I live about 6 miles from an urban area that has fibre, cable and DSL. My only choice is HughesNet Satellite (10 GB data cap/month) or a pretty slow (1 Mb/sec) wireless link.
No DSL (too far from a C.O.), no cable.
Both of the above choices are rather limited (the 1Mb link failed for about 6 hours this AM) there is no other choice.
I pay a little over $100/month for both services. I need two providers because both are unreliable.
The reason we don't have cable is because the area is semi-rural and the distance between homes is about 1/8 to 1/4 mile.
Don't take it personally, but this is why I no longer want to live away from an urban area. I used to, I even had concrete plans to move to a rural area and settle there with wife and kids. But as technology would have it, internet service has become a real necessity.
And this country has a shit of an attitude about providing ubiquitous good internet infrastructure. Japan on the other hand, it has a different approach. They are throwing good internet infrastructure everywhere in rural areas (to get young families that can work remotely to move to areas being depopulated). I wouldn't mind doing that at all, if I lived there
But here in the good old USA, nope. I'd rather take the hassles and costs of urban living if that gives me solid internet services. My wife and I simply could not work effectively without it.
Although i agree that speeds should be much faster considering the amount we are charged, people need to recognize that THEY are part of the problem.
my Mother-in-law streaming Hulu
She should be watching television, not clogging up the intertubes
my kids gaming while playing Youtube videos
make them go outside and play
my wife facetiming with the grandkid
the telephone works just great for talking to people
And who the hell are you, that you think you can dictate what other people can do, or should do, for entertainment? Being an a-hole does not qualify you for that task.
He is pointing out that the OP's internet usage is what is causing the degradation in performance when he is trying to do work remotely. It's like person A saying "I keep eating all these krispy kremes, and I get obese. Being obese is a hindrance". Then person B saying to person A "well, don't eat krispy kremes, and take a jog for a change", and then Person C (you) come and say to person B "how dare you tell others how to live".
There might be educational content on youtube. My kids choose annoying orange, fail videos, and PewDiePie.
Facetime, or other video conferencing, means that people can see you naked. OK, no problem, but they might record a copy and share it with people who have a problem with that.
There is a lot of educational content on youtube for kids, as well as silly stuff, kids needs to unplug too and laugh at silly shit from time to time. My kids certainly do after all the homework my wife and I make them do.
I downloaded as much as I could and put it all in an external drive attached to my smart TV. I ripped all DVDs we own, specially Disney and Studio Ghibli movies and put them also in the drive. We are talking about hundreds of hours of programming. All DVDs are now in storage, and kids do not hog my internet connection anymore.
From time to time they want to watch something else so I borrow from the public library, and I let them stream off Hulu at specific times. If they don't want to watch what I have on the external drive, then I give them the option of doing more homework/housework or shut up and watch it (guess which one they choose, all the time?)
Have you looked at the shit programming on TV today? Yes, this is why people choose what to what, and why Hulu and others have such successful businesses.
Kids watching Youtube? Ever thought about all the amazing educational content on there, again, far better than TV or public education can even imagine to provide?
Facetime (or other video conferencing) is a fuckton better than telephones. I'm just going to guess you don't even have a family? Some of us would actually LIKE to actually see the people we're talking to who live far away.
Have you seen what's on Hulu and Netflix? I just cancelled Netflix and stay only with Hulu... and I'm still thinking about it.
I finally got a HDTV OTA antenna to work and I'm getting excellent reception. I get PBS, some old movie channels and Qubo (giving kids TV programming all day.) Sure, it's kind of a bitch to cut selection, but when you do so, you become more selective on how you spend time in front of the TV.
In reality, there is quite a few options over the air, and you can always rent movies from the public library (or Red Box for the latest releases.) And if you have kids, you know they simply watch and re-watch the same shit all day (I mean, how many times do I have to hear my kids singing Elsa's song?)
Long story short, you do not need to have all available options at your disposal. Cut all that entertaining shit to a few choices if you need the bandwidth to do work. You are going to find your family will adapt just fine.
clearly you haven't been paying attention. All the attack vectors we currently have in code are because of the lack of coders, er, uh, sorry, I know you prefer the term 'developers' these days, don't do any-damn-thing about doing inputs testing or overflow, invalid input, etc.
So, don't climb on your high horse and lecture about how the 'best textbook' doesn't teach a damn thing about them, when that led to the code we now have to try to make secure.
So, also, if all that is, "... a given...", then why is none of it done reliably????
Ramble ramble, gurrr gurrr, hear me roar.
Oh, I've been paying attention. A significant chunk of my professional experience (22 years) has been involved in secure programming and in scanning and fixing vulnerabilities left by accident (or more often than not, by incompetent developers) in the commercial and defense sectors. I'm not exaggerating that my entire career has been devoted to fixing other people's fuck ups. So when I say something it is (most likely) because I have some experience in the matter. I am not an authority in the matter, nor I claim to know it all, but I sure make sure to check my premises when I speak.
