people are so against stating how to contact them to apply
Well, you click on my web page link and you get my postal address, phone number and email address. Consider it another weedout factor, just like the certs: If you don't think to click on my link then no job for you.
I personally think certification is bullhockey, but I don't necessarily hold that someone has a certification against them.
I do. I won't hold one or two certifications against you as long as they're good ones, but if you give me a resume listing 10 certs it gets the roundfile.
See, I figure there are two types of people out there: Those to whom computing tasks come naturally and those who have to really work at it to gain a glimmer of understanding. That latter group gets a lot of training and a lot of certifications. They both talk the talk but in a pinch certificate collectors are often unsuccessful at assignments they haven't been specifically trained for. They're usually not the ones I want to hire.
So here's the story. Its been a while since I've heard it so I may have some of the details wrong, but this is what happened:
First, rewind about 2 decades to the breakup of AT&T and the very beginnings of competitive local phone service. Or rather what would have been the beginning... the regional bell operating companies (RBOCs) didn't want any competition.
A couple companies said, "Look, we're going to sell phone service to this office building over here. You Mr. RBOC have to provide us with access to the local phone network." The RBOCs like Verizon said, "We don't want to. These bozos should have to buy service per-minute just like the long distance comanies. Otherwise they'll flood our network with free calls and the residential consumer who doesn't have a hundred phone lines will get stuck holding the bag."
That didn't fly in court so the RBOCs came up with a hairbrained scheme called "reciprocal remuneration": Anybody could be a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) but the carrier who originates a call would have to pay the carrier who receives the call a per-minute charge. Its "fair" since either company has to play by the same rules, but if you cherry-pick that office building over there, their outbound calls will exceed the received calls and you, Mr. CLEC, will pay a mountain of money to Ma Bell. So sorry. Buh bye.
This twistedly clever strategy backfired. Do you see the problem yet?
Along comes the commercial Internet. Suddenly there are scores of companies with a very special need: They have to receive a large number of phone calls 24 hours a day while originating none. Its an ISP with dialup modem banks. And along come companies like Global NAPs who know the phone company rules. What do you think they did?
That's right. They went and wired the ISPs on the cheap -- sometimes as little as a tenth of what the RBOC charged. Why would they do such a thing? Because all the calls were inbound. Every time Joe Blow dialed his ISP and stayed connected for 18 days, GNAPS got to rape Verizon for a per-minute charge.
And good for them. Verizon deserved it. Its always great to see a monopoly eat crow.
After a number of successively more effective attempts, Verizon has closed the loophole.
Since the AT&T breakup there have been buildings called "tandems" where the long distance carriers connect their phone lines to the RBOC. Each local calling area has several of these tandems. Now, if you're a CLEC you can go into Verizon's tandems and connect to Verizon. They pay their half, you pay yours and you can trade calls with all the phones served by that tandem. Which isn't the whole local calling area. If you want the whole calling area you have to go to all the tandems.
Verizon, of course, will happily sell you a "virtual" presence in the other tandems where they carry the traffic back to the one tandem you connected to. They'll even sell you a virtual presence in all the tandems and carry your calls back to a connection in another state. For a fee.
Bad news for GlobalNAPs. No more reciprocal remuneration, and worse they have to buy expensive infrastructure to multiple tandems or else pay for a virtual presence.
They didn't want the gravy train to end so they went to court. They lost.
On opteron motherboards each processor manages its own bank of memory and makes it availble to the other processors via the hypertransport. Since this FPGA replaces one of the processors, how does it manage the associated memory bank?
I read you load and clear. You're talking about form and I'm talking about function. As the designer you're worried about communicating a message but as the customer my concern is much simpler: Does the web site do what I want?
If the answer to my question is "no," then the only message you communicate is, "I don't care about my customer."
telephone bill preprocessing application with a screen that has like twenty five text/number input areas, and fifteen buttons, three status areas, two navigation menues
Wow. So now I know why Verizon does such a horrible job billing...
