If CNN bought Fox News, MSNBC, and ABC would there be less competition in TV news? Of course. I don't see how payment or lack of payment has anything to do with whether or not two companies are competing .
That said, people DO effectively pay for YouTube and Twitch. You pay in the form of ads watched. Google converts those ad views to cash just as surely as they'd convert credit card numbers to cash if you paid by credit card.
Does Twitch really compete with YouTube? Probably not, but that's because Twitch is a speciality boutique and YouTube is a mass merchandiser. I don't think the form of payment has much to do with it.
In the 1.0 release notes, Seamonkey is called "the Mozilla browser". The new Firefox (aka Phoenix aka Firebird) is contrasted with the pre-existing browser from Mozilla, internally known as Seamonkey. The Seamonkey name goes all the way back to Netscape. Extetnally, Netscape Inc. branded Seamonkey as "Netscape", the Mozilla Foundation branded it as "Mozilla browser", but it was always Seamonkey in the code.
After the ad in the New York Times and other marketing helped Firefox to become more popular than it's older brother, the Mozilla foundation switched it's focus away from Seamonkey to the new product, Firefox. After a few years of that, the governance of the Seamonkey project changed. That change came after Firefox, so that may be the event you're thinking of. That wasn't the birth of Seamonkey, though, far from it. That was a milestone marking the DECLINE of Seamonkey because Mozilla had moved focus away from Seamonkey.
> Mozilla is losing touch with the power users in their pursuit of the average user.
Seamonkey was supposed to be the full-featured Mozilla browser for power users. Firefox was launched as a stripped-down, lightweight version of Seamonkey for Average Joe to check Facebook with. Of course, after a couple of years they forgot about the lightweight thing. They are specifically not targeting power users though.
Having looked into the security related curriculum at MIT, Princeton, etc, I'd certainly be more likely to hire a student who had hands-on experience under the guidance of a security professional. Their academic programs do not prepare a student for serious security work, in my opinion. In fact, I'd say that a student needs to take all (both) of the security-related electives just to be prepared to write internet-accessible applications.
Not only is there a huge difference between theory and actual practice, but even the theory side is quite limited for security at the top universities. The best I've found is offered by a part of the Texas A&M system, called TEEX.
When I went to work at TEEX, I expected that I'd need to find diplomatic ways of telling them that their cyber-security classes suck, because most classes in the field do suck. I was surprised to see that the TEEX material is pretty good. I can only try to help them make the visual presentation be as good as the actual material is.
My policy is that to err is human, to have proper backups is professional. Running a complex SQL update statement on a million records? That sure might have unintended consequences, so first run "select into" so you have an untouched copy to revert to. I EXPECT people to mess up. I also expect them to realize that they'll mess up, and plan accordingly.
One could do that. Another common method of avoiding decoys is to avoid committing robbery and burglary. Felony crime as a career path doesn't tend to attract the brightest and most careful practitioners.
Zombie attack is used as great training because it combines many different types of scenarios into one. It's an infectious disease, so you're training mass prophylaxis etc, people get injured, so it covers mass casualties like a plane crash or big explosion, the zombies come after people in mass like a riot or invasion. The water is assumed to be infected with the zombie virus, so it trains infrastructure disaster, etc. Nearly everybody involved with emergency response has to do their job for a zombie scenario, so it's great for a large, coordinated training exercise.
The last time we ran zombies, here in College Station, I don't know that the computer emergency response people were included. That's the only group not trained by zombie that I can think of. Maybe next time we'lldo zombie hackers.:) I work at TEEX in College Station, where we train all sorts of peoplefor every disaster imaginable - we have wrecked trains, buildings that collapse on demand, etc. Most of the classes we offer can probably be included in a zombie scenario .
Agreed, some problems might _arguably_ be caused by firmware.
> what about more controversial issues, like the problem with running a speaker too loud and actually damaging the hardware that was doing the rounds a little while back?