People are sloppy, plain and simple. Cobbling security concerns in an algorithm book accomplishes nothing. There are tomes and tomes of material out there regarding secure development, security and what not. There are online encyclopedias devoted to secure programming in, say, Java or C/C++. A entire web site (https://www.cert.org/secure-coding/) is devoted to canonical attack vectors and remediations. There are industry standards out there, for anyone to read, regarding secure coding. Take the MISRA C guidelines or the Ada Ravenscar Profile for examples.
If people aren't bothered to even do a fucking google on the most common attack vectors when developing a web site or a device driver, what makes you think they will pay attention when technology-specific secure coding details are embedded in text designed for mathematical description of algorithms?
It is called separation of concerns. That exists for a reason, and any secure developer worth a damned shit knows why. Separation of concerns does not mean ignorance of concerns. The fact that you do not know the importance of this (and its implications) made me suspect the quality of the work you (if you do any work at all.)
You do not pick a book about Operating Systems or Hardware Architecture and expect a description of routing protocols, do you? If you pick a book on security, say, attack vectors or public key infrastructure, you do not expect to find a discussion on lower or upper bounds for a distributed hash algorithm, do you?
Same deal with security. You pick a book about security, and you study it. You pick a book about algorithms and you study it. You pick a book about operating systems, and you study it. You pick a book about networking, and you study it. And so on, and so on. And you do so throughout your studies and continue to do so throughout your career.
Expecting all shit to be cobbled together in the same book gets you one of those mediocre "Be a Rock Star Programdude in 24 Hours" kind of a deal.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but it is people like you that litter the software industry with crap that the rest of us have to clean. I guess I should be thankful for it, because fixing shit written by others (specially when it is critical) can be a financially rewarding experience.
Many CEOs Believe Technology Will Make People Largely Irrelevant
The page mentioned a study, something something, many people believe... not a single reference or link to said study. It took a good while to find a link to the study (link here) via this article (link here).
The fuckers at betanews didn't even bother to summarize the study properly (which states that human capital IS BEING UNDERSTIMATE IN FAVOR OF TECHNOLOGY.) They (mis)quoted the study from this paragraph, ignoring everything else (bold emphasis mine):
CEOs’ distorted perceptions demonstrate the extent
to which people are being painted out of the future
of work—and the risk to organizations that do not
recognize the potential of people to generate value:
44% of leaders in large global businesses told Korn
Ferry that they believe that the prevalence of robotics,
automation, and artificial intelligence (AI) will make
people “largely irrelevant” in the future of work.
I actually happen to believe that human capital will hold sway... in countries that invest in human capital. You simply retrain people. There is always work to do after you automate things. You free up work that was in the back burner, new types of tasks emerge, new opportunities, new problems.
But this requires a country to invest in its human capital. Frankly, the US, and the American people are failing this litmus test badly. But that's another story for another day.
Once, when I was in grad school, and I kept plowing through them for a year or two after I left. I still have them somewhere in the attic. I wouldn't do it again, but I would recommend any one in CS to give it a shot. It is a good exercise (just as it is a good exercise to try at least some parts of MIT's SICP.
I wouldn't use them as a reference, though. For that, I hit CLRS, Algorithms by Sedgewick or O'Reilly's Algorithms in a Nutshell.
presented.... without any boilerplate code, overhead, or worries about limitations, no need for tedious checks for array out of bounds, numeric overflow, or out of memory, or invalid input.
Wait - did I read that correctly? "without any boilerplate code, overhead, or worries about limitations, no need for tedious checks for array out of bounds, numeric overflow, or out of memory, or invalid input" = improved textbook?
Aren't these the attack vectors used by malware and viruses today?
Everything you mentioned are supposed to be a given. A person who needs explicit indication of them are not at the level required to use a book like CLRS. I don't mean it as an insult, but as an observation.
Moreover, many of the checks you mention are handled by constructs and idioms that are language dependent. For example, boundary checking in C will be different from, say, Ada or Java, let alone something like Ruby or LISP.
Also, when you are stuying algorithms at that level, you are assumed to have a certain maturity that makes reference to such things irrelevant. Think of it like this: If you are learning how to solve quadratic equations, you do not need a lesson in adding fractions, do you?
Same principle applies here. When you are taking a book like CLRS, it is to study the mathematical properties of algorithms.
I would say that a there is a more hands-on book that directly addresses these concerns: O'Reilly's Algorithms in a Nutshell. This is a really nice pocket book.
I don't bother with that anymore. I rather just run a Linux VM as a guest on a Windows 7 host with some type of X client on the later. I have a dedicated RH box with all the bells and whistles, but I typically just xterm or vnc to it to build, deploy, run services, etc. My main workhorse is Windows 7 (with Cygwin), however.
I just got tired of having to deal with wifi issues. I'm sure shit is better now, but for what I do, why bother changing. For back-end shit, serious work, Linux always. For working with a UI or in a laptop, nope.
Now, I'm seriously considering a Mac which gives me the bulk of Unix tools I come to depend on.
