I don't give a rat's ass about their (for example) Java experience quite frankly. And why should we?
You shouldn't. Well, not directly, anyway, given it's not a requirement for the work you do.
But not caring about "breadth of knowledge" is a little silly. Breadth (and depth) of knowledge is a good proxy indicator for an individual's ability to learn on-the-fly and pick up new skills as needed. It also indicates a deep-seated passion and curiousity about their profession, something that's vital in a truly skilled developer. Plus, a broad range of skills means a larger range of tools (for example, the ability to approach a problem from a functional, procedural, or object-oriented perspective as needs require), which can only be a good thing.
So, while it's true that, from a checklist standpoint, candidates should have the specific set of skills you need, it should definitely be considered a plus if the individual shows a wide range of skills.
Hell, the US has lost so many basic human rights in the last decade, that I'm amazed a civil war *didn't* break out. But hey... as long as people get to have their reality TV shows, it's all good, right?
Or, you know, maybe it's not as bad as you like to believe it is. I mean, FFS, the US may have it's problems, but let's face it, it ain't fucking China.
But you're right, that can't be it. Clearly you're the enlightened one, therefore it *must* be TV...
Indeed, the real irony is that Microsoft is well ahead of the game when it comes to v6. In Vista and Win7, v6 is enabled by default, and MS has been running a Teredo server (but unfortunately no relays) for some time now.
Uh, no, not at all. To resolve v6 hostnames, you have to retrieve AAAA DNS records instead of A records. That's an application-level activity. Once a v6 address is chosen, the application must be written to create a v6 socket from that address.
Now, it's true that higher-level APIs can hide these details (I believe Java applications are automatically v6 aware thanks to the higher-level APIs exposed by the JDK), but applications written against POSIX must be explicitly written to support v6.
Because the time involved in getting those networks defragmented so contiguous blocks could be excised, after, of course, the lengthly legal battles as organizations rightly fight the extremely expensive move, would be better spent actually fixing the problem (v6) rather than patching it for 18 or 24 months.
In the case of NFS and MySQL, both know about it, and both are looking to fix it, but we won't see the changes any time soon (MySQL expects to see v6 support in version 6.0, and I have no idea when NFSv6 support will land). rtorrent has a patch, but it isn't in stable yet, and I inquired on the m0n0wall mailing list, but alas, received only radio silence. As for MythTV, there's absolutely no mention of v6 anywhere, aside from a stub page on their wiki, so I'm not sure it's even on their radar (though you're right, I should inquire).
As I understand it, NAT64 has gotten greater attention in the last little while as people involved in v6 have finally come to the conclusion that it, or something like it, is going to be necessary to make the transition happen.
'course, personally, I think it's far more important that we get old, broken routers shut down ASAP. Today, people at home are actively *turning off* the v6 stack on their desktops because their broken routers erroneously send out radv broadcasts, despite having no v6 connectivity. The result is massive delays due to v6 connection timeouts. Meanwhile, service providers who support v6 are actively choosing not to add AAAA records to their sites because those with broken v6 connectivity would see poor service (Google is one of those doing this, which is why for most, www.google.com has no AAAA record, while ipv6.google.com does... unless your v6 provider has negotiated a special arrangement with Google, at which point they'll provide AAAA records for all of their services).
When I discovered m0n0wall 1.3 hit the pavement, with support for IPv6, I made the move to transition my home network to v6, for no other reason than it seemed like an interesting thing to do (what can I say, I like to tinker). In the process, I looked to moving all my services to v6... obviously I can't completely abandon v4 internally, but I figured, why not move all my internal stuff over? Problem is, among the software I use, the following don't support v6 at all:
Linux NFS client and server MySQL MythTV rtorrent m0n0wall's VPN implementations (both IPSec (ironically) and PPTP)
And those are just the first four that popped up (though at least I was able to patch rtorrent). God knows what other software out there doesn't support v6. Of course, many of these things can live in private v4 networks for the time being, but until application vendors catch up with the times, it seems v4 and v6 will be living side-by-side for a long time to come.
I run an HE tunnel at home to provide IPv6 connectivity to my personal network, and it's been working great, and has the advantage over SIXXS of more geographically distributed tunnel endpoints (SIXXS' seem to be clustered on the east coast, while, HE has endpoints in California, among other places). Though you do need to rig up a script to update the tunnel should your IP address change.
Throw in a free v6-capable DNS hosting service like freedns.afraid.org and you're laughing.
