I don't understand why more firms don't give programming tests for programming positions. The interview for my favorite job (so far) included a C++ fix-this-code quiz whose subtlety impressed me as much as it gave me the opportunity to impress them.
Second best was my time at NIH, where again there was a programming test. I was my staffing company's first placement there, and they asked me to review the test answers of subsequent applicants. Some of these people were just clueless, and the test was a cheap and easy way to expose that.
I've just been offered my first position on a team of Mac developers. Every engineer I interviewed with asked me to compose a function on the whiteboard, and each function was in someway relevant to their product.
My point is that any twit can lie or polish his résumé. It's really easy to screen them out, so why don't more employers do this? The test is not only an advantage for a good programmer without a degree, but a vital sign indicating a company's ability to hire good people and skip the bad ones. It's good news even if you do have a degree.
"Distribution of the Corresponding Source in accord with this section
must be in a format that is publicly documented, unencumbered by
patents, and must require no special password or key for unpacking,
reading or copying."
That definitely rules out StuffIt archives (unless you use StuffIt 1.5.1, which is over 15 years old). I'm not sure that Apple's disk image format (.dmg) is documented either.
Only Movie OS has a networking stack and client libraries for alien protocols built-in -- and it runs AOL, too! (Machine: Impossible edition only.) Accept no substitute!
P.S. Yes, that was an Apple PowerBook 5300 (in both movies), and no, we didn't get to see it catch on fire. Too bad -- I'm sure ILM could have done some very impressive work with it.
McNealy seems to have thes attitude that computing should be centrally controlled or stored.
I don't hear him saying that. Sure, I want to keep stuff on my laptop so it's available when I'm offline. But I might also want it networked when I'm at home. Networking doesn't imply central control at all -- just look at the Web.
How do you know something's true if you can't check if it's true?
I was being facetious, of course. But since you asked... How can you even check if something is true in the first place? Against what standard do you test it? How do you know the standard is valid?
My point is, all truth lives inside a context. Formal mathematics avoids truth in favor of theoremhood and proofs. Commonly held truths in other sciences are subject to invalidation by new evidence. Then, there are whole other domains, where some truths are just "of themselves so" -- no proof is required, nor can one be given. You either "get it" or you don't.
For some people, the truth is determined by whatever's convenient to believe in at the moment. Some of these consider a set of beliefs that, no matter how irrational, guarantees their acceptance in a community to be very highly convenient.
If you start with a context in which the Bible (pretending for the moment that there's only one) is the ultimate authority, then there's no need to argue over the truth of ID -- it says right in Genesis that God (an intelligent being) created the universe. QED.
This context has the property of invalidating all other contexts which contradict it. But some contexts lack this property -- consider a meta-context in which all contexts are equally valid (though not necessarily useful). For that matter, consider Zen, which apparently contradicts itself.
Some things I know to be true because I've seen them personally, others because I've been told so, and yet others because I just know. Are they really true? Depends on what kind of 'truth' you're testing for.
As a rule as a admin you should constantly try cracking your own systems passwords, each one you get that user owes you beer. Least they can do for potentialy saving there job and your company.
And don't invest in any firm whose sysadmin is constantly drunk...
Any Web site offering you an account of some kind requires authentication, invariably in the form of username and password. Many users will just reuse the same username and password. Those that don't must use a password manager, whether it's the Web browser's autofill or a real, live, dead-tree notepad.
Most of these sites require you to transmit your password in the clear. So not only does the Web site operator have your password (which could be used to compromise your account on other sites if it's the same), but so does anybody sniffing your network.
Both of these problems would disappear if we used public keys to authenticate. You generate a key pair, and supply the same public key everywhere when creating an account. Your browser acts as the key agent (or connects to one like ssh-agent) and uses the private key to respond to an authentication challenge. No password is sent to the server, ever.
HTTP Digest authentication also neither transmits nor stores cleartext passwords, but the Web site operator does have to have it to set the password in the first place. HTTP authentication in general currently suffers from the problem that there's no specified way to log out. A solution to this problem was proposed through the W3C about six years ago, but it hasn't been implemented that I'm aware of.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, Silver Surfer was the code name for the 4th Dimension database package. Read Guy Kawasaki's The Macintosh Way for more detail.
HyperCard was originally called WildCard, hence the creator code 'WILD'.
They classified 'Marklar'?? That's harsh.
I don't understand why more firms don't give programming tests for programming positions. The interview for my favorite job (so far) included a C++ fix-this-code quiz whose subtlety impressed me as much as it gave me the opportunity to impress them.