The man had recently put in a request to transfer to a different department, but was placed on an employee improvement plan, a step that can lead to termination if performance isn't improved
With these and that old google++ rant about Amazon/Bezos by Steve Yegge, it is hard to not to draw generalizations about Amazon's work culture. I know people that work there (just acquaintances), and they seem to like it. But shit, all of these combined do not paint a nice picture.
Isn't that every company lately? If it's not that, it's the other extreme, they expect you to work for minimum wage and expect miracles like a 30 year experienced engineer.
No. Not every company, small or large is like that. I speak from experience, as I've worked with good companies and bad ones. In fact, in many cases, it is not even the company but the department you worked on.
For years up to a week ago: TPP is an abomination love child between Hitler and Satan and needs to die.
Now that Trump doesn't want it: This will ruin the nation and will only benefit China. TPP Must Go Forward!
I'm not a fan of Trump, but I'm not a fan of TPP either. Not so much that I'm against trade agreements, but against some of the legal implications that the TPP carries. What I don't want is the continuing idea that globalization and trade are killing jobs. Automation and recycling have killed 5-6 jobs IIRC for 1 job lost to globalization.
So the idea to pull out of global markets as a solution to our woes is not just the wrong medicine, but fucking stupid. Three million jobs directly depend on trade (more if you count network effect). So in addition to do nothing about jobs lost to automation, we are going to fuck around with steady jobs from international trade?
How the hell does that help us?
We should renegotiate shit when it is beneficial to us. We should not close ourselves like a clam. The world is not what it used to be in the 1950s. Countries and emerging markets are at a point where they can go off by themselves, closing their markets to us and shutting the valves of foreign investment in US assets.
I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately the rest of the market does not work this way.
Citation: every job interview ever, especially when they demand facebook access.
In 22 years in this gig, I've never found a job interviewer that would ask for such a thing (mind you that FB haven't been around that long obviously.) I've had a couple asking for my salary history (more on that later.)
I've had a couple of assholes interviewing me, which is fine. I cannot control who the hell is on the other side of every new greeting. All I care of is to polish my A-game and see what's the best deal I can get when I interview (all other factors considering such as "shit, I've been unemployed for three months, I need moolah fast.")
Should someone were to ask me that, I'd give them a polite go-screw-yourself and walk of. This is not empty bravado. I've done it with prospective employers asking me for a salary history. Fuck you no, you either think I'm worth the money or not. I accept your offer or I do not. You are willing to pay me what I want, or not.
My past salary history is private and has no bearing on how YOU gauge me for a position.
Granted that I've never been in a situation desperate enough to bend over and comply (though I came close enough back in 2000 right after the dot-com bubble.) But if it ever came a situation like that desperate, I would comply, work, get paid and look for a way to get a better deal as soon as possible, short-notice be damned.
Protect yourself. Take care of your interests because no one is going to do it for you.
My wife and I have a combined income of $170k and have never individually bought a car that cost more than $15k. Primarily because it is a purchase of an object that depreciates faster than any other necessary purchase, so basic logic dictates you minimize the cost. Also, we've done the math on the cost of electric vs. gasoline and figured out that you'll never make back the price premium for a hybrid or an electric car during your ownership. Subsidies or no subsidies, the math is similarly bleak.
The only reason car manufacturers are in business today is an overabundance of credit and stupid people who aren't putting two and two together about this. I say stupid because they are lowering their standard of living by buying huge SUVs or alternatively expensive hybrid or all-electric vehicles.
It all depends on the math since not everything is a zero-sum game. I drive a beat up honda civic 1998. The muffler just fell of and I have in the trunk. I'm pretty much driving that shit until it dies, and probably I will just lease a cheap car since my work commute is relatively small.
OTH, my wife and I pooled money together to get a Prius V, paid in cash. We went around multiple dealers, putting them on the phone against one another until we cut so much off the price tag, we made the dealer shave off 8K.
The car is perfect for the wife and the two kids. And her commute back and forth with activities is substantial enough to make a lease a bad deal. OTH, we fill the gas tank only once every two weeks. For a similarly sized car, my wife would be filling up the gas tank every 4 days (I know, I used to drive one like that.)
In the grand scheme of things we will not recoup the money invested via savings in gas. But with diligence and planning we save 8K for a comfortable family car, one with a low gas consumption that is beneficial for our planned day-to-day cash flow.
or, if you're a conservative, sharing your thoughts on social media can be a quick invitation to lack of advancement and open scorn from your coworkers.
isn't "right think" wonderful!
I'm not sure what kind of person, conservative or liberal, could possibly due that. I could look down on someone for consistently believing something stupid regardless of political inclination. But I would never use that to openly scorn or impede advancement for a coworker.
1. Can you get shit done? Can you fix shit a lot, but a lot more often than what you break shit (because we all break shit sometimes)?
2. Can you get along enough with other co-workers to get shit done?
That's all that matter. I don't care what political inclinations you have, but if you can't abide by these two constrains when measuring a co-worker, you are an asshole (and most likely the bigger asshole.)