This has been addressed time and time (and time) again. a) Those organizations would have to defrag their IP space before large blocks could get released, a process that's slow, intensive, and expensive. But more importantly, b) even if they did that, and then release those blocks for reallocation, at the current rate of consumption, it'd buy us, what? 18 months? Two years at the outside? Meanwhile, global routing tables would get even *larger*, and they're already gigantic.
No, reallocating unused IPs is a total fucking waste of time. That time would be *far* better spent getting IPv6 deployed so we could all move on from this mess.
For the record, those financial models were perfectly accurate. The data fed into them, however, was stupidly naive and optimistic, which isn't surprising, as the users of the models tweaked the data to get the results they wanted.
Or: Why you should blame the carpenter, not the hammer.
First big problem is you simply cannot send encrypted email to someone without a prior relationship.
What? Every email client I've come across will happily use the standard keyservers (like MIT's) for retrieving public keys. No prior relationship required. The person just needs to publish their key on one of those servers, an operation which is incredibly easy (and automated by some key management software, such as Seahorse on Ubuntu).
The second problem is that if you want to be seen doing something "real", you need to spend some money on a "real" certificate.
BS. Are you saying PGP isn't "real"?
Encryption would be another layer of trouble on top of all that insecurity and unreliability for no apparent benefit.
No, encryption would be a layer which would *remove* the insecurity and unreliability. If everyone signed their emails, it would be trivial to have the server filter out emails that don't have valid signatures.
Really, most things which should be encrypted - are. There's no reason to push encryption everywhere
Actually, there's a *very* good reason to push encryption everywhere: It adds noise to the signal. Right now, if a government agency wanted to focus their efforts on surveillance, it would make sense to focus it on those who are making use of encryption. After all, as you say, encryption is used where it "matters".
But if everyone used encryption, then it becomes impossible to identify "important" data from "unimportant" data. That's a very good thing.
I usually don't bother encrypting my email because it's mostly mundane stuff, and frankly there's more of a threat from the owner of the email server reading my stuff than there is from a MITM attack. Also, getting and using a cert is a bit of extra work.
Bah, that's crap. Fire up Seahorse on Ubuntu (Accessories -> Passwords and Encryption Keys), generate a new key, then publish the key. Then fire up Evolution or Thunderbird + Enigmail and tell it to use the key. There, you're now using signed/encrypted email.
Honestly, this is *dead simple*. The argument that it's too hard is pure BS, IMHO.
The screen's not distorted but 3D seems to reduces the resolution of the film
That it most certainly does not. You were seeing a regular 23.976 framerate (maybe 24, not sure what the precise RealD rate is... ostensibly it's 144hz, which means a 24 fps playback rate) film at normal digital film resolution.
The tech does, however, significantly impact brightness (since each eye is only seeing half the photons, give or take).
You forgot option 3), RealD tech on regular TVs. Uses an alternating circularly polarizing overlay (aka, ZScreen) and regular circularly polarized glasses, with the whole rig running at some high framerate (RealD normally runs at 144hz). Samsung has licenced the tech.
Agreed. My question is how can there be a sweeping laser without having screen flicker? Especially with a mechanical mirror in the mix. I thought we were done with headache inducing refresh rates? Hopefully the frequency noise is avoided.
The only way refresh rates would result in headaches is if the rate is low enough to be above the threshold of perception (60hz or so for most people). For those who claim that they could see it on higher rates, it was probably due to interference with overhead lighting (remember, flourescent lights flicker at the cycle frequency of mains power, which just happens to be 60hz in North America).
I mean, how many people complained about headaches due to flicker from Avatar? Because that movie flashed each left/right image at 72hz for each eye.
I'm just saying as a user I had a reasonable expectation of privacy to my searches and I started with the internet sometime in 1994 or so.
No you didn't. Have you not heard of web server logs? There was absolutely *zero* reason to assume that the site operators weren't harvesting those logs, correlating IPs to build up profiles (most user IPs don't change frequently enough that they can serve as a reasonable source of anonymity, particularly when you start correlating search activity). And that applies to *all* web browsing activity.
Sounds to me like you really were just naive. And that's very cute. But that doesn't make Schmidt's (I think it was Schmidt) comment any more evil. He's absolutely right, and was simply illustrating the reality of the situation.
The problem is no one is protecting your privacy online.
