really believe they are going to impress people with simply the salary quote, they are only going to attract people below my capabilities, which would be well below what they seem to "want". Sorry, but if those SV salaries look good to you (mind you this is a startup and not Google with fringes galore and other things), you are either underpaid and unaware or you just are not as good as you think (Dunning-Krueger, ahem).
A startup is far better off being upfront about exactly where they stand, what they do, and be prefectly frank with the risks involved and not blow smoke up your ass. The idiots will go batshit with your pie-in-the-sky, the *brightest* not so much. Don't try to PR style market to the brightest, they'll see though it and not like it.
And it might just be that those smart enough to know what they don't know, are not so quick to rush to a place where the website sounds like they have all the answers to DB problems. I, for one, took pause at their job postings. They see "visionary," I read into and between the lines and see "dogmatic adherence to our superior view"
That's another thing, you don't generally hire the best and brightest (the real best and brightest--in more than just code monkey) into "staff" positions, they usually don't fit well.
You have to have a little irrationality to go on the startup ride and it helps if the founders realize they are not *all* geniuses and smartness is multifaceted. If they can't find people in a market as liquid as Silicon Valley, they apparently can't pay the price and have to make their expectations more realistic, or simply wait longer and let probability do its thing.
There are bright people willing to work for low-pay (high short-term risk) if they feel the other benefits (thrill of doing something worthwhile) are worth it, or they like/believe in the reward. It's not all about base, of course, but that is something too.
Was it really just because of a few comp.lang.c++ posts? Aren't you somewhat (in)famous for a couple interesting things in hackerdom?
I've seen some of your posts, and while I don't agree with everything I have seen, on matters of technical issues it seems you're pretty solid, to say the least.
I'd say the only mark against you (in the unlikely event I would be on the other side of an interviewing table with you) is that you continue to hang out in this cesspool*.
* Note to idiots: there is no hypocrisy in this statement, since I never claimed to hold myself to a higher standard. An anal-rapist telling you anal-rape is illegal and can cause you problems is not a hypocrite.
DR-DOS wasn't a product that MS ripped off... It was a product that ripped off MS. MS-DOS launched in 1981. DR-DOS launched in 1989 and was version numbed to be the same as MS-DOS. They weren't breaking any laws or anything, but DR-DOS was designed to be their own DOS, compatible with MS-DOS.
You're quite ignorant of some basic facts it seems, in ways I didn't know were possible. Regardless of launch dates of specific products with specific names and marketing release terms. The "DR" in DR-DOS comes from Digital Research, which is a company that was founded by a guy named Gary Kildall, who created something called CP/M. You may now want to dig a little bit into the technical history of MS-DOS (in the early 1980s) and relation to CP/M, the dealings of IBM with Microsoft and with Gary Kildall and the genesis of Digital Research.
It's really quite disingenuous and dumb to imply that DR-DOS is just something that popped out of nowhere in 1989 to ripoff Microsoft, and MS-DOS was some incredible original creative work.
Did DR-DOS "rip-off" Microsoft? Maybe. Was Gary Kildall a lily white and virgin pure victim as some like to say? Probably not. But the relationship is far more long, complex and incestuous than you seem to realize.
Finally you should really read about the "AARD code" issue in the early 90s.
If I had blamed my problems on WiFi, I wouldn't have been able to find research from the NIH to back me up. How am I anti-science?
Well I never claimed you were anti-science. But yes, I opined that what you said is fairly anti-scientific and I stand by that.
But just so you know, citing an journal article is not science, and it is precisely the thing that the media has done for years everytime we have some fad alarmist bullshit about nutrition or health.
Citing a journal article is "doing science" or being "scientific" just about as much as using an oscilloscope or a geiger counter to find and justify paranormal activity is.
Most practicing research scientists do cite articles. But that is not the primary thing that makes them scientists and citing an article is not the scientific method.
I have no reason to believe at this point that the article you cited is at all relevant to the far-reaching health claims you're making let alone its results well accepted in the field at this point and their methods unflawed. Oddly enough I have done research work in a field not so far removed from this one (visual sensory research), and all I'll say is that I know enough to know what I don't know but I can say with quite a bit of confidence that using this article to support your assumptions about sleep health and autism based on other assumptions about environmental light exposure takes quite a bit of hand-waving.