And this is why I won't buy anything via Google Play (or the Apple App Store) and most of the apps on my phone come from F-Droid. I won't buy anything that comes with a built-in revocation mechanism for my purchase over which the seller has total control. Would you buy a phone with a contract that said that at any point the seller could require you to give it back (but they keep the money) without providing any justification and at their sole discretion? Of course not, yet people are quite happy to do the same thing with software.
I really do not get this. I've never given google my credit card number. Anything I buy (if I ever) is charged to my phone provider. And in two cases where I saw something suspicious I called AT&T once (and Verizon, my current provider), and all was fixed.
> apparently they didn't like the change in my IP address.
This did not happen.
This happens a lot. Specially if you are traveling. Now, I cannot understand why an IP change would cause an account lockdown. Because I'm sure my IP has changed when traveling from South Florida to Boston, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Mexico and Tokyo, and I've never been locked out.
Well, who knows? 1000 years ago we didn't think we could move a single person across the ocean...
It's hard enough to predict anything about tomorrow, let alone what mankind might be able to achieve in 1000 years.
Uhhhh, Phoenicians, Greeks? Viking Expansion? Polynesian expansion. Peopling of Papua New Guinea, Australia, the South East Asian archipielagos? The Carib and Arawak expansion into the Caribbean Islands. The peopling of Crete, Cyprus, Malta and in particular the Canary Islands.
I mean, if Australian colonization occurred by sea, we are talking crossing the seas around 45K BC. And the earliest signs of human habitation in Crete go back to 130K BC. So we are talking a possible sea crossing by pre-Homo Sapiens.
Ancient people were far more sophisticated in what they could do than what we give them credit for.
This is really what some of us are talking about. Immigrants used to come to America and assimilate into the culture (my ancestors included). What we have in many cases today are people coming here and not assimilating, simply continuing to live as they did in their native countries creating these pockets of culture that are in many cases incompatible with American culture. Slow the influx of people, vet for people who want to be a productive part of our society, and help them assimilate.
That is absolute bullshit. We have Chinese, Romanians, Russians, Indians, Hispanics, and American "natives" living alongside in pretty much every metropolitan area. Yeah, there are frictions, just like there are frictions when you put millions of people together. But guess what? The live, they work, they live they work, day after day.
There are no riots or shit. People mind their own business and do their own shit.
The whole "not assimilating" thing is just bullshit spouted by people who simply can't stand seeing people who pray different or look different or just happened to have a different accent.
And the ability for all those people, all that new Babel, just working and moving forward like normal people would, that's just a big fucking existential threat to whatever it is that they pass as their identity.
>A country is more than an economy. We're a civic society.
It means exactly that. There's more to a country than money and business. There's a culture that should be respected and protected. Sitting back quietly while a major national industry is overtaken by people from different cultures who only came to America to go to school and get rich and may or may not have any intention of assimilating is hardly protecting our culture.
Well, maybe that "culture" should do more and step up to the plate. Secondly, you are making a pretty stupid assumption that these different cultures may or may not want to assimilate. Based on what do you spout such shit? They came, they worked, got rich and founded companies. I'd say they assimilated pretty fucking well. Or does assimilation means do nothing and wait for jobs to come back from China?
That's not racism or "white nationalism", it's the whole fucking point of having a country and has been for 3000 years.
And countries change. Empires and nations have for ages imported the best artisans and engineers they could find and afford. That is part of nation building. Nation building never stops. Again, if people have a problem because Ling and Kumar burn the midnight oil and get rich and build shit from scratch, maybe they should shut the fuck out, do the same and show the world how this shit is supposed to be done.
So according to Steven Bannon we can't have a "civic society" in America if there are areas whose population aren't a majority of whites. I expected a more sophisticated racist euphemism from a Harvard-educated man.
You expect too much. Some people can go all the way to an Ivy League education without ever learning a bit about very important things, like humility and equality.
but it always seemed to me he was reaching out to rural areas that are more hurt by Mexican's
I have a hard time seeing someone up in Coal Country/Rust Belt where Hispanic presence is almost nil to be hurt significantly by Jose and Pepe picking up produce 2000 miles east in California. The reality is that many of the areas that voted Trump the most had very little impact from illegal immigration. It was just smoke and mirrors of the George Wallace kind.
Not that there aren't problems with illegal immigration, but the whole thing is bullshit. Illegal population is at 3% of the nation... and decreasing. Trying to peg all self-inflicted socio-economic problems (some of these problems going back all the way to the 1930's) on a dwindling, almost statistically irrelevant group, that's just bullshit from people who need a boogeyman to point fingers at.
Slashdot Mirror
I live about 6 miles from an urban area that has fibre, cable and DSL. My only choice is HughesNet Satellite (10 GB data cap/month) or a pretty slow (1 Mb/sec) wireless link.
No DSL (too far from a C.O.), no cable.
Both of the above choices are rather limited (the 1Mb link failed for about 6 hours this AM) there is no other choice.