Of course they aren't. For most businesses, there's no money to be made in doing so. Thus it becomes *your* job to protect your privacy. And that was the reality Schmidt was revealing to you, much to your apparent dismay.
Whose going to tell Google to protect my information or be held liable.
The government, if it's important to you. Why do you think, here in Canada, we have some of the strongest privacy laws of any western nation? Because the people cared enough to have those laws passed. If you can't get your government to do the same, that's your problem.
Even on facebook, I don't use it but I would expect that there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to photos, and other content if someone is not my friend.
Then you're a fool. Like any website that involves user-submitted content, unless they explicitly state in their user agreement that they *won't* use said content for their own purposes, you should assume that they will. And I'm willing to bet that Facebook's user agreement says precisely the opposite (that any user uploading content to Facebook's services gives express consent for them to use the content as they see fit).
And again, this is simply the reality Schmidt was pointing out. The simple fact is that, as a general rule, if you want to keep something private, don't post it on the internet.
That's arguably not a business decision, it doesn't have a substantial effect on their revenue/expenses.
Of course it's a business decision. The last thing they need is for word to leak out that they discovered the Chinese government was hacking into their systems and they opted to continue operating there, thereby putting all our data at risk. Hint: Not all business decisions directly impact the bottom line. They also need to protect their image, which would be damaged if such a scenario was allowed to play out.
And my point is that with modern CRT, you *still* don't see any blur (or so little as it doesn't matter). See the other poster at the same level as mine for a little information about phosphor decay rates. It's simply not an issue. The OP is, IMHO, just inventing something to complain about.
What? Of course CRTs have motion blur issues. Just because they have no fixed pixel grid, it does not look that bad.
And is the effect sufficiently noticeable to disqualify this tech? I highly doubt it, given how prized CRTs were amongst the gaming crowd, among others, until LCDs improved sufficiently to displace them.
Slashdot Mirror
As we've seen so far, Cloud Computing is a failure in virtually all cases
It has, has it! Huh... funny, Twitter, Facebook, Gmail, YouTube, and god knows how many other services would tend to disagree with you.
But you're right, web-based applications are a failure "in virtually all cases".
I don't give a rat's ass about their (for example) Java experience quite frankly. And why should we?
You shouldn't. Well, not directly, anyway, given it's not a requirement for the work you do.
But not caring about "breadth of knowledge" is a little silly. Breadth (and depth) of knowledge is a good proxy indicator for an individual's ability to learn on-the-fly and pick up new skills as needed. It also indicates a deep-seated passion and curiousity about their profession, something that's vital in a truly skilled developer. Plus, a broad range of skills means a larger range of tools (for example, the ability to approach a problem from a functional, procedural, or object-oriented perspective as needs require), which can only be a good thing.
So, while it's true that, from a checklist standpoint, candidates should have the specific set of skills you need, it should definitely be considered a plus if the individual shows a wide range of skills.
Hell, the US has lost so many basic human rights in the last decade, that I'm amazed a civil war *didn't* break out. But hey... as long as people get to have their reality TV shows, it's all good, right?
Or, you know, maybe it's not as bad as you like to believe it is. I mean, FFS, the US may have it's problems, but let's face it, it ain't fucking China.
But you're right, that can't be it. Clearly you're the enlightened one, therefore it *must* be TV...
Indeed, the real irony is that Microsoft is well ahead of the game when it comes to v6. In Vista and Win7, v6 is enabled by default, and MS has been running a Teredo server (but unfortunately no relays) for some time now.
Uh, no, not at all. To resolve v6 hostnames, you have to retrieve AAAA DNS records instead of A records. That's an application-level activity. Once a v6 address is chosen, the application must be written to create a v6 socket from that address.
Now, it's true that higher-level APIs can hide these details (I believe Java applications are automatically v6 aware thanks to the higher-level APIs exposed by the JDK), but applications written against POSIX must be explicitly written to support v6.
Because the time involved in getting those networks defragmented so contiguous blocks could be excised, after, of course, the lengthly legal battles as organizations rightly fight the extremely expensive move, would be better spent actually fixing the problem (v6) rather than patching it for 18 or 24 months.
In the case of NFS and MySQL, both know about it, and both are looking to fix it, but we won't see the changes any time soon (MySQL expects to see v6 support in version 6.0, and I have no idea when NFSv6 support will land). rtorrent has a patch, but it isn't in stable yet, and I inquired on the m0n0wall mailing list, but alas, received only radio silence. As for MythTV, there's absolutely no mention of v6 anywhere, aside from a stub page on their wiki, so I'm not sure it's even on their radar (though you're right, I should inquire).
