From when I saw the original reference to those other jobs, it seemed to me that I had no idea what she was doing there...and, IIRC, I suspected that she was a manager.
Considering HP's recent activities I don't consider that a strong recommendation of quality. I don't know SunTrust.
If I were to actually be judging her, I'd need to look a lot deeper, but for a post I'm willing to think she was an incompetent manager who believed that she was competent, and also believed that a good manager can manage anything.
And despite that opinion, I don't believe that a technical degree proves much of anything. It's just that being a job switching manager proves even less.
Yes. And the example of Apple brings up the problems of licensing.
To be fair, I haven't seriously looked at BSD software in over a decade, but when I did I was seriously bothered by the variety of licenses I'd need to evaluate. Perhaps things have smoothed down by now, after all, when I first looked at Linux there were also a mess of licenses for non-core software. These days, not so much. But the BSD license seems to encourage the spread of alternate licenses on derived software...and that's really annoying.
That said, and looking only from a distance, the BSD system developers themselves seem to be making better choices than the Linux system developers. Here system needs to be understood to include all the libraries needed to get things up. (I really think that systemd was a bad decision, and nothing I've heard in it's favor has seemed sufficient. I'm certain that gnome3 was a bad decision. It seems *only* suitable for smart-phones. I think that KDE4 was a bad decision. It seems to me the proper solution was to fix KDE3. Etc. [And I acknowledge that window managers aren't a part of the core system...but that doesn't make them unimportant.])
OTOH, a lot of the tools I want to use release more current versions for Linux than for BSD. So popularity isn't all bad. And so far Linux has been "good enough". And I actually prefer the GPL to the BSD license.
That said, I'm not real pleased with a lot of the decisions that the Linux community has made recently. I don't like systemd, I don't like gnome3, and yesterday I switched to Mate because the KDE desktop caught the jitters...not all the time, but much too much of the time. Since switching to Mate fixed things, that proves that it was a library problem. I think something about passive sensing of the mouse position when there was no movement and no button being pressed. If I could figure out how to report that bug I would, but it didn't crash anything, it was just extremely annoying.
FWIW, I think that KDE4 was a mistake, that they should have stopped at KDE3 and then fixed things. I'm quite certain that gnome3 was a mistake.
No. This isn't racism, this is nationalism, or possibly jingoism.
OTOH, it's also a very real recognition that the Russian govt. can coerce any backdoor it wants into Kapersky software. So it makes perfect sense for US govt. machines to avoid it. (I'm not saying they should trust McAfee,)
That said, the Russians would probably be reluctant to share their info with the US spooks, so Kapersky's software is likely a better choice for those living under a US regime than many alternatives. But perhaps avoiding it should be required for those holding a security clearance.
OTOH, for other reasons I prefer Linux, so this is, on my part, moot. I really dislike the last MS EULA I read, and that was the reason I switched to Linux. Reports since then have consistently been that the EULA has gotten worse and more restrictive. For awhile I switched to Apple, but then *they* tried to smuggle an abusive EULA change in as a "required security upgrade". I've still got a few Apples, but they never touch the internet in either direction. That was over a decade ago now.
If I were mainly concerned about security, then I'd switch to one of the BSDs. (OpenBSD?) My concerns were more about legal agreements, as I *try* to be law abiding...though not because I feel the laws always deserve to be honored. (If I thought pirating CDs or videos would damage the RIAA or MPAA, I'd be doing it right and left.)
Microsoft has been a sociopath for so long that it's going to take time without vile actions before I'll trust them. Public speeches don't do anything for me, because they've outright lied too often in the past.
Maybe after a decade of good behavior I'll trust them. But actions speak a lot louder than words. And corrupting standards is nearly unforgivable.
Unfortunately, it *is* different when it's "on the internet". There are various "network effects" that come into play here, which can sometimes convert something annoying into something truly damaging.
Perhaps the best approach is to expand "tortuous interference with business" to include non-monetary damages. But even that is quite dangerous.
In a way it's like the problem with rapid communication. Once upon a time a person convicted of a crime could reform, move to another town, and build a new life. It wasn't easy, but it was possible. Now, even in another country, he's a "known felon". This has its good points and its bad points, but it's definitely not the same.
What do you propose as a better solution? It would be nice if we could impose a rule saying "no remuneration for moderation", but that would require quite intrusive collection of information. I can't think of any other improvement that doesn't horrendously complicate things. If that weren't a problem, then I'd like each tag to be a score in a separate dimension, and for people to be able to select for things like: order by funny * 5 + interest *4 + insightful * 9 - disagree * 1 AND omit if troll > 3 or flamebait > 1
The thing is, while that might be better, in some ways, it would be a lot more complex, and not necessarily any more likely to yield true results.