I pay a little over $100/month for both services. I need two providers because both are unreliable.
The reason we don't have cable is because the area is semi-rural and the distance between homes is about 1/8 to 1/4 mile.
Don't take it personally, but this is why I no longer want to live away from an urban area. I used to, I even had concrete plans to move to a rural area and settle there with wife and kids. But as technology would have it, internet service has become a real necessity.
And this country has a shit of an attitude about providing ubiquitous good internet infrastructure. Japan on the other hand, it has a different approach. They are throwing good internet infrastructure everywhere in rural areas (to get young families that can work remotely to move to areas being depopulated). I wouldn't mind doing that at all, if I lived there
But here in the good old USA, nope. I'd rather take the hassles and costs of urban living if that gives me solid internet services. My wife and I simply could not work effectively without it.
Although i agree that speeds should be much faster considering the amount we are charged, people need to recognize that THEY are part of the problem.
my Mother-in-law streaming Hulu
She should be watching television, not clogging up the intertubes
my kids gaming while playing Youtube videos
make them go outside and play
my wife facetiming with the grandkid
the telephone works just great for talking to people
And who the hell are you, that you think you can dictate what other people can do, or should do, for entertainment? Being an a-hole does not qualify you for that task.
He is pointing out that the OP's internet usage is what is causing the degradation in performance when he is trying to do work remotely. It's like person A saying "I keep eating all these krispy kremes, and I get obese. Being obese is a hindrance". Then person B saying to person A "well, don't eat krispy kremes, and take a jog for a change", and then Person C (you) come and say to person B "how dare you tell others how to live".
You are Person C. Don't be like Person C.
There might be educational content on youtube. My kids choose annoying orange, fail videos, and PewDiePie.
Facetime, or other video conferencing, means that people can see you naked. OK, no problem, but they might record a copy and share it with people who have a problem with that.
There is a lot of educational content on youtube for kids, as well as silly stuff, kids needs to unplug too and laugh at silly shit from time to time. My kids certainly do after all the homework my wife and I make them do.
I downloaded as much as I could and put it all in an external drive attached to my smart TV. I ripped all DVDs we own, specially Disney and Studio Ghibli movies and put them also in the drive. We are talking about hundreds of hours of programming. All DVDs are now in storage, and kids do not hog my internet connection anymore.
From time to time they want to watch something else so I borrow from the public library, and I let them stream off Hulu at specific times. If they don't want to watch what I have on the external drive, then I give them the option of doing more homework/housework or shut up and watch it (guess which one they choose, all the time?)
Thank you grandpa...
Have you looked at the shit programming on TV today? Yes, this is why people choose what to what, and why Hulu and others have such successful businesses.
Kids watching Youtube? Ever thought about all the amazing educational content on there, again, far better than TV or public education can even imagine to provide?
Facetime (or other video conferencing) is a fuckton better than telephones. I'm just going to guess you don't even have a family? Some of us would actually LIKE to actually see the people we're talking to who live far away.
Have you seen what's on Hulu and Netflix? I just cancelled Netflix and stay only with Hulu... and I'm still thinking about it.
I finally got a HDTV OTA antenna to work and I'm getting excellent reception. I get PBS, some old movie channels and Qubo (giving kids TV programming all day.) Sure, it's kind of a bitch to cut selection, but when you do so, you become more selective on how you spend time in front of the TV.
In reality, there is quite a few options over the air, and you can always rent movies from the public library (or Red Box for the latest releases.) And if you have kids, you know they simply watch and re-watch the same shit all day (I mean, how many times do I have to hear my kids singing Elsa's song?)
Long story short, you do not need to have all available options at your disposal. Cut all that entertaining shit to a few choices if you need the bandwidth to do work. You are going to find your family will adapt just fine.
'supposed to be" ???
clearly you haven't been paying attention. All the attack vectors we currently have in code are because of the lack of coders, er, uh, sorry, I know you prefer the term 'developers' these days, don't do any-damn-thing about doing inputs testing or overflow, invalid input, etc.
So, don't climb on your high horse and lecture about how the 'best textbook' doesn't teach a damn thing about them, when that led to the code we now have to try to make secure.
So, also, if all that is, "... a given...", then why is none of it done reliably????
Ramble ramble, gurrr gurrr, hear me roar.
Oh, I've been paying attention. A significant chunk of my professional experience (22 years) has been involved in secure programming and in scanning and fixing vulnerabilities left by accident (or more often than not, by incompetent developers) in the commercial and defense sectors. I'm not exaggerating that my entire career has been devoted to fixing other people's fuck ups. So when I say something it is (most likely) because I have some experience in the matter. I am not an authority in the matter, nor I claim to know it all, but I sure make sure to check my premises when I speak.
People are sloppy, plain and simple. Cobbling security concerns in an algorithm book accomplishes nothing. There are tomes and tomes of material out there regarding secure development, security and what not. There are online encyclopedias devoted to secure programming in, say, Java or C/C++. A entire web site (https://www.cert.org/secure-coding/) is devoted to canonical attack vectors and remediations. There are industry standards out there, for anyone to read, regarding secure coding. Take the MISRA C guidelines or the Ada Ravenscar Profile for examples.
