It's very easy to hold the view that others are more intelligent when they happen to agree with your view. Five minutes of research for even mildly controversial views in many fields will yield lists of people who hold advanced degrees from prestigious institutions and have impeccable post-graduate/doctoral professional credentials, but somehow many of these people frequently disagree with one another. Perhaps you should take your blinders off and recognize the fact that blanket statements applied to highly complex topic don't tend to hold much water.
Fair enough. I suppose I've just become so accustomed to the presence of those words (since about 2000 I guess) that I missed their absence. I'll continue to lower my expectations accordingly.
I take an extremely accepting view of what might qualify as "news for nerds," but this absolutely fails the "stuff that matters" test. Honestly, who the hell cares about this? It's a cheap stunt, and nothing more.
No, it's not awful advice, but your advice is pretty bad. MTR is a great tool for certain situations, most notably internal troubleshooting as an initial sanity check, but it frequently fails to provide meaningful insights into issues beyond many local networks for exactly the reasons I outlined above. Attempting to appeal to your experience here fails, as mine exceeds yours.
If you're not monitoring services and you don't have access to internal stats for the server (frequently VM these days) hosting the service, including at a minimum memory, disk IO, and CPU utilization, you're poorly equipped to explain most real world outages. When dealing with production environments more complicated than Bob's Blog that gets 100 hits a day, countless examples abound for cases where things in a given network path, including the destination, will happily respond to ICMP while the services you actually care about are flailing about while a server OOMs, runs out of disk on a critical volume, suffers from a badly executed code push from some half ass dev team that takes out a web app, poorly constructed SQL queries take minutes to return data, a marketing campaign succeeds but nobody bothered to tell IT that resources should be scaled up to support increased traffic, etc. Do you actually have any experience with that level of monitoring? Your post suggests you do not, and if I were your employer I'd can you as soon as I discovered that fact. You're espousing an overly simplistic and unreliable means of monitoring IT environments, but please feel free to continue your willful ignorance (read: stupidity) so long as you don't mislead others.
It appears somebody got poopy pants over being called out. I'm still waiting on those references, and fully expect to see jailhouses full of people who bought stocks today as well.
But as it stands, and aside from money laundring issues, you could as well prosecute bitcoin trading on the grounds that it is illegal gambling.
You appear to have a poor understanding of gambling laws, at least as they stand in the United States. Please provide citations backing your hilarious claim.
Completely offtopic, but I thought I'd mention that I take issue with your sig (Ignorance is a choice). Ignorance is a not choice, but I do define stupidity as willful ignorance. There is a distinct difference.
Lots of providers block ICMP these days. I think it's a dumb practice, because nobody even tries to use ICMP for DDoS attacks anymore, and there are much more effective ways of taking out a host. Some hosts block ICMP because they actually believe doing so is equivalent to some kind of "cloaking" practice, which is worse from the perspective of trusting the host to know the first thing about security.
All this said, trusting ICMP for server monitoring over anything more than a LAN is a questionable practice at best, especially given the lower priority such traffic may be assigned on networks that do permit it. Monitor the services you're hosting instead.
Re:That's the inconvenient truth of "the simple li
on
Iceman Had Bad Teeth
·
· Score: 1
It seems those getting the crap beaten out of them could benefit from ready access to firearms. Having known a few people with ties to Papua New Guinea, I can affirm the merit of your statement and add weight to the veracity of my own. Even given the potential for intrusions by similarly armed aggressors, people tend to think twice about such acts when the potential to be shot dead is significant.
Non technical users don't typically have the knowledge to even find the sort of forums you're referring to. Those that do are the ones referred to as "knowing just enough to be dangerous," but they're in the minority.
No reasonable person would consider your last response substantive. Sincere we appear to be at an impasse, I'll go ahead and write the letter to a handful of credit unions on our behalf. Do you have a preference for recipients?
For now, you're apparently unable to admit you're simply wrong on this, and have declined to provide a substantive response to my last post. I assume you're writing that letter to the board; please let me know when you receive their reply.
You're missing the point. For purposes of the scenario being described here, by proximity of appointments and reporting, federal credit unions are under closer executive branch control than banks are. I assure you, bank-related problems experienced by folks engaging in business pursuits deemed unlawful by the federal government are mirrored or possibly lessened in comparison to those experienced by credit union customers engaging in similar behavior. Don't believe me? Send a letter to the board of your credit union discussing intent to set up a marijuana dispensary and see what their response looks like.