If you depend on Tor you better not get the Feds after you. It's *probably* safe against anyone else, but, IIRC, the Feds were reported own enough of the exit nodes to track you. That was a few years ago, but I doubt they've decreased their penetration.
Still, it's probably more secure than a VPN is even designed to be.
But do note all the "probably"s in my comments. And recall that Google is working hard on getting a quantum computer to perform well. (And it's not the only gang so working.) So almost all of the security in use on the internet has to be considered temporary. The only exceptions, currently, are one time pads and anything that doesn't get recorded (and how can you tell). But "temporary" may mean 10 years, and it may mean 20 years. That's long enough for many purposes. (I consider widespread use within less than 10 years quite unlikely.)
"The moron" believed the promises made on the services web page. There seem to be a lot of people here that accept deceptive phraseology as honest, but it's interesting that many of them post as Anonymous Coward. One might almost think someone has hired a reputation management company.
That said, I agree with your statements about the design of VPNs. But that's not saying what the company that's selling the service promises. And the promise *could* be essentially correct, if they actually never saved the logs from RAM to disk. Which is possible, but unlikely...and currently proven false in the case of PureVPN...or whatever its name is.
Well, you can't really assert that any are honest, unless you consider deceptive phrasing honest. There's a small amount of evidence that those which actually are honest are regularly put out of business by government officials.
So you can rephrase that as: some are lying, some may be honest, and we can't really distinguish between the two. But the honest ones may be an empty set.
Again it's the question of what your problem is. For some problems Rust is probably a reasonable solution. It wasn't for mine, because their model of parallel execution didn't mesh with what I need. But if I were to try to do it in C/C++ I'd need to run multiple independent threads of execution each handling a custom UDP server. So go is a better solution to what I need. For other problems that wouldn't be the correct language at all.
There *is* no "one size fits all" programming language. Just because you can shoehorn something into a language doesn't mean it's a good idea. Otherwise we'd be writing everything in assembler or Forth or something.
If Elsevier is on one side, justice is probably on the other. Actually, if Elsevier is on one side, truth is also likely to be on the other. It has had a fine line of "company journals", where researchers chosen by the company acted as the reviewers for all articles..without that being stated.
It sounds to me like you are assuming that this browser API won't be hacked. I think I'd rather wait a few years before trusting it...perhaps a decade. (OTOH, I also don't trust on-line banking.)
Is he currently calling himself a Democrat? If so, that's one mark against him. But he was a candidate that was acceptable to the Democratic voters. I've never met anyone who actually supported Hillary, except because "she's a woman", which I find an extremely poor argument. So was Thatcher. So was Countess Elizabeth.
While the source seems dubious, and certainly the news site would be quite willing to diss Apple, there was the tag at the end about Apple investigating an earlier report of the same variety.
So I'd be willing to keep an open mind on this topic.
It seems to be saying that, and it's also saying there are the same number of workers, just in a different location. This seems unbelievable.
The reason it seems unbelievable is that this would means costs would increase, and companies don't work that way. The most likely reason is that this study is bullshit. Probably there are a large number of people who lost their jobs that weren't counted for some reason or other. There are other possible reasons, but none that I have thought of have made me trust the study as reported in the summary.
Sorry, it sends a strong signal about what skill are currently needed. There's nothing permanent about those requirements.
E.g., currently there's a strong need for truck drivers of various different types. in 5-10 years, 15 at most, we can predict that there will be a strong oversupply in that market. But don't think truck drivers are unique, they are only one of the larger segments that will be affected.
That's not a treatment for cancer, that's a treatment for pain and anxiety. For pain and anxiety there is good evidence that it is effective. For cancer I know of no studies that indicate it has any effect in either direction.
The government regulating something like this is, indeed, alarming. But do you really find it more alarming than a profit driven corporation "regulating" it?
Somebody's going to, and most parents have neither the time nor the skill.
(I'd say all parents, but there's going to be someone around with an eidetic memory and no concept of the size of the problem.)
FWIW, the OED is (was?) highly deficient in words having an oriental heritage. E.g., my copy didn't have (I think it was koan, but it might have been ghee).
You mean like, "You've got to use a government approved OS and you can't update it without government approval, but once a version is approved it stays approved, even when hacks are discovered."?
Slashdot Mirror
From when I saw the original reference to those other jobs, it seemed to me that I had no idea what she was doing there...and, IIRC, I suspected that she was a manager.
Considering HP's recent activities I don't consider that a strong recommendation of quality. I don't know SunTrust.