If people aren't bothered to even do a fucking google on the most common attack vectors when developing a web site or a device driver, what makes you think they will pay attention when technology-specific secure coding details are embedded in text designed for mathematical description of algorithms?
It is called separation of concerns. That exists for a reason, and any secure developer worth a damned shit knows why. Separation of concerns does not mean ignorance of concerns. The fact that you do not know the importance of this (and its implications) made me suspect the quality of the work you (if you do any work at all.)
You do not pick a book about Operating Systems or Hardware Architecture and expect a description of routing protocols, do you? If you pick a book on security, say, attack vectors or public key infrastructure, you do not expect to find a discussion on lower or upper bounds for a distributed hash algorithm, do you?
Same deal with security. You pick a book about security, and you study it. You pick a book about algorithms and you study it. You pick a book about operating systems, and you study it. You pick a book about networking, and you study it. And so on, and so on. And you do so throughout your studies and continue to do so throughout your career.
Expecting all shit to be cobbled together in the same book gets you one of those mediocre "Be a Rock Star Programdude in 24 Hours" kind of a deal.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but it is people like you that litter the software industry with crap that the rest of us have to clean. I guess I should be thankful for it, because fixing shit written by others (specially when it is critical) can be a financially rewarding experience.
Many CEOs Believe Technology Will Make People Largely Irrelevant
The page mentioned a study, something something, many people believe... not a single reference or link to said study. It took a good while to find a link to the study (link here) via this article (link here).
The fuckers at betanews didn't even bother to summarize the study properly (which states that human capital IS BEING UNDERSTIMATE IN FAVOR OF TECHNOLOGY.) They (mis)quoted the study from this paragraph, ignoring everything else (bold emphasis mine):
CEOs’ distorted perceptions demonstrate the extent to which people are being painted out of the future of work—and the risk to organizations that do not recognize the potential of people to generate value: 44% of leaders in large global businesses told Korn Ferry that they believe that the prevalence of robotics, automation, and artificial intelligence (AI) will make people “largely irrelevant” in the future of work.
I actually happen to believe that human capital will hold sway ... in countries that invest in human capital. You simply retrain people. There is always work to do after you automate things. You free up work that was in the back burner, new types of tasks emerge, new opportunities, new problems.
But this requires a country to invest in its human capital. Frankly, the US, and the American people are failing this litmus test badly. But that's another story for another day.
Moral of the story: don't quote betanews.
Have You Read 'The Art of Computer Programming'?
Once, when I was in grad school, and I kept plowing through them for a year or two after I left. I still have them somewhere in the attic. I wouldn't do it again, but I would recommend any one in CS to give it a shot. It is a good exercise (just as it is a good exercise to try at least some parts of MIT's SICP.
I wouldn't use them as a reference, though. For that, I hit CLRS, Algorithms by Sedgewick or O'Reilly's Algorithms in a Nutshell.
It's convincing a review panel that it is valid is hard.
And you will have a hard time convincing them if the dissertation was not written with sufficient academic rigor and quality.
presented .... without any boilerplate code, overhead, or worries about limitations, no need for tedious checks for array out of bounds, numeric overflow, or out of memory, or invalid input.
Wait - did I read that correctly? "without any boilerplate code, overhead, or worries about limitations, no need for tedious checks for array out of bounds, numeric overflow, or out of memory, or invalid input" = improved textbook? Aren't these the attack vectors used by malware and viruses today?
Everything you mentioned are supposed to be a given. A person who needs explicit indication of them are not at the level required to use a book like CLRS. I don't mean it as an insult, but as an observation.
Moreover, many of the checks you mention are handled by constructs and idioms that are language dependent. For example, boundary checking in C will be different from, say, Ada or Java, let alone something like Ruby or LISP.
Also, when you are stuying algorithms at that level, you are assumed to have a certain maturity that makes reference to such things irrelevant. Think of it like this: If you are learning how to solve quadratic equations, you do not need a lesson in adding fractions, do you?
Same principle applies here. When you are taking a book like CLRS, it is to study the mathematical properties of algorithms.
I would say that a there is a more hands-on book that directly addresses these concerns: O'Reilly's Algorithms in a Nutshell. This is a really nice pocket book.
Remind me to never hire you.
No kidding. At least the OP had the sense of posting that as AC. Sadly the software industry is full of these wackos.
What's the Best Linux Laptop?
I don't bother with that anymore. I rather just run a Linux VM as a guest on a Windows 7 host with some type of X client on the later. I have a dedicated RH box with all the bells and whistles, but I typically just xterm or vnc to it to build, deploy, run services, etc. My main workhorse is Windows 7 (with Cygwin), however.
I just got tired of having to deal with wifi issues. I'm sure shit is better now, but for what I do, why bother changing. For back-end shit, serious work, Linux always. For working with a UI or in a laptop, nope.