What this means is that we designers are very concerned about proportions and the size/scale relationship between type on the page and graphics on the page.
What this means is that you designers are out of touch with what your customers want. Your customers want to view things their way, and their way is different at home than at work and different on their blackberry than the rest. As the designer, its not your job to create something that wins presigious art awards; its your job to create something that ENABLES the customer to do what he wants.
Fixed proportions and size/scale relationships PREVENT the customer from doing what he wants. They're not enablers.
I would submit that Google's GMail is a complex GUI as you describe yet it somehow manages to perform well at sizes ranging from 400 pixels wide to 2000 pixels wide, 200 pixels tall to 1500 pixels tall, and responds reasonably to a user request to resize the typeface.
Clearly its possible to design for a wide range of resolutions even with a complex GUI.
Even so, the GUIs aren't the most intolerable use of fixed-resolution design. The ones that really piss me off are the sites that present primarily textual information. There is no excuse for CNN's choice to use a 1024 pixel fixed width. None at all. Its pure incompetence. And the Washington Post does the same damn thing.
Consider a Web page that is designed for an 800×600 resolution.
Okay, this is your first mistake. When you design a web site for a particular resolution you're guaranteed that it will display undesirably on more than 50% of your visitors' screens. Even if my screen is exactly your projected size there is a very good chance I'll be annoyed by having to resize my browser.
In fact, if I have to make my browser window any other size than the one I've set it to in order for your web site to be useful then you've already pissed me off. I'm the customer. You don't want to piss me off.
Its not like this wasn't understood from the first days of NCSA Mosaic nearly 15 years ago. That's why the original specs for html intentionally offered no way to specify pixel placement.
I think they're just trying to cull out some of the undesirable personality types
That's a little harsh and probably inaccurate. More likely they already have personality profiles for the rest of the team he'd be working with and are looking for someone who will fit in.
There are tests like Myers-Briggs that do a pretty good job of determining whether two people will find it difficult or easy to work with and communicate with each other without making any sort of judgement about the individual's worth. The same types communicate easily while the more radically different have trouble understanding each other.
What happens to older artists is that they get rich when they're 30 and are too busy with the trappings of fame and fortune to really produce anything good
That's not the whole story. No one produces works of art in a vacuum. A successful person's interaction with others is different than a young cretin's.
When you're a young whippersnapper everybody is willing to tell you that you've produced a piece of crap. The criticism, constructive and otherwise, helps you figure out how to improve the work until its truly good. Once you're successful your sycophants are a lot less willing to tell you that you suck. Without someone telling him he's wrong even the most dedicated, bright and creative individual can dive off into some really strange blind alleys.
Couldn't you get this without first gaining the secret vectors for 40 devices? Suppose you only knew the secret vector for just one device. Borrowing from the article's example, couldn't you do something like the following:
Alice is a device whose secret vector has been obtained through means not addressed here. Bob is a commercially purchased device with an unknown secret vector.
Known: Alice secret vector is (26,19,12,7) Known: Alice addition rule is [1]+[2] Known: Bob's addition rule is [2]+[4] Unknown: Bob's secret vector (b1,b2,b3,b4)
Hacker impersonating Alice receives data from Bob and decrypts it into DATA.
Hacker now knows that b1+b2 = a2+a4 = 19+7 = 26
Hacker changes his addition rule [1]+[3] and tries again. Hacker receives encrypted data from Bob. [1]+[3] is some Keysize number (2^56?). Hacker performs a brute force attack against the encrypted data until he finds key K that produces the same decrypted DATA as before. Hacker now knows that b1+b3 = K. 26-K = (b1+b2)-(b1+b3) = b2-b3.
Repeat a couple times and you have enough equations to solve for the individual vector values. This gives you Bob's secret vector.
Repeat against 38 more devices and you have the requisite number to break the whole algorithm.
Someone better at math than I am, please feel free to jump in and tear holes in the argument.
The big deal with token ring was that the network would remain stable under 100% load. Classic 10mbps ethernet with hubs would start experiencing trouble around 60% load and collapse by the time load reached 90%. If you had a big, flat network it just plain wouldn't work.