Credit unions in the United States, at least those which back deposits with a federal faith and credit guarantee, fall under the purview of the NCUA. Management of the board is a matter of federal appointment, and be assured that federal law can and will be applied at the whim of the Senate and executive administration. All this said, I "bank" with NFCU, and generally find my history with them to be much more pleasant than prior experience with banks.
But if I say "I believe there isn't a Tooth Fairy" and you say "I do not believe there is a Tooth Fairy" aren't we both going to hurt Her feelings (if She exists)?
The statements are not equivalent. Per my original post, the first statement is an affirmation of the Tooth Fairy's absence. The second statement is one of mere absence of belief, which is a separate logical construct with a different target. If I say "I believe 1 BTC will never be valued at USD $1000," the message conveyed carries different referential weight than the statement "I do not believe 1 BTC will be valued at USD $1000." The latter statement isn't affirming anything, instead conveying a message of mere present lack of belief; no valuation judgement is made. As for any feelings or lack thereof on the part of any supposed deity, I really couldn't offer an opinion either way.
Sorry, I think that your thinking and language is theistically-slanted
It's really not the topic of discussion here, but perhaps it will help to understand that I am not a religious man.
does not have to mean that I am opposed to the very idea of X
Especially in terms of common literary devices and societal norms, that is absolutely what it means. There is a reason the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" are separate words, and they are not to be taken as synonyms in all but the most inexact of contexts. Therefore, to attempt to subvert this reality for the sake of imposition of your particular personal interpretation of these words in general conversation is to hazard being misunderstood.
Replying to my own post for purposes of clarification; please substitute "agnostic" for "atheist" in the first sentence. The balance of the post stands.
You're basing your definition of the term "atheist" on a contrived scheme, using a set of tokens that can be mentally counted and otherwise manipulated for purposes of illustration; in other words, you're employing a test engineered to operate in support of your personal definition of the term. This is precisely what agnostics tend to avoid, on suspicion that they do not have all available information in hand, and atheists tend to embrace. The latter tendency is quite a bit more vain in nature, and operates against the spirit of scientific investigation merely by presumption that you can fit the expanse of the topic into a bag to begin with. That sort of narrow thinking works well enough for trivialities like rote engineering estimates, but doesn't typically result in ideas like general relativity, for example.
This is the groundwork you need to understand to be able to grasp the fact that in support of your personal worldview, you are manufacturing a default position when no such construct exists. The expressions "believe there isn't a deity" (active denial) and "do not believe there is a deity" (absence of belief) are not equivalent in any sense, whether examined against logical or literary standards. To haul scientific principles into the mix again, your problem is primarily one of scope. Good day.
I figured somebody would bring Android into this. People need to understand that iOS users and Android users are different crowds, at least the ones that care about more than basic smartphone functionality.
The quality difference between your average iOS and Android app has a lot to do with the differences in target markets, but yes, Android tends to have more app quality issues. This isn't to say there aren't an awful lot of crappy iOS apps out there as well.
You seem pretty angry. You haven't provided any details on the sort of IT work you do, but you should probably be aware that the entire field isn't outsourced to India. The companies I've worked for over the last 14 years (yeah, I'm getting old at 32) hardly employ any overseas employees. My current employer has offices in London, but they're not staffed by outsourced employees. I'm earning good money, especially considering the fact that I'm in Texas (moved here for the job), and am able to support a wife and two children with only my wages. I'm also a high school dropout toting a GED for my educational experience, unless you count unrelated technical training from my time in the Navy. My current job title is "senior Linux engineer," and I greatly enjoy my work.
Attitude goes a long way in any company, and this counts double if you're looking for a new job. If your attitude stinks, you're probably going to have a rougher time than others. Shouting about your intelligence doesn't help matters any. Maybe it's also worth noting that the most talented people in this industry tend to have history that is either devoid of a college education, or had majors completely unrelated to computer science. The difference is their passion for the work and their willingness to constantly learn on their own. Innate intelligence is only the base requirement for a lot of this stuff; the rest is simply dedication.
Good luck. If you're honestly looking for a change, reply to this with more information on yourself, and maybe I can lend a hand with putting your resume in front of someone.
Slashdot Mirror
It's very easy to hold the view that others are more intelligent when they happen to agree with your view. Five minutes of research for even mildly controversial views in many fields will yield lists of people who hold advanced degrees from prestigious institutions and have impeccable post-graduate/doctoral professional credentials, but somehow many of these people frequently disagree with one another. Perhaps you should take your blinders off and recognize the fact that blanket statements applied to highly complex topic don't tend to hold much water.