Now, I'm seriously considering a Mac which gives me the bulk of Unix tools I come to depend on.
They eat chemicals, light and each other? And you are calling ACs idiots? How do you eat light?
Holy motherfucker, have you ever heard about photosynthesis, or chemotrophs?
The man had recently put in a request to transfer to a different department, but was placed on an employee improvement plan, a step that can lead to termination if performance isn't improved
This reminds me of similar stories reported at Amazon Japan: http://toyokeizai.net/articles...
With these and that old google++ rant about Amazon/Bezos by Steve Yegge, it is hard to not to draw generalizations about Amazon's work culture. I know people that work there (just acquaintances), and they seem to like it. But shit, all of these combined do not paint a nice picture.
Isn't that every company lately? If it's not that, it's the other extreme, they expect you to work for minimum wage and expect miracles like a 30 year experienced engineer.
No. Not every company, small or large is like that. I speak from experience, as I've worked with good companies and bad ones. In fact, in many cases, it is not even the company but the department you worked on.
For years up to a week ago: TPP is an abomination love child between Hitler and Satan and needs to die.
Now that Trump doesn't want it: This will ruin the nation and will only benefit China. TPP Must Go Forward!
I'm not a fan of Trump, but I'm not a fan of TPP either. Not so much that I'm against trade agreements, but against some of the legal implications that the TPP carries. What I don't want is the continuing idea that globalization and trade are killing jobs. Automation and recycling have killed 5-6 jobs IIRC for 1 job lost to globalization.
So the idea to pull out of global markets as a solution to our woes is not just the wrong medicine, but fucking stupid. Three million jobs directly depend on trade (more if you count network effect). So in addition to do nothing about jobs lost to automation, we are going to fuck around with steady jobs from international trade?
How the hell does that help us?
We should renegotiate shit when it is beneficial to us. We should not close ourselves like a clam. The world is not what it used to be in the 1950s. Countries and emerging markets are at a point where they can go off by themselves, closing their markets to us and shutting the valves of foreign investment in US assets.
I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately the rest of the market does not work this way.
Citation: every job interview ever, especially when they demand facebook access.
In 22 years in this gig, I've never found a job interviewer that would ask for such a thing (mind you that FB haven't been around that long obviously.) I've had a couple asking for my salary history (more on that later.)
I've had a couple of assholes interviewing me, which is fine. I cannot control who the hell is on the other side of every new greeting. All I care of is to polish my A-game and see what's the best deal I can get when I interview (all other factors considering such as "shit, I've been unemployed for three months, I need moolah fast.")
Should someone were to ask me that, I'd give them a polite go-screw-yourself and walk of. This is not empty bravado. I've done it with prospective employers asking me for a salary history. Fuck you no, you either think I'm worth the money or not. I accept your offer or I do not. You are willing to pay me what I want, or not.
My past salary history is private and has no bearing on how YOU gauge me for a position.
Granted that I've never been in a situation desperate enough to bend over and comply (though I came close enough back in 2000 right after the dot-com bubble.) But if it ever came a situation like that desperate, I would comply, work, get paid and look for a way to get a better deal as soon as possible, short-notice be damned.
Protect yourself. Take care of your interests because no one is going to do it for you.
My wife and I have a combined income of $170k and have never individually bought a car that cost more than $15k. Primarily because it is a purchase of an object that depreciates faster than any other necessary purchase, so basic logic dictates you minimize the cost. Also, we've done the math on the cost of electric vs. gasoline and figured out that you'll never make back the price premium for a hybrid or an electric car during your ownership. Subsidies or no subsidies, the math is similarly bleak.
The only reason car manufacturers are in business today is an overabundance of credit and stupid people who aren't putting two and two together about this. I say stupid because they are lowering their standard of living by buying huge SUVs or alternatively expensive hybrid or all-electric vehicles.
It all depends on the math since not everything is a zero-sum game. I drive a beat up honda civic 1998. The muffler just fell of and I have in the trunk. I'm pretty much driving that shit until it dies, and probably I will just lease a cheap car since my work commute is relatively small.
OTH, my wife and I pooled money together to get a Prius V, paid in cash. We went around multiple dealers, putting them on the phone against one another until we cut so much off the price tag, we made the dealer shave off 8K.
The car is perfect for the wife and the two kids. And her commute back and forth with activities is substantial enough to make a lease a bad deal. OTH, we fill the gas tank only once every two weeks. For a similarly sized car, my wife would be filling up the gas tank every 4 days (I know, I used to drive one like that.)
In the grand scheme of things we will not recoup the money invested via savings in gas. But with diligence and planning we save 8K for a comfortable family car, one with a low gas consumption that is beneficial for our planned day-to-day cash flow.
or, if you're a conservative, sharing your thoughts on social media can be a quick invitation to lack of advancement and open scorn from your coworkers.
isn't "right think" wonderful!
I'm not sure what kind of person, conservative or liberal, could possibly due that. I could look down on someone for consistently believing something stupid regardless of political inclination. But I would never use that to openly scorn or impede advancement for a coworker.