Look at why: With token ring, only the card holding the token could transmit. Everybody else had to wait for the token. So each station would empty its transmit queue and then pass the token on to the next station. On ethernet, a station would send a packet whenever and if another station sent a packet at about the same time they'd collide. Every station observing the collision would assert a collision signal and after the collision signal cleared the two stations that transmitted would wait a random period of time and then retransmit. That's oversimplifying a bit but more or less correct.
So, token ring was much more stable in a large LAN with a high probability of multiple stations having outbound traffic ready at the same time.
Now, along comes 100baseTX on cat5, the end of coaxial ethernet and the proliferation of $50 switches. When you're plugged in to a switch there are only two devices in the collision domain: you and the switch. So, lots less collisions. When you're in full duplex mode (as you generally are), collisions are impossible since by definition both sides are allowed to transmit at the same time. Now your ethernet network remains stable at 100% utilization. And if the nic in the PC burns out, the rest of the network doesn't care.
Token ring is very sensitive to malfunctioning nics. A malfunctioning nic may drop the token, that is it may receive the token and then fail to transmit it to the next nic. That kills a token ring network dead until the admin wanders around with an analyzer and figures out which PC is at fault.
Suddenly the tables were turned. Token ring was an administrative headache and expensive to boot. Ethernet was simple, cheap and worked just as well.
Token ring died out except as an academic curiosity -- an interesting early answer to a problem that was eventually solved another way.
Ever done an "rm -f file. *"? Yes, that's a space in there after the dot. Added by a mistaken reflex. Oops.
Do that as a normal user account and its bad. Do that as root... Well, do you wanna spend the rest of the day rebuilding the machine?
Now, on the sudo vs. su argument I personally favor su. When you have to explore a problem with the service down until its fixed you don't want anything slowing you down. Try something as simple as "sudo ls/var/spool/mqueue/q*". Doesn't work. It tries to expand the wildcard as your normal user account which doesn't have access to the directory. It just makes more sense to su and then go exploring.
But you don't do that in every window; you only do it in the windows where you're intentionally performing systems administration functions.
he could have argued it with AT&T first or the government.
Have you ever tried to argue something with AT&T? I wanted to keep the old-school rotary phones my grandmother rented from AT&T for 20 years at $3/month. The bastards made me mail them back.
Its also very helpful to run Apache at nice level 5. That way when the CGI programs go nuts and the load shoots up to 200 the sshd process won't get starved for CPU time and you can still log in to fix the server.
He was trying to take credit for the bill that ultimately created the Internet as we know it.
The problem is, he didn't do that either. It had already existed for two decades as a defense research network in when he first learned of its existance 1989. It didn't begin morphing into the commercial network we know today until around '93-'94, well after he'd left the senate. The commercialization, by the way, was fought by the NSF-funded project Gore helped initiate. At one point they threatened to cut off any companies that used it for commercial purposes instead of for research as it was intended.
The best you can say is that Gore greased the funding wheels during one of the many transitions the Internet went through on the way to becoming the network we know today. Even that's pretty generous -- from his writings and speeches he pretty clearly saw the NSF-net as a way for researches at multiple universities to connect to the five NSF-funded supercomputer centers. That was the extent of his vision.
You're picking nits. Gore didn't claim to have invented the internet, he claimed to have created it. The exact quote is, "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Unfortunately, that's not true either. The boldest claim the record supports is that he enthusiasticly supported the National Science Foundation during the years where ONE of its hundreds of projects was to take over and expand the ARPAnet. There's no indication he was even aware of the Internet prior to the NSF's involvement and even then he considered the network ancilary to the five supercomputer centers funded by the NSF -- a way for scientists at other universities to access the supercomputers, not an entity in its own right.
The record suggests that Gore first became interested in a national research network in 1986 when he proposed funding the NSF to look in to the subject. He only became aware that the Internet already existed during a 1989 presentation by Dr. Fields of ARPA -- a good two decades after the internet was created.