This movie was set in the future, most likely post-singularity. While humanity may never find a cure for baldness, why do you assume there isn't a cure for bankruptcy?
A more banal analysis would simply be that the private company had a diversified portfolio and can recover most of their losses from the video game release utilizing much more effective future DRM.
For instance, its pretty obvious that computers give off a lot of blue light
citation needed.
The typical blue indicator LEDs you seem to be bitching about might be lucky to produce 3 lm of total light output, directed a little more than a luminaire, but still a small fraction of the light output of even a 7W incandescent nightlight.
As an expert in crackpot theories, let me just say you're doing well in that department.
The way kids are today, with all their gadgets and gizmos can't possibly be any better for their brains than it is for their bodies, not playing outside nearly as much as they used to.
Ok, the first part of this sentence reminded me of that Prince interview making the rounds a few weeks back.
"Why is that totally useless racecar pasted on the front of that excellent looking tractor, the kind of vehicle that is used to grow all the crops that feed the world?":
Maybe it's because the people that were selling that "object oriented database" were far more honest than you assumed.
That would be a fair point, if his comment had actually been based on xenophobic hatred of China. It wasn't.
If you reread the post I was replying to carefully, I think you will find it difficult to honestly conclude what the hell it was "based" on.
To be honest, the part I was speaking to is only loosely addressed in the beginning and then the rest of the post just goes off into la-la land.
But reading phrases interspersed through there like "done onshore" and "proud of our country" you're going to have a hard time convincing me that its completely detached from anti-globalization/xenophobic talking points.
I'll also point out that there are a number of products that are for all intents and purposes only mass-produced in China and Taiwan. What are they "inferior" to? For instance, where are most of these Apple products made that people are constantly orgasming over? What are the Chinese versions inferior to.
The fact is, at this point, the standards of manufacturing quality out of China are highly variable and probably will be for a long time to come. There are some very carefully constructed and well made products made in China and there is also utter crap. I cannot agree with the "Chinese products generally are of inferior quality," it is far too simplistic.
The Chinese political and legal landscape and economy is still a backwater, and only customers that have a half-wit of economic sense to implement proper incentivization and quality management for their outsourcing providers are going to get good quality out of China. And some do.
The original post loosely makes the claim that the real solution is to just insist that we just make everything here ourselves, as if the outsourcing to foreigners itself is the real problem. This is really the only point I was facetiously calling out. I don't have any special love for the Chinese.
Well for what it's worth, the point I was making was more of a comment on the fact that the machinations of Thiokol (the American contractor) were found to play a role in the cause of the disaster.
My point is that if you want to just pretend that Chinese businesses and people are all fundamentally assholes and American businesses and people are just somehow magically better and that economic incentives and political realities have nothing to do with it, then fine with me, just don't be surprised when your ship blows up.
I never said the quality of the o-rings themselves was the issue. But every recount/analysis of the disaster I have heard has placed at least some of the blame on operations within the supplier of the O-rings (Thiokol), which is an American company. You can read about this yourself.
You also seem to imply that the US space program went along flawlessly from the very beginning in the 50s. Note: It didn't.
And if all the Chinese are fucking retards/dishonest fucks (and Americans are just better), then what does it say about the Americans outsourcing or offshoring to them??
My snarky comment was more to point out that hatred for another country (stemming mainly from "taking yer jerbs") has little to do with actually solving engineering/economic problems and getting to the root of why businesses act the way they do.
Here's another one: I'm glad we don't outsource most of our food supply. Imagine the horrors if we imported our eggs from a bunch of gooks.
No. Read it again. The original thread post made a laughably misinformed statement conflating issues of cable effects on signal integrity and misconceptions about S/PDIF, and a few people responded. This thread of response started by accepting the original as mostly true and then adding that it may just not apply anymore due to the types of signals being carried (which is by itself a bit misleading). There was another response (not in this thread) that was fairly accurate, which I didn't repeat entirely. I just wanted to emphasize that this thread, as far as I care, was mostly nonsense (and the post I responded to mostly irrelevant). I was not telling the same as "above", but by a sibling to the post. Not the same.
That's quite an informative post about the S/PDIF protocol.
If you define informative to mean, mostly bunch of crap, then yes, it was quite informative.
The thing is, unless you're bending space time, you can't skew a clock over the cable.