If I were to actually be judging her, I'd need to look a lot deeper, but for a post I'm willing to think she was an incompetent manager who believed that she was competent, and also believed that a good manager can manage anything.
And despite that opinion, I don't believe that a technical degree proves much of anything. It's just that being a job switching manager proves even less.
Yes. And the example of Apple brings up the problems of licensing.
To be fair, I haven't seriously looked at BSD software in over a decade, but when I did I was seriously bothered by the variety of licenses I'd need to evaluate. Perhaps things have smoothed down by now, after all, when I first looked at Linux there were also a mess of licenses for non-core software. These days, not so much. But the BSD license seems to encourage the spread of alternate licenses on derived software...and that's really annoying.
That said, and looking only from a distance, the BSD system developers themselves seem to be making better choices than the Linux system developers. Here system needs to be understood to include all the libraries needed to get things up. (I really think that systemd was a bad decision, and nothing I've heard in it's favor has seemed sufficient. I'm certain that gnome3 was a bad decision. It seems *only* suitable for smart-phones. I think that KDE4 was a bad decision. It seems to me the proper solution was to fix KDE3. Etc. [And I acknowledge that window managers aren't a part of the core system...but that doesn't make them unimportant.])
That tells you about popularity, not competence.
OTOH, a lot of the tools I want to use release more current versions for Linux than for BSD. So popularity isn't all bad. And so far Linux has been "good enough". And I actually prefer the GPL to the BSD license.
That said, I'm not real pleased with a lot of the decisions that the Linux community has made recently. I don't like systemd, I don't like gnome3, and yesterday I switched to Mate because the KDE desktop caught the jitters...not all the time, but much too much of the time. Since switching to Mate fixed things, that proves that it was a library problem. I think something about passive sensing of the mouse position when there was no movement and no button being pressed. If I could figure out how to report that bug I would, but it didn't crash anything, it was just extremely annoying.
FWIW, I think that KDE4 was a mistake, that they should have stopped at KDE3 and then fixed things. I'm quite certain that gnome3 was a mistake.
Most of them, yes, but there are degrees and degrees.
No. This isn't racism, this is nationalism, or possibly jingoism.
OTOH, it's also a very real recognition that the Russian govt. can coerce any backdoor it wants into Kapersky software. So it makes perfect sense for US govt. machines to avoid it. (I'm not saying they should trust McAfee,)
That said, the Russians would probably be reluctant to share their info with the US spooks, so Kapersky's software is likely a better choice for those living under a US regime than many alternatives. But perhaps avoiding it should be required for those holding a security clearance.
OTOH, for other reasons I prefer Linux, so this is, on my part, moot. I really dislike the last MS EULA I read, and that was the reason I switched to Linux. Reports since then have consistently been that the EULA has gotten worse and more restrictive. For awhile I switched to Apple, but then *they* tried to smuggle an abusive EULA change in as a "required security upgrade". I've still got a few Apples, but they never touch the internet in either direction. That was over a decade ago now.
If I were mainly concerned about security, then I'd switch to one of the BSDs. (OpenBSD?) My concerns were more about legal agreements, as I *try* to be law abiding...though not because I feel the laws always deserve to be honored. (If I thought pirating CDs or videos would damage the RIAA or MPAA, I'd be doing it right and left.)
Microsoft has been a sociopath for so long that it's going to take time without vile actions before I'll trust them. Public speeches don't do anything for me, because they've outright lied too often in the past.
Maybe after a decade of good behavior I'll trust them. But actions speak a lot louder than words. And corrupting standards is nearly unforgivable.
Unfortunately, it *is* different when it's "on the internet". There are various "network effects" that come into play here, which can sometimes convert something annoying into something truly damaging.
Perhaps the best approach is to expand "tortuous interference with business" to include non-monetary damages. But even that is quite dangerous.
In a way it's like the problem with rapid communication. Once upon a time a person convicted of a crime could reform, move to another town, and build a new life. It wasn't easy, but it was possible. Now, even in another country, he's a "known felon". This has its good points and its bad points, but it's definitely not the same.
What do you propose as a better solution?
It would be nice if we could impose a rule saying "no remuneration for moderation", but that would require quite intrusive collection of information. I can't think of any other improvement that doesn't horrendously complicate things. If that weren't a problem, then I'd like each tag to be a score in a separate dimension, and for people to be able to select for things like:
order by funny * 5 + interest *4 + insightful * 9 - disagree * 1 AND omit if troll > 3 or flamebait > 1
The thing is, while that might be better, in some ways, it would be a lot more complex, and not necessarily any more likely to yield true results.