It was an unsubstantiated boast, made funnier though not any more fantastic by swapping "invented" for its synonym.
More to the point, I'd hate for them to release twice as often period. I maintain more than 60 machines; frequent release upgrades would be a serious drain on my time.
If you want a distro that does significant upgrades to core packages every few weeks, get Fedora. Its great for that. Sucks for stability, but it has a really fast upgrade cycle.
Just move the phone away from the speakers. The transmission's power drops with the square of the distance.
If the phone is a couple feet away on your belt and you still hear interference on the speakers, consider getting a different phone/carrier. Its also pumping that energy into your hip and other nearby sensitive areas.
The salesman should be CEO, whichever guy that is. CEO is a job for a people-person. Its about selling... Selling investors on the company, selling potential partners on the idea, making strategic decisions that improve the ability to sell the products and in a 2-man operation, selling the product itself.
That's usually not the CS guy. Most of us got in to CS because we like building stuff. CEO is not a builder job, its a seller job.
Its not always easy but it is that black and white.
It does help to think outside the box. You can preload the client with information about the approaching object without loading its position until its visible. And you can usually design the game so that the knowledge that -something- is approaching offers no competitive advantage. When you can't do that you can always design it so that everybody knows that something approaches, thereby eliminating the competitive advantage.
Its only when you decide that its imporant to the gameplay experience that the players not know that you run in to trouble. And it turns out that decision is almost always wrong -- players -like- outsmarting the game. They like figuring out what's going to happen before it does. Being a step or two ahead gives you a sense of accomplishment. The unpredictable capricious gotchas are no fun.
Slashdot Mirror
people are so against stating how to contact them to apply
Well, you click on my web page link and you get my postal address, phone number and email address. Consider it another weedout factor, just like the certs: If you don't think to click on my link then no job for you.
I personally think certification is bullhockey, but I don't necessarily hold that someone has a certification against them.
I do. I won't hold one or two certifications against you as long as they're good ones, but if you give me a resume listing 10 certs it gets the roundfile.
See, I figure there are two types of people out there: Those to whom computing tasks come naturally and those who have to really work at it to gain a glimmer of understanding. That latter group gets a lot of training and a lot of certifications. They both talk the talk but in a pinch certificate collectors are often unsuccessful at assignments they haven't been specifically trained for. They're usually not the ones I want to hire.
So here's the story. Its been a while since I've heard it so I may have some of the details wrong, but this is what happened:
First, rewind about 2 decades to the breakup of AT&T and the very beginnings of competitive local phone service. Or rather what would have been the beginning... the regional bell operating companies (RBOCs) didn't want any competition.
A couple companies said, "Look, we're going to sell phone service to this office building over here. You Mr. RBOC have to provide us with access to the local phone network." The RBOCs like Verizon said, "We don't want to. These bozos should have to buy service per-minute just like the long distance comanies. Otherwise they'll flood our network with free calls and the residential consumer who doesn't have a hundred phone lines will get stuck holding the bag."
That didn't fly in court so the RBOCs came up with a hairbrained scheme called "reciprocal remuneration": Anybody could be a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) but the carrier who originates a call would have to pay the carrier who receives the call a per-minute charge. Its "fair" since either company has to play by the same rules, but if you cherry-pick that office building over there, their outbound calls will exceed the received calls and you, Mr. CLEC, will pay a mountain of money to Ma Bell. So sorry. Buh bye.
This twistedly clever strategy backfired. Do you see the problem yet?
Along comes the commercial Internet. Suddenly there are scores of companies with a very special need: They have to receive a large number of phone calls 24 hours a day while originating none. Its an ISP with dialup modem banks. And along come companies like Global NAPs who know the phone company rules. What do you think they did?
That's right. They went and wired the ISPs on the cheap -- sometimes as little as a tenth of what the RBOC charged. Why would they do such a thing? Because all the calls were inbound. Every time Joe Blow dialed his ISP and stayed connected for 18 days, GNAPS got to rape Verizon for a per-minute charge.