Cable impedance also will not cause clock skew. It will cause reflections in the coded digital signal and therefore possibly cause degradation affecting the integrity of the recovered clock and data.
A reply post below covers the basics of what's wrong with the post.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. You're post is asinine, but you'd never admit it.
And I've hacked a few CDMA phones in my day.
A SIM card consists of an IMSI, some keys, service access data, PIN, PUK and some room for crappy phone book storage, basically.
But it is basically just data. The thing that makes the SIM card concept unique is the physical smartcard use itself.
CDMA phones being cell phones have to have similar data, but there is actually no standardized storage mechanism in the phone. It simply has to comply with the CDMA standards for air interface use, how it is stored in the phone precisely doesn't matter and there is not cohesive standardized "SIM card equivalent". Sorry.
(And this has nothing to do with working with the Market, you could use any generic identifier system.
Now, if you have what it takes, then either demonstrate with solid reasoning why my logic is faulty or admit that you cannot.
Your logical deduction may not be faulty, so I'll at least admit that I can't find fault with it and concede.
But I'll go on to say that a number of your premises are dubious or detached from reality and you are a dilettante and without clue about economic realities and the complexity of the real world outside your inane logic puzzles, and even if you are allowed to use Windows, I don't hold Microsoft responsible. Sorry.
If the lock manufacturer kept advertising "more secure than ever!" you might have a case. If Ford advertised "more maintainence-free than ever!"
God you must be quite sheltered, as I have seen such claims numerous times from such companies.
They still market how many miles the car can go before scheduled maintenance. And lock manufacturers that add another pin use that wording almost verbatim. Besides, "more secure than ever" is a relative measure, and arguably true even if the security is still poor.
Do you eat paint chips?
Am I only the one who doesn't need a pat on the back every 5 minutes in order to enjoy something or derive satisfaction from it?
Okay, what if you were patronized with a hand job or a blow job every 5 minutes for something insignificant. Would you complain then?
Ah. Reminded once again why I always want to see: Slashdot. The Stupid. It Burns.
It pretty clear that Slava at RethinkDB is clueless about his problem. Sure, he has trouble finding top people. It apparently has never occurred to him that top people probably don't want to work there. I'm sorry, but from what I can see, it looks positively inane. My version of hell, because I like far tougher problems than can happen in that area.
It seems like its possible. I do like that they are upfront with their salary/stock options. (Stock options that *may* be worth something if this company of geniuses manages to come up with something that could be marketable to a buyout). Pure statistics alone, they will not.
And I can buy that the management is very technically able (as has been cited here), but not so realistic about hiring.
Probably read too much Joel on Software. Remember that tripe? He's implicitly and explicitly telling you to go about insisting on hiring future Nobel prize laureates and programmers that have their consciousness tuned for a power-conserving compact bytecode, so their skills can be applied to a recently web-enabled bugtracker in a job that will probably pay slightly better than the mean (this is essentially what the part about giving them better benefits/pay means) for similar work (ie not that much for that labor pool).
As a data point, I consider myself slightly above average, but not quite Turing or Dijkstra, and I was making their Engineer II level pay in a region of the East Coast with far lower cost of living (but not in the deep sticks either) a few years after high school. I can't imagine those smarter than me are so cavalier about the risk/benefit ratio of jumping to a startup with no product ready to go.
I point out my case, because I think if they really believe they are going to impress people with simply the salary quote, they are only going to attract people below my capabilities, which would be well below what they seem to "want". Sorry, but if those SV salaries look good to you (mind you this is a startup and not Google with fringes galore and other things), you are either underpaid and unaware or you just are not as good as you think (Dunning-Krueger, ahem).
A startup is far better off being upfront about exactly where they stand, what they do, and be prefectly frank with the risks involved and not blow smoke up your ass. The idiots will go batshit with your pie-in-the-sky, the *brightest* not so much. Don't try to PR style market to the brightest, they'll see though it and not like it.
And it might just be that those smart enough to know what they don't know, are not so quick to rush to a place where the website sounds like they have all the answers to DB problems. I, for one, took pause at their job postings. They see "visionary," I read into and between the lines and see "dogmatic adherence to our superior view"
That's another thing, you don't generally hire the best and brightest (the real best and brightest--in more than just code monkey) into "staff" positions, they usually don't fit well.