As I understand it, NAT64 has gotten greater attention in the last little while as people involved in v6 have finally come to the conclusion that it, or something like it, is going to be necessary to make the transition happen.
'course, personally, I think it's far more important that we get old, broken routers shut down ASAP. Today, people at home are actively *turning off* the v6 stack on their desktops because their broken routers erroneously send out radv broadcasts, despite having no v6 connectivity. The result is massive delays due to v6 connection timeouts. Meanwhile, service providers who support v6 are actively choosing not to add AAAA records to their sites because those with broken v6 connectivity would see poor service (Google is one of those doing this, which is why for most, www.google.com has no AAAA record, while ipv6.google.com does... unless your v6 provider has negotiated a special arrangement with Google, at which point they'll provide AAAA records for all of their services).
When I discovered m0n0wall 1.3 hit the pavement, with support for IPv6, I made the move to transition my home network to v6, for no other reason than it seemed like an interesting thing to do (what can I say, I like to tinker). In the process, I looked to moving all my services to v6... obviously I can't completely abandon v4 internally, but I figured, why not move all my internal stuff over? Problem is, among the software I use, the following don't support v6 at all:
Linux NFS client and server
MySQL
MythTV
rtorrent
m0n0wall's VPN implementations (both IPSec (ironically) and PPTP)
And those are just the first four that popped up (though at least I was able to patch rtorrent). God knows what other software out there doesn't support v6. Of course, many of these things can live in private v4 networks for the time being, but until application vendors catch up with the times, it seems v4 and v6 will be living side-by-side for a long time to come.
I run an HE tunnel at home to provide IPv6 connectivity to my personal network, and it's been working great, and has the advantage over SIXXS of more geographically distributed tunnel endpoints (SIXXS' seem to be clustered on the east coast, while, HE has endpoints in California, among other places). Though you do need to rig up a script to update the tunnel should your IP address change.
Throw in a free v6-capable DNS hosting service like freedns.afraid.org and you're laughing.
This has been addressed time and time (and time) again. a) Those organizations would have to defrag their IP space before large blocks could get released, a process that's slow, intensive, and expensive. But more importantly, b) even if they did that, and then release those blocks for reallocation, at the current rate of consumption, it'd buy us, what? 18 months? Two years at the outside? Meanwhile, global routing tables would get even *larger*, and they're already gigantic.
No, reallocating unused IPs is a total fucking waste of time. That time would be *far* better spent getting IPv6 deployed so we could all move on from this mess.
For the record, those financial models were perfectly accurate. The data fed into them, however, was stupidly naive and optimistic, which isn't surprising, as the users of the models tweaked the data to get the results they wanted.
Or: Why you should blame the carpenter, not the hammer.
First big problem is you simply cannot send encrypted email to someone without a prior relationship.
What? Every email client I've come across will happily use the standard keyservers (like MIT's) for retrieving public keys. No prior relationship required. The person just needs to publish their key on one of those servers, an operation which is incredibly easy (and automated by some key management software, such as Seahorse on Ubuntu).
The second problem is that if you want to be seen doing something "real", you need to spend some money on a "real" certificate.
BS. Are you saying PGP isn't "real"?
Encryption would be another layer of trouble on top of all that insecurity and unreliability for no apparent benefit.
No, encryption would be a layer which would *remove* the insecurity and unreliability. If everyone signed their emails, it would be trivial to have the server filter out emails that don't have valid signatures.
You are more likely to lose your keys than your privacy
Yes, because it's so very tough to throw your .gnupg directory onto a CD and squirrel it away in your closet.
Please.
Really, most things which should be encrypted - are. There's no reason to push encryption everywhere
Actually, there's a *very* good reason to push encryption everywhere: It adds noise to the signal. Right now, if a government agency wanted to focus their efforts on surveillance, it would make sense to focus it on those who are making use of encryption. After all, as you say, encryption is used where it "matters".
But if everyone used encryption, then it becomes impossible to identify "important" data from "unimportant" data. That's a very good thing.
I usually don't bother encrypting my email because it's mostly mundane stuff, and frankly there's more of a threat from the owner of the email server reading my stuff than there is from a MITM attack. Also, getting and using a cert is a bit of extra work.