And good for them. Verizon deserved it. Its always great to see a monopoly eat crow.
After a number of successively more effective attempts, Verizon has closed the loophole.
Since the AT&T breakup there have been buildings called "tandems" where the long distance carriers connect their phone lines to the RBOC. Each local calling area has several of these tandems. Now, if you're a CLEC you can go into Verizon's tandems and connect to Verizon. They pay their half, you pay yours and you can trade calls with all the phones served by that tandem. Which isn't the whole local calling area. If you want the whole calling area you have to go to all the tandems.
Verizon, of course, will happily sell you a "virtual" presence in the other tandems where they carry the traffic back to the one tandem you connected to. They'll even sell you a virtual presence in all the tandems and carry your calls back to a connection in another state. For a fee.
Bad news for GlobalNAPs. No more reciprocal remuneration, and worse they have to buy expensive infrastructure to multiple tandems or else pay for a virtual presence.
They didn't want the gravy train to end so they went to court. They lost.
Brightmail works fine. Exchange not so much. You have two good options:
A) An Ironport appliance.
B) Outsource to an antispam service.
Both of these solutions also protect your exchange server from hackers, mail floods and other things that tend to make your pager go off in the night.
Outsourcing is cheap if you're a smaller company. The Ironport lets you keep control it house if you're large enough to afford it.
On opteron motherboards each processor manages its own bank of memory and makes it availble to the other processors via the hypertransport. Since this FPGA replaces one of the processors, how does it manage the associated memory bank?
I read you load and clear. You're talking about form and I'm talking about function. As the designer you're worried about communicating a message but as the customer my concern is much simpler: Does the web site do what I want?
If the answer to my question is "no," then the only message you communicate is, "I don't care about my customer."
telephone bill preprocessing application with a screen that has like twenty five text/number input areas, and fifteen buttons, three status areas, two navigation menues
Wow. So now I know why Verizon does such a horrible job billing...
What this means is that we designers are very concerned about proportions and the size/scale relationship between type on the page and graphics on the page.
What this means is that you designers are out of touch with what your customers want. Your customers want to view things their way, and their way is different at home than at work and different on their blackberry than the rest. As the designer, its not your job to create something that wins presigious art awards; its your job to create something that ENABLES the customer to do what he wants.
Fixed proportions and size/scale relationships PREVENT the customer from doing what he wants. They're not enablers.
I would submit that Google's GMail is a complex GUI as you describe yet it somehow manages to perform well at sizes ranging from 400 pixels wide to 2000 pixels wide, 200 pixels tall to 1500 pixels tall, and responds reasonably to a user request to resize the typeface.
Clearly its possible to design for a wide range of resolutions even with a complex GUI.
Even so, the GUIs aren't the most intolerable use of fixed-resolution design. The ones that really piss me off are the sites that present primarily textual information. There is no excuse for CNN's choice to use a 1024 pixel fixed width. None at all. Its pure incompetence. And the Washington Post does the same damn thing.
Consider a Web page that is designed for an 800×600 resolution.
Okay, this is your first mistake. When you design a web site for a particular resolution you're guaranteed that it will display undesirably on more than 50% of your visitors' screens. Even if my screen is exactly your projected size there is a very good chance I'll be annoyed by having to resize my browser.
In fact, if I have to make my browser window any other size than the one I've set it to in order for your web site to be useful then you've already pissed me off. I'm the customer. You don't want to piss me off.
Its not like this wasn't understood from the first days of NCSA Mosaic nearly 15 years ago. That's why the original specs for html intentionally offered no way to specify pixel placement.
I think they're just trying to cull out some of the undesirable personality types
That's a little harsh and probably inaccurate. More likely they already have personality profiles for the rest of the team he'd be working with and are looking for someone who will fit in.
There are tests like Myers-Briggs that do a pretty good job of determining whether two people will find it difficult or easy to work with and communicate with each other without making any sort of judgement about the individual's worth. The same types communicate easily while the more radically different have trouble understanding each other.