Fair enough. I suppose I've just become so accustomed to the presence of those words (since about 2000 I guess) that I missed their absence. I'll continue to lower my expectations accordingly.
I take an extremely accepting view of what might qualify as "news for nerds," but this absolutely fails the "stuff that matters" test. Honestly, who the hell cares about this? It's a cheap stunt, and nothing more.
No, it's not awful advice, but your advice is pretty bad. MTR is a great tool for certain situations, most notably internal troubleshooting as an initial sanity check, but it frequently fails to provide meaningful insights into issues beyond many local networks for exactly the reasons I outlined above. Attempting to appeal to your experience here fails, as mine exceeds yours.
If you're not monitoring services and you don't have access to internal stats for the server (frequently VM these days) hosting the service, including at a minimum memory, disk IO, and CPU utilization, you're poorly equipped to explain most real world outages. When dealing with production environments more complicated than Bob's Blog that gets 100 hits a day, countless examples abound for cases where things in a given network path, including the destination, will happily respond to ICMP while the services you actually care about are flailing about while a server OOMs, runs out of disk on a critical volume, suffers from a badly executed code push from some half ass dev team that takes out a web app, poorly constructed SQL queries take minutes to return data, a marketing campaign succeeds but nobody bothered to tell IT that resources should be scaled up to support increased traffic, etc. Do you actually have any experience with that level of monitoring? Your post suggests you do not, and if I were your employer I'd can you as soon as I discovered that fact. You're espousing an overly simplistic and unreliable means of monitoring IT environments, but please feel free to continue your willful ignorance (read: stupidity) so long as you don't mislead others.
It appears somebody got poopy pants over being called out. I'm still waiting on those references, and fully expect to see jailhouses full of people who bought stocks today as well.
I'm afraid you're incorrect. Ignorance and willful ignorance are separate concerns.
ignorance
willful ignorance
But as it stands, and aside from money laundring issues, you could as well prosecute bitcoin trading on the grounds that it is illegal gambling.
You appear to have a poor understanding of gambling laws, at least as they stand in the United States. Please provide citations backing your hilarious claim.
Completely offtopic, but I thought I'd mention that I take issue with your sig (Ignorance is a choice). Ignorance is a not choice, but I do define stupidity as willful ignorance. There is a distinct difference.
Lots of providers block ICMP these days. I think it's a dumb practice, because nobody even tries to use ICMP for DDoS attacks anymore, and there are much more effective ways of taking out a host. Some hosts block ICMP because they actually believe doing so is equivalent to some kind of "cloaking" practice, which is worse from the perspective of trusting the host to know the first thing about security.
All this said, trusting ICMP for server monitoring over anything more than a LAN is a questionable practice at best, especially given the lower priority such traffic may be assigned on networks that do permit it. Monitor the services you're hosting instead.
It seems those getting the crap beaten out of them could benefit from ready access to firearms. Having known a few people with ties to Papua New Guinea, I can affirm the merit of your statement and add weight to the veracity of my own. Even given the potential for intrusions by similarly armed aggressors, people tend to think twice about such acts when the potential to be shot dead is significant.
Non technical users don't typically have the knowledge to even find the sort of forums you're referring to. Those that do are the ones referred to as "knowing just enough to be dangerous," but they're in the minority.
Please apply s/Sincere/Since/ to my last response, although I do mean it sincerely.
No reasonable person would consider your last response substantive. Sincere we appear to be at an impasse, I'll go ahead and write the letter to a handful of credit unions on our behalf. Do you have a preference for recipients?
For now, you're apparently unable to admit you're simply wrong on this, and have declined to provide a substantive response to my last post. I assume you're writing that letter to the board; please let me know when you receive their reply.
You're missing the point. For purposes of the scenario being described here, by proximity of appointments and reporting, federal credit unions are under closer executive branch control than banks are. I assure you, bank-related problems experienced by folks engaging in business pursuits deemed unlawful by the federal government are mirrored or possibly lessened in comparison to those experienced by credit union customers engaging in similar behavior. Don't believe me? Send a letter to the board of your credit union discussing intent to set up a marijuana dispensary and see what their response looks like.
Contrary to what you might like to believe, Chinese influence in Taiwanese companies is rampant and incredibly deep.
If the rest of the company's business decisions were that sound, somehow I'm not surprised they had trouble keeping things going.