Second best was my time at NIH, where again there was a programming test. I was my staffing company's first placement there, and they asked me to review the test answers of subsequent applicants. Some of these people were just clueless, and the test was a cheap and easy way to expose that.
I've just been offered my first position on a team of Mac developers. Every engineer I interviewed with asked me to compose a function on the whiteboard, and each function was in someway relevant to their product.
My point is that any twit can lie or polish his résumé. It's really easy to screen them out, so why don't more employers do this? The test is not only an advantage for a good programmer without a degree, but a vital sign indicating a company's ability to hire good people and skip the bad ones. It's good news even if you do have a degree.
...I don't even hear the music anymore. Just blonde, brunette, redhead...
I think you mean someone's first child just lost their social life.
That definitely rules out StuffIt archives (unless you use StuffIt 1.5.1, which is over 15 years old). I'm not sure that Apple's disk image format (.dmg) is documented either.
You mean Slashdot improves its editing. :-)
So it's not just big companies. Everybody abuses the patent system.
...that was Movie OS[tm].
Only Movie OS has a networking stack and client libraries for alien protocols built-in -- and it runs AOL, too! (Machine: Impossible edition only.) Accept no substitute!
P.S. Yes, that was an Apple PowerBook 5300 (in both movies), and no, we didn't get to see it catch on fire. Too bad -- I'm sure ILM could have done some very impressive work with it.
I don't hear him saying that. Sure, I want to keep stuff on my laptop so it's available when I'm offline. But I might also want it networked when I'm at home. Networking doesn't imply central control at all -- just look at the Web.
Most of the people it bothers don't become users in the first place.
BOMB #20: And I said, "Let there be light..."
I think everyone remembers -- the whole dot-com craze was pretty recent.
Am I the only one who read this as "Fighting Android Spamming Partner"?
Am I the only one who hears it as "Kill us, traitor"?
I was being facetious, of course. But since you asked... How can you even check if something is true in the first place? Against what standard do you test it? How do you know the standard is valid?
My point is, all truth lives inside a context. Formal mathematics avoids truth in favor of theoremhood and proofs. Commonly held truths in other sciences are subject to invalidation by new evidence. Then, there are whole other domains, where some truths are just "of themselves so" -- no proof is required, nor can one be given. You either "get it" or you don't.
For some people, the truth is determined by whatever's convenient to believe in at the moment. Some of these consider a set of beliefs that, no matter how irrational, guarantees their acceptance in a community to be very highly convenient.
If you start with a context in which the Bible (pretending for the moment that there's only one) is the ultimate authority, then there's no need to argue over the truth of ID -- it says right in Genesis that God (an intelligent being) created the universe. QED.
This context has the property of invalidating all other contexts which contradict it. But some contexts lack this property -- consider a meta-context in which all contexts are equally valid (though not necessarily useful). For that matter, consider Zen, which apparently contradicts itself.
Some things I know to be true because I've seen them personally, others because I've been told so, and yet others because I just know. Are they really true? Depends on what kind of 'truth' you're testing for.
Right, but you don't need to be able to falsify it, because it's TRUE. :-)
You, sir, have just made my day and my friends list.
--
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children and their children.
-- POSIX Programmer's Guide
Your CIO really knows his stuff! That's awesome.
This is some kind of geek news site, right? Or maybe it's pronounced Rightangledbracketdot?
--
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children and their children.
-- POSIX Programmer's Guide
It makes a difference, you know.
"There's nothing to explain. You're trying to kidnap what I've rightfully stolen."
Any Web site offering you an account of some kind requires authentication, invariably in the form of username and password. Many users will just reuse the same username and password. Those that don't must use a password manager, whether it's the Web browser's autofill or a real, live, dead-tree notepad.
Most of these sites require you to transmit your password in the clear. So not only does the Web site operator have your password (which could be used to compromise your account on other sites if it's the same), but so does anybody sniffing your network.
Both of these problems would disappear if we used public keys to authenticate. You generate a key pair, and supply the same public key everywhere when creating an account. Your browser acts as the key agent (or connects to one like ssh-agent) and uses the private key to respond to an authentication challenge. No password is sent to the server, ever.
HTTP Digest authentication also neither transmits nor stores cleartext passwords, but the Web site operator does have to have it to set the password in the first place. HTTP authentication in general currently suffers from the problem that there's no specified way to log out. A solution to this problem was proposed through the W3C about six years ago, but it hasn't been implemented that I'm aware of.