McAfee places the blame for increased numbers of rootkits squarely on the shoulders of the open source community
That's like saying Edison and Tesla are to blame every time someone gets electocuted.
What happens to older artists is that they get rich when they're 30 and are too busy with the trappings of fame and fortune to really produce anything good
That's not the whole story. No one produces works of art in a vacuum. A successful person's interaction with others is different than a young cretin's.
When you're a young whippersnapper everybody is willing to tell you that you've produced a piece of crap. The criticism, constructive and otherwise, helps you figure out how to improve the work until its truly good. Once you're successful your sycophants are a lot less willing to tell you that you suck. Without someone telling him he's wrong even the most dedicated, bright and creative individual can dive off into some really strange blind alleys.
Michael Jackson. 'Nuff said.
Couldn't you get this without first gaining the secret vectors for 40 devices? Suppose you only knew the secret vector for just one device. Borrowing from the article's example, couldn't you do something like the following:
Alice is a device whose secret vector has been obtained through means not addressed here. Bob is a commercially purchased device with an unknown secret vector.
Known: Alice secret vector is (26,19,12,7)
Known: Alice addition rule is [1]+[2]
Known: Bob's addition rule is [2]+[4]
Unknown: Bob's secret vector (b1,b2,b3,b4)
Hacker impersonating Alice receives data from Bob and decrypts it into DATA.
Hacker now knows that b1+b2 = a2+a4 = 19+7 = 26
Hacker changes his addition rule [1]+[3] and tries again.
Hacker receives encrypted data from Bob. [1]+[3] is some Keysize number (2^56?). Hacker performs a brute force attack against the encrypted data until he finds key K that produces the same decrypted DATA as before. Hacker now knows that b1+b3 = K.
26-K = (b1+b2)-(b1+b3) = b2-b3.
Repeat a couple times and you have enough equations to solve for the individual vector values. This gives you Bob's secret vector.
Repeat against 38 more devices and you have the requisite number to break the whole algorithm.
Someone better at math than I am, please feel free to jump in and tear holes in the argument.
The big deal with token ring was that the network would remain stable under 100% load. Classic 10mbps ethernet with hubs would start experiencing trouble around 60% load and collapse by the time load reached 90%. If you had a big, flat network it just plain wouldn't work.
Look at why: With token ring, only the card holding the token could transmit. Everybody else had to wait for the token. So each station would empty its transmit queue and then pass the token on to the next station. On ethernet, a station would send a packet whenever and if another station sent a packet at about the same time they'd collide. Every station observing the collision would assert a collision signal and after the collision signal cleared the two stations that transmitted would wait a random period of time and then retransmit. That's oversimplifying a bit but more or less correct.
So, token ring was much more stable in a large LAN with a high probability of multiple stations having outbound traffic ready at the same time.
Now, along comes 100baseTX on cat5, the end of coaxial ethernet and the proliferation of $50 switches. When you're plugged in to a switch there are only two devices in the collision domain: you and the switch. So, lots less collisions. When you're in full duplex mode (as you generally are), collisions are impossible since by definition both sides are allowed to transmit at the same time. Now your ethernet network remains stable at 100% utilization. And if the nic in the PC burns out, the rest of the network doesn't care.
Token ring is very sensitive to malfunctioning nics. A malfunctioning nic may drop the token, that is it may receive the token and then fail to transmit it to the next nic. That kills a token ring network dead until the admin wanders around with an analyzer and figures out which PC is at fault.
Suddenly the tables were turned. Token ring was an administrative headache and expensive to boot. Ethernet was simple, cheap and worked just as well.
Token ring died out except as an academic curiosity -- an interesting early answer to a problem that was eventually solved another way.
Ever done an "rm -f file. *"? Yes, that's a space in there after the dot. Added by a mistaken reflex. Oops.
/var/spool/mqueue/q*". Doesn't work. It tries to expand the wildcard as your normal user account which doesn't have access to the directory. It just makes more sense to su and then go exploring.