Bah, that's crap. Fire up Seahorse on Ubuntu (Accessories -> Passwords and Encryption Keys), generate a new key, then publish the key. Then fire up Evolution or Thunderbird + Enigmail and tell it to use the key. There, you're now using signed/encrypted email.
Honestly, this is *dead simple*. The argument that it's too hard is pure BS, IMHO.
Really? That one, relatively useless piece of eyecandy is the only thing holding you back from using Firefox.
Uhuh.
Was it just me who read the headline "Ballmer Hits..." and my mind automatically filled in with " ...XXX With A Chair" ?
Hey, WTF? I've never heard of this. What the hell does Balmer have against porn? Jerk.
All valid points save for this:
The screen's not distorted but 3D seems to reduces the resolution of the film
That it most certainly does not. You were seeing a regular 23.976 framerate (maybe 24, not sure what the precise RealD rate is... ostensibly it's 144hz, which means a 24 fps playback rate) film at normal digital film resolution.
The tech does, however, significantly impact brightness (since each eye is only seeing half the photons, give or take).
You forgot option 3), RealD tech on regular TVs. Uses an alternating circularly polarizing overlay (aka, ZScreen) and regular circularly polarized glasses, with the whole rig running at some high framerate (RealD normally runs at 144hz). Samsung has licenced the tech.
Agreed. My question is how can there be a sweeping laser without having screen flicker? Especially with a mechanical mirror in the mix.
I thought we were done with headache inducing refresh rates? Hopefully the frequency noise is avoided.
The only way refresh rates would result in headaches is if the rate is low enough to be above the threshold of perception (60hz or so for most people). For those who claim that they could see it on higher rates, it was probably due to interference with overhead lighting (remember, flourescent lights flicker at the cycle frequency of mains power, which just happens to be 60hz in North America).
I mean, how many people complained about headaches due to flicker from Avatar? Because that movie flashed each left/right image at 72hz for each eye.
I'm just saying as a user I had a reasonable expectation of privacy to my searches and I started with the internet sometime in 1994 or so.
No you didn't. Have you not heard of web server logs? There was absolutely *zero* reason to assume that the site operators weren't harvesting those logs, correlating IPs to build up profiles (most user IPs don't change frequently enough that they can serve as a reasonable source of anonymity, particularly when you start correlating search activity). And that applies to *all* web browsing activity.
Sounds to me like you really were just naive. And that's very cute. But that doesn't make Schmidt's (I think it was Schmidt) comment any more evil. He's absolutely right, and was simply illustrating the reality of the situation.
The problem is no one is protecting your privacy online.
Of course they aren't. For most businesses, there's no money to be made in doing so. Thus it becomes *your* job to protect your privacy. And that was the reality Schmidt was revealing to you, much to your apparent dismay.
Whose going to tell Google to protect my information or be held liable.
The government, if it's important to you. Why do you think, here in Canada, we have some of the strongest privacy laws of any western nation? Because the people cared enough to have those laws passed. If you can't get your government to do the same, that's your problem.
Even on facebook, I don't use it but I would expect that there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to photos, and other content if someone is not my friend.
Then you're a fool. Like any website that involves user-submitted content, unless they explicitly state in their user agreement that they *won't* use said content for their own purposes, you should assume that they will. And I'm willing to bet that Facebook's user agreement says precisely the opposite (that any user uploading content to Facebook's services gives express consent for them to use the content as they see fit).
And again, this is simply the reality Schmidt was pointing out. The simple fact is that, as a general rule, if you want to keep something private, don't post it on the internet.
That's arguably not a business decision, it doesn't have a substantial effect on their revenue/expenses.
Of course it's a business decision. The last thing they need is for word to leak out that they discovered the Chinese government was hacking into their systems and they opted to continue operating there, thereby putting all our data at risk. Hint: Not all business decisions directly impact the bottom line. They also need to protect their image, which would be damaged if such a scenario was allowed to play out.
And my point is that with modern CRT, you *still* don't see any blur (or so little as it doesn't matter). See the other poster at the same level as mine for a little information about phosphor decay rates. It's simply not an issue. The OP is, IMHO, just inventing something to complain about.
What? Of course CRTs have motion blur issues. Just because they have no fixed pixel grid, it does not look that bad.
And is the effect sufficiently noticeable to disqualify this tech? I highly doubt it, given how prized CRTs were amongst the gaming crowd, among others, until LCDs improved sufficiently to displace them.