Stockton is the record holder for the biggest city to go bankrupt, and with USD $900 million in pension obligations alone, it's a pretty nasty deal.
Trying to lean on emphasis that the city isn't that large is disingenuous; it is in fact the thirteenth largest city in California by population (out of 100), and California is a big state.
Credit unions in the United States, at least those which back deposits with a federal faith and credit guarantee, fall under the purview of the NCUA. Management of the board is a matter of federal appointment, and be assured that federal law can and will be applied at the whim of the Senate and executive administration. All this said, I "bank" with NFCU, and generally find my history with them to be much more pleasant than prior experience with banks.
But if I say "I believe there isn't a Tooth Fairy" and you say "I do not believe there is a Tooth Fairy" aren't we both going to hurt Her feelings (if She exists)?
The statements are not equivalent. Per my original post, the first statement is an affirmation of the Tooth Fairy's absence. The second statement is one of mere absence of belief, which is a separate logical construct with a different target. If I say "I believe 1 BTC will never be valued at USD $1000," the message conveyed carries different referential weight than the statement "I do not believe 1 BTC will be valued at USD $1000." The latter statement isn't affirming anything, instead conveying a message of mere present lack of belief; no valuation judgement is made. As for any feelings or lack thereof on the part of any supposed deity, I really couldn't offer an opinion either way.
Sorry, I think that your thinking and language is theistically-slanted
It's really not the topic of discussion here, but perhaps it will help to understand that I am not a religious man.
does not have to mean that I am opposed to the very idea of X
Especially in terms of common literary devices and societal norms, that is absolutely what it means. There is a reason the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" are separate words, and they are not to be taken as synonyms in all but the most inexact of contexts. Therefore, to attempt to subvert this reality for the sake of imposition of your particular personal interpretation of these words in general conversation is to hazard being misunderstood.
Replying to my own post for purposes of clarification; please substitute "agnostic" for "atheist" in the first sentence. The balance of the post stands.
Your comment threshold is set too high, otherwise you would have seen the comment I replied to.
You're basing your definition of the term "atheist" on a contrived scheme, using a set of tokens that can be mentally counted and otherwise manipulated for purposes of illustration; in other words, you're employing a test engineered to operate in support of your personal definition of the term. This is precisely what agnostics tend to avoid, on suspicion that they do not have all available information in hand, and atheists tend to embrace. The latter tendency is quite a bit more vain in nature, and operates against the spirit of scientific investigation merely by presumption that you can fit the expanse of the topic into a bag to begin with. That sort of narrow thinking works well enough for trivialities like rote engineering estimates, but doesn't typically result in ideas like general relativity, for example.
This is the groundwork you need to understand to be able to grasp the fact that in support of your personal worldview, you are manufacturing a default position when no such construct exists. The expressions "believe there isn't a deity" (active denial) and "do not believe there is a deity" (absence of belief) are not equivalent in any sense, whether examined against logical or literary standards. To haul scientific principles into the mix again, your problem is primarily one of scope. Good day.
I figured somebody would bring Android into this. People need to understand that iOS users and Android users are different crowds, at least the ones that care about more than basic smartphone functionality.
The quality difference between your average iOS and Android app has a lot to do with the differences in target markets, but yes, Android tends to have more app quality issues. This isn't to say there aren't an awful lot of crappy iOS apps out there as well.
You seem pretty angry. You haven't provided any details on the sort of IT work you do, but you should probably be aware that the entire field isn't outsourced to India. The companies I've worked for over the last 14 years (yeah, I'm getting old at 32) hardly employ any overseas employees. My current employer has offices in London, but they're not staffed by outsourced employees. I'm earning good money, especially considering the fact that I'm in Texas (moved here for the job), and am able to support a wife and two children with only my wages. I'm also a high school dropout toting a GED for my educational experience, unless you count unrelated technical training from my time in the Navy. My current job title is "senior Linux engineer," and I greatly enjoy my work.
Attitude goes a long way in any company, and this counts double if you're looking for a new job. If your attitude stinks, you're probably going to have a rougher time than others. Shouting about your intelligence doesn't help matters any. Maybe it's also worth noting that the most talented people in this industry tend to have history that is either devoid of a college education, or had majors completely unrelated to computer science. The difference is their passion for the work and their willingness to constantly learn on their own. Innate intelligence is only the base requirement for a lot of this stuff; the rest is simply dedication.
Good luck. If you're honestly looking for a change, reply to this with more information on yourself, and maybe I can lend a hand with putting your resume in front of someone.