1. Can you get shit done? Can you fix shit a lot, but a lot more often than what you break shit (because we all break shit sometimes)?
2. Can you get along enough with other co-workers to get shit done?
That's all that matter. I don't care what political inclinations you have, but if you can't abide by these two constrains when measuring a co-worker, you are an asshole (and most likely the bigger asshole.)
And this is why I won't buy anything via Google Play (or the Apple App Store) and most of the apps on my phone come from F-Droid. I won't buy anything that comes with a built-in revocation mechanism for my purchase over which the seller has total control. Would you buy a phone with a contract that said that at any point the seller could require you to give it back (but they keep the money) without providing any justification and at their sole discretion? Of course not, yet people are quite happy to do the same thing with software.
I really do not get this. I've never given google my credit card number. Anything I buy (if I ever) is charged to my phone provider. And in two cases where I saw something suspicious I called AT&T once (and Verizon, my current provider), and all was fixed.
> apparently they didn't like the change in my IP address.
This did not happen.
This happens a lot. Specially if you are traveling. Now, I cannot understand why an IP change would cause an account lockdown. Because I'm sure my IP has changed when traveling from South Florida to Boston, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Mexico and Tokyo, and I've never been locked out.
Well, who knows? 1000 years ago we didn't think we could move a single person across the ocean... It's hard enough to predict anything about tomorrow, let alone what mankind might be able to achieve in 1000 years.
Uhhhh, Phoenicians, Greeks? Viking Expansion? Polynesian expansion. Peopling of Papua New Guinea, Australia, the South East Asian archipielagos? The Carib and Arawak expansion into the Caribbean Islands. The peopling of Crete, Cyprus, Malta and in particular the Canary Islands.
I mean, if Australian colonization occurred by sea, we are talking crossing the seas around 45K BC. And the earliest signs of human habitation in Crete go back to 130K BC. So we are talking a possible sea crossing by pre-Homo Sapiens.
Ancient people were far more sophisticated in what they could do than what we give them credit for.
This is really what some of us are talking about. Immigrants used to come to America and assimilate into the culture (my ancestors included). What we have in many cases today are people coming here and not assimilating, simply continuing to live as they did in their native countries creating these pockets of culture that are in many cases incompatible with American culture. Slow the influx of people, vet for people who want to be a productive part of our society, and help them assimilate.
That is absolute bullshit. We have Chinese, Romanians, Russians, Indians, Hispanics, and American "natives" living alongside in pretty much every metropolitan area. Yeah, there are frictions, just like there are frictions when you put millions of people together. But guess what? The live, they work, they live they work, day after day.
There are no riots or shit. People mind their own business and do their own shit.
The whole "not assimilating" thing is just bullshit spouted by people who simply can't stand seeing people who pray different or look different or just happened to have a different accent.
And the ability for all those people, all that new Babel, just working and moving forward like normal people would, that's just a big fucking existential threat to whatever it is that they pass as their identity.
Stop spouting that shit. Get some counseling.
>A country is more than an economy. We're a civic society.
It means exactly that. There's more to a country than money and business. There's a culture that should be respected and protected. Sitting back quietly while a major national industry is overtaken by people from different cultures who only came to America to go to school and get rich and may or may not have any intention of assimilating is hardly protecting our culture.
Well, maybe that "culture" should do more and step up to the plate. Secondly, you are making a pretty stupid assumption that these different cultures may or may not want to assimilate. Based on what do you spout such shit? They came, they worked, got rich and founded companies. I'd say they assimilated pretty fucking well. Or does assimilation means do nothing and wait for jobs to come back from China?
That's not racism or "white nationalism", it's the whole fucking point of having a country and has been for 3000 years.
And countries change. Empires and nations have for ages imported the best artisans and engineers they could find and afford. That is part of nation building. Nation building never stops. Again, if people have a problem because Ling and Kumar burn the midnight oil and get rich and build shit from scratch, maybe they should shut the fuck out, do the same and show the world how this shit is supposed to be done.
So according to Steven Bannon we can't have a "civic society" in America if there are areas whose population aren't a majority of whites. I expected a more sophisticated racist euphemism from a Harvard-educated man.
You expect too much. Some people can go all the way to an Ivy League education without ever learning a bit about very important things, like humility and equality.
but it always seemed to me he was reaching out to rural areas that are more hurt by Mexican's
I have a hard time seeing someone up in Coal Country/Rust Belt where Hispanic presence is almost nil to be hurt significantly by Jose and Pepe picking up produce 2000 miles east in California. The reality is that many of the areas that voted Trump the most had very little impact from illegal immigration. It was just smoke and mirrors of the George Wallace kind.
Not that there aren't problems with illegal immigration, but the whole thing is bullshit. Illegal population is at 3% of the nation... and decreasing. Trying to peg all self-inflicted socio-economic problems (some of these problems going back all the way to the 1930's) on a dwindling, almost statistically irrelevant group, that's just bullshit from people who need a boogeyman to point fingers at.