You have to have a little irrationality to go on the startup ride and it helps if the founders realize they are not *all* geniuses and smartness is multifaceted. If they can't find people in a market as liquid as Silicon Valley, they apparently can't pay the price and have to make their expectations more realistic, or simply wait longer and let probability do its thing.
There are bright people willing to work for low-pay (high short-term risk) if they feel the other benefits (thrill of doing something worthwhile) are worth it, or they like/believe in the reward. It's not all about base, of course, but that is something too.
Was it really just because of a few comp.lang.c++ posts? Aren't you somewhat (in)famous for a couple interesting things in hackerdom?
I've seen some of your posts, and while I don't agree with everything I have seen, on matters of technical issues it seems you're pretty solid, to say the least.
I'd say the only mark against you (in the unlikely event I would be on the other side of an interviewing table with you) is that you continue to hang out in this cesspool*.
* Note to idiots: there is no hypocrisy in this statement, since I never claimed to hold myself to a higher standard. An anal-rapist telling you anal-rape is illegal and can cause you problems is not a hypocrite.
Wow, you should read the last sentence of the second paragraph of the link you posted you fuckwit douchebag.
Fucking where are my mod points fucking shit.
DR-DOS wasn't a product that MS ripped off... It was a product that ripped off MS. MS-DOS launched in 1981. DR-DOS launched in 1989 and was version numbed to be the same as MS-DOS. They weren't breaking any laws or anything, but DR-DOS was designed to be their own DOS, compatible with MS-DOS.
You're quite ignorant of some basic facts it seems, in ways I didn't know were possible. Regardless of launch dates of specific products with specific names and marketing release terms. The "DR" in DR-DOS comes from Digital Research, which is a company that was founded by a guy named Gary Kildall, who created something called CP/M. You may now want to dig a little bit into the technical history of MS-DOS (in the early 1980s) and relation to CP/M, the dealings of IBM with Microsoft and with Gary Kildall and the genesis of Digital Research.
It's really quite disingenuous and dumb to imply that DR-DOS is just something that popped out of nowhere in 1989 to ripoff Microsoft, and MS-DOS was some incredible original creative work.
Did DR-DOS "rip-off" Microsoft? Maybe. Was Gary Kildall a lily white and virgin pure victim as some like to say? Probably not. But the relationship is far more long, complex and incestuous than you seem to realize.
Finally you should really read about the "AARD code" issue in the early 90s.
If I had blamed my problems on WiFi, I wouldn't have been able to find research from the NIH to back me up. How am I anti-science?
Well I never claimed you were anti-science. But yes, I opined that what you said is fairly anti-scientific and I stand by that.
But just so you know, citing an journal article is not science, and it is precisely the thing that the media has done for years everytime we have some fad alarmist bullshit about nutrition or health.
Citing a journal article is "doing science" or being "scientific" just about as much as using an oscilloscope or a geiger counter to find and justify paranormal activity is.
Most practicing research scientists do cite articles. But that is not the primary thing that makes them scientists and citing an article is not the scientific method.
I have no reason to believe at this point that the article you cited is at all relevant to the far-reaching health claims you're making let alone its results well accepted in the field at this point and their methods unflawed.
Oddly enough I have done research work in a field not so far removed from this one (visual sensory research), and all I'll say is that I know enough to know what I don't know but I can say with quite a bit of confidence that using this article to support your assumptions about sleep health and autism based on other assumptions about environmental light exposure takes quite a bit of hand-waving.
Only on slashdot can anti-scientific garbage like this get modded +5 insightful.
Well anti-science bullshit can get promoted just about anywhere on the Internet.
What I find slightly amusing is that if he had blamed his problems on WiFi he would have been pretty much universally been called an idiot.
This movie was set in the future, most likely post-singularity. While humanity may never find a cure for baldness, why do you assume there isn't a cure for bankruptcy?
A more banal analysis would simply be that the private company had a diversified portfolio and can recover most of their losses from the video game release utilizing much more effective future DRM.
For instance, its pretty obvious that computers give off a lot of blue light
citation needed.
The typical blue indicator LEDs you seem to be bitching about might be lucky to produce 3 lm of total light output, directed a little more than a luminaire, but still a small fraction of the light output of even a 7W incandescent nightlight.