If you depend on Tor you better not get the Feds after you. It's *probably* safe against anyone else, but, IIRC, the Feds were reported own enough of the exit nodes to track you. That was a few years ago, but I doubt they've decreased their penetration.
Still, it's probably more secure than a VPN is even designed to be.
But do note all the "probably"s in my comments. And recall that Google is working hard on getting a quantum computer to perform well. (And it's not the only gang so working.) So almost all of the security in use on the internet has to be considered temporary. The only exceptions, currently, are one time pads and anything that doesn't get recorded (and how can you tell). But "temporary" may mean 10 years, and it may mean 20 years. That's long enough for many purposes. (I consider widespread use within less than 10 years quite unlikely.)
"The moron" believed the promises made on the services web page. There seem to be a lot of people here that accept deceptive phraseology as honest, but it's interesting that many of them post as Anonymous Coward. One might almost think someone has hired a reputation management company.
That said, I agree with your statements about the design of VPNs. But that's not saying what the company that's selling the service promises. And the promise *could* be essentially correct, if they actually never saved the logs from RAM to disk. Which is possible, but unlikely...and currently proven false in the case of PureVPN...or whatever its name is.
Well, you can't really assert that any are honest, unless you consider deceptive phrasing honest. There's a small amount of evidence that those which actually are honest are regularly put out of business by government officials.
So you can rephrase that as: some are lying, some may be honest, and we can't really distinguish between the two. But the honest ones may be an empty set.
It's interesting that you would post that as "Anonymous Coward". I trust you realize that this is not actually anonymous, but only harder to trace.
Slashdot doesn't actually pretend to offer true anonymity. Don't be fooled by the visible handle.
Again it's the question of what your problem is. For some problems Rust is probably a reasonable solution. It wasn't for mine, because their model of parallel execution didn't mesh with what I need. But if I were to try to do it in C/C++ I'd need to run multiple independent threads of execution each handling a custom UDP server. So go is a better solution to what I need. For other problems that wouldn't be the correct language at all.
There *is* no "one size fits all" programming language. Just because you can shoehorn something into a language doesn't mean it's a good idea. Otherwise we'd be writing everything in assembler or Forth or something.
If Elsevier is on one side, justice is probably on the other.
Actually, if Elsevier is on one side, truth is also likely to be on the other. It has had a fine line of "company journals", where researchers chosen by the company acted as the reviewers for all articles..without that being stated.
It sounds to me like you are assuming that this browser API won't be hacked.
I think I'd rather wait a few years before trusting it...perhaps a decade. (OTOH, I also don't trust on-line banking.)
Is he currently calling himself a Democrat? If so, that's one mark against him. But he was a candidate that was acceptable to the Democratic voters. I've never met anyone who actually supported Hillary, except because "she's a woman", which I find an extremely poor argument. So was Thatcher. So was Countess Elizabeth.
While the source seems dubious, and certainly the news site would be quite willing to diss Apple, there was the tag at the end about Apple investigating an earlier report of the same variety.
So I'd be willing to keep an open mind on this topic.
It seems to be saying that, and it's also saying there are the same number of workers, just in a different location. This seems unbelievable.
The reason it seems unbelievable is that this would means costs would increase, and companies don't work that way. The most likely reason is that this study is bullshit. Probably there are a large number of people who lost their jobs that weren't counted for some reason or other. There are other possible reasons, but none that I have thought of have made me trust the study as reported in the summary.
Sorry, it sends a strong signal about what skill are currently needed. There's nothing permanent about those requirements.
E.g., currently there's a strong need for truck drivers of various different types. in 5-10 years, 15 at most, we can predict that there will be a strong oversupply in that market. But don't think truck drivers are unique, they are only one of the larger segments that will be affected.
The summary didn't seem to mention anything about wages vs. cost of living in the jobs replaced vs. the jobs created.
And that's assuming I believe their study.
That's not a treatment for cancer, that's a treatment for pain and anxiety. For pain and anxiety there is good evidence that it is effective. For cancer I know of no studies that indicate it has any effect in either direction.
The government regulating something like this is, indeed, alarming. But do you really find it more alarming than a profit driven corporation "regulating" it?
Somebody's going to, and most parents have neither the time nor the skill.
(I'd say all parents, but there's going to be someone around with an eidetic memory and no concept of the size of the problem.)
FWIW, the OED is (was?) highly deficient in words having an oriental heritage. E.g., my copy didn't have (I think it was koan, but it might have been ghee).
You mean like, "You've got to use a government approved OS and you can't update it without government approval, but once a version is approved it stays approved, even when hacks are discovered."?
Please remain single.