Do that as a normal user account and its bad. Do that as root... Well, do you wanna spend the rest of the day rebuilding the machine?
Now, on the sudo vs. su argument I personally favor su. When you have to explore a problem with the service down until its fixed you don't want anything slowing you down. Try something as simple as "sudo ls
But you don't do that in every window; you only do it in the windows where you're intentionally performing systems administration functions.
he could have argued it with AT&T first or the government.
Have you ever tried to argue something with AT&T? I wanted to keep the old-school rotary phones my grandmother rented from AT&T for 20 years at $3/month. The bastards made me mail them back.
Its also very helpful to run Apache at nice level 5. That way when the CGI programs go nuts and the load shoots up to 200 the sshd process won't get starved for CPU time and you can still log in to fix the server.
He was trying to take credit for the bill that ultimately created the Internet as we know it.
The problem is, he didn't do that either. It had already existed for two decades as a defense research network in when he first learned of its existance 1989. It didn't begin morphing into the commercial network we know today until around '93-'94, well after he'd left the senate. The commercialization, by the way, was fought by the NSF-funded project Gore helped initiate. At one point they threatened to cut off any companies that used it for commercial purposes instead of for research as it was intended.
The best you can say is that Gore greased the funding wheels during one of the many transitions the Internet went through on the way to becoming the network we know today. Even that's pretty generous -- from his writings and speeches he pretty clearly saw the NSF-net as a way for researches at multiple universities to connect to the five NSF-funded supercomputer centers. That was the extent of his vision.
You're picking nits. Gore didn't claim to have invented the internet, he claimed to have created it. The exact quote is, "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Unfortunately, that's not true either. The boldest claim the record supports is that he enthusiasticly supported the National Science Foundation during the years where ONE of its hundreds of projects was to take over and expand the ARPAnet. There's no indication he was even aware of the Internet prior to the NSF's involvement and even then he considered the network ancilary to the five supercomputer centers funded by the NSF -- a way for scientists at other universities to access the supercomputers, not an entity in its own right.
The record suggests that Gore first became interested in a national research network in 1986 when he proposed funding the NSF to look in to the subject. He only became aware that the Internet already existed during a 1989 presentation by Dr. Fields of ARPA -- a good two decades after the internet was created.
It was an unsubstantiated boast, made funnier though not any more fantastic by swapping "invented" for its synonym.
More to the point, I'd hate for them to release twice as often period. I maintain more than 60 machines; frequent release upgrades would be a serious drain on my time.
If you want a distro that does significant upgrades to core packages every few weeks, get Fedora. Its great for that. Sucks for stability, but it has a really fast upgrade cycle.
Just move the phone away from the speakers. The transmission's power drops with the square of the distance.
If the phone is a couple feet away on your belt and you still hear interference on the speakers, consider getting a different phone/carrier. Its also pumping that energy into your hip and other nearby sensitive areas.
The salesman should be CEO, whichever guy that is. CEO is a job for a people-person. Its about selling... Selling investors on the company, selling potential partners on the idea, making strategic decisions that improve the ability to sell the products and in a 2-man operation, selling the product itself.
That's usually not the CS guy. Most of us got in to CS because we like building stuff. CEO is not a builder job, its a seller job.
it's far easier to not need to handle that.
Its far easier not to worry about buffer overflows too. Just ask Microsoft.
Its not always easy but it is that black and white.
It does help to think outside the box. You can preload the client with information about the approaching object without loading its position until its visible. And you can usually design the game so that the knowledge that -something- is approaching offers no competitive advantage. When you can't do that you can always design it so that everybody knows that something approaches, thereby eliminating the competitive advantage.
Its only when you decide that its imporant to the gameplay experience that the players not know that you run in to trouble. And it turns out that decision is almost always wrong -- players -like- outsmarting the game. They like figuring out what's going to happen before it does. Being a step or two ahead gives you a sense of accomplishment. The unpredictable capricious gotchas are no fun.