As an expert in crackpot theories, let me just say you're doing well in that department.
The way kids are today, with all their gadgets and gizmos can't possibly be any better for their brains than it is for their bodies, not playing outside nearly as much as they used to.
Ok, the first part of this sentence reminded me of that Prince interview making the rounds a few weeks back.
"Why is that totally useless racecar pasted on the front of that excellent looking tractor, the kind of vehicle that is used to grow all the crops that feed the world?" :
Maybe it's because the people that were selling that "object oriented database" were far more honest than you assumed.
Well keep your chin up, and remember not to get bitter at any point.
So Windows 95 was your dad's idea?
That would be a fair point, if his comment had actually been based on xenophobic hatred of China. It wasn't.
If you reread the post I was replying to carefully, I think you will find it difficult to honestly conclude what the hell it was "based" on.
To be honest, the part I was speaking to is only loosely addressed in the beginning and then the rest of the post just goes off into la-la land.
But reading phrases interspersed through there like "done onshore" and "proud of our country" you're going to have a hard time convincing me that its completely detached from anti-globalization/xenophobic talking points.
I'll also point out that there are a number of products that are for all intents and purposes only mass-produced in China and Taiwan. What are they "inferior" to?
For instance, where are most of these Apple products made that people are constantly orgasming over? What are the Chinese versions inferior to.
The fact is, at this point, the standards of manufacturing quality out of China are highly variable and probably will be for a long time to come. There are some very carefully constructed and well made products made in China and there is also utter crap. I cannot agree with the "Chinese products generally are of inferior quality," it is far too simplistic.
The Chinese political and legal landscape and economy is still a backwater, and only customers that have a half-wit of economic sense to implement proper incentivization and quality management for their outsourcing providers are going to get good quality out of China. And some do.
The original post loosely makes the claim that the real solution is to just insist that we just make everything here ourselves, as if the outsourcing to foreigners itself is the real problem. This is really the only point I was facetiously calling out. I don't have any special love for the Chinese.
Well for what it's worth, the point I was making was more of a comment on the fact that the machinations of Thiokol (the American contractor) were found to play a role in the cause of the disaster.
My point is that if you want to just pretend that Chinese businesses and people are all fundamentally assholes and American businesses and people are just somehow magically better and that economic incentives and political realities have nothing to do with it, then fine with me, just don't be surprised when your ship blows up.
I never said the quality of the o-rings themselves was the issue.
But every recount/analysis of the disaster I have heard has placed at least some of the blame on operations within the supplier of the O-rings (Thiokol), which is an American company. You can read about this yourself.
You also seem to imply that the US space program went along flawlessly from the very beginning in the 50s. Note: It didn't.
And if all the Chinese are fucking retards/dishonest fucks (and Americans are just better), then what does it say about the Americans outsourcing or offshoring to them??
My snarky comment was more to point out that hatred for another country (stemming mainly from "taking yer jerbs") has little to do with actually solving engineering/economic problems and getting to the root of why businesses act the way they do.
Here's another one: I'm glad we don't outsource most of our food supply. Imagine the horrors if we imported our eggs from a bunch of gooks.
Well thank god we didn't outsource those O-rings for the fuel tanks to some country of assholes! Who knows what could have happened.
Foursquare isn't useful for anything important.
No. Read it again. The original thread post made a laughably misinformed statement conflating issues of cable effects on signal integrity and misconceptions about S/PDIF, and a few people responded. This thread of response started by accepting the original as mostly true and then adding that it may just not apply anymore due to the types of signals being carried (which is by itself a bit misleading). There was another response (not in this thread) that was fairly accurate, which I didn't repeat entirely. I just wanted to emphasize that this thread, as far as I care, was mostly nonsense (and the post I responded to mostly irrelevant). I was not telling the same as "above", but by a sibling to the post. Not the same.
You're speaking like a bigger self-righteous crackpot than me.
That's quite an informative post about the S/PDIF protocol.
If you define informative to mean, mostly bunch of crap, then yes, it was quite informative.
The thing is, unless you're bending space time, you can't skew a clock over the cable.
Cable impedance also will not cause clock skew. It will cause reflections in the coded digital signal and therefore possibly cause degradation affecting the integrity of the recovered clock and data.
A reply post below covers the basics of what's wrong with the post.