A great example. Many intelligent people here thought that was definitely a hardware problem - the speaker should be able to handle anything the amplifier can put out. As a DJ and band tech, I know that MOST audio systems can be damaged by overmodulation. Speakers normally don'tbliw because it's too loud, but because one particular stage is overmodulated, creating something that more like a square wave than a sine wave. Speakers don't like square waves. An example would be turning your amp to 8, with your phone plugged in and turned all the way up. That's likely to blow speakers because your phone isn't outputting a clean wave at max volume. Pro audio equipment has indicator lights that warn when your getting into that territory so you can turn down the gain at the right stage, which often isn't the amp. So anyway, intelligent people can disagree on that case (and they do in fact disagree).
That's a disagreement of FACT though, not of law. The question is whether the firmware caused the damage, not whether or not the warranty applies to damage unrelated to the firmware.
GP said: > if the software doesn't actually cause the damage, so that reason isn't in my list.
ABG replied: > flashing custom firmware, bricking the device
GP specifically said his comments don't apply if flashing the new firmware bricks the device.
If the power adapter fails or an RJ-45 jack breaks those failures are clearly not caused by the firmware. Those are the kinds of things that often can not be excluded from warranty just because you ran third party firmware. The history of these laws has to do with car manufacturers demanding that purchasers use their service facilities and parts such as spark plugs and tires. Ford's warranty could CLAIM that it's void if you use third party tires or spark plugs, but that's unlawful and therefore unenforceable. They can deny warranty coverage only if they can show that the third-party spark plugs likely caused the damage.
Also look up "warranty of merchantability" and "fitness for a particular purpose". Sellers can't put terms on those, those are warranties granted by law. In some (most?) jurisdictions they are not allowed to impose certain limitations in the other warranties they offer.
One of us needs to re-read TFA, because I read it as enterprise firewalls, I read where it said twice that they are not consumer devices, and where it said there are thousands (not millions) of them connected to the internet.
I didn't say IQ, but if you want to use IQ as a numerical measure of "smart", IQ is DEFINED based on the median. Each standard deviation from the median is defined as 15 IQ points. So I'm not ASSUMING, that's true by definition.
To get 33% too high, you're subtracting the 50% who might actually be above average. Then you're calculating that ANOTHER 16% are above average. In total, you have 66.5% above average. There's something on your shoe.
At most, 50% are above average, meaning at least 33% of the total wrongly believe they are above average. If 83 people think they are, and 33 of those are wrong, that's 40% who are wrong. So at least 40% of the people who think they are smarter than average aren't.
Research suggests it's actually higher. The more you know, then more you realize there are things you DON'T know, and the more you assume that other people probably know things. Therefore, people who are above average are more likely to rate themselves as below average. (Consider a college student walking past a calculus or physics class. If they haven't taken that class, they may rate themselves as below average. Meanwhile, the Occupy crowd thinks that 99% of people sit around smoking weed and living off their parents).
With that tendency included, about 50% of the people who think they are above average are actually below average.
> couldn't have answered that I wanted to go and do a PhD in computer engineering, or that I wanted to move to Colorado. > In fact, when I was 22 I still couldn't have told you that.
I bet that at 17 you knew you wanted to go to college and study computers. That's what you wanted to do when you were 17 or so. Maybe later you decided exactly how MUCH college - a PhD. I doubt that at 17 you had no idea what direction you wanted to head. I say that because seventeen year olds with no plan whatsoever are more likely to end up with convictions than with PhDs.
Suppose one area had 1000X as many H1B as average. That area would have 0.2% H1B.
83% of people think they are smarter than average. Which means that nearly half of the people who THINK they are smart are actually dumb. All of those people search for some expanation of why they didn't get hired. They are certainly smart enough, they think.
Peterson is being kind of silly. Cloud makes very good sense for some applications, in some situations. It's a bad idea in others. When you have very peaky demand, a flood of traffic once in a while, cloud may well make sense. A site with primary live coverage of the Super Bowl is a clear example - it would be silly to buy thousands of servers to use them for just a few hours.
An opposite example is the building I'm in right now. It's an office building full of high-paid workers who use email to communicate with coworkers all day. Due to geography, we have a single-homed internet connection. If our email were out in the cloud, an internet outage (or slowness) might cost $20,000 per hour in lost productivity. We should definitely have our email and AD servers on site.
Of course, where on site servers make sense, you can still apply _some_ "cloud" concepts for high availability. Those should be targeted, though, a specific action for a specific need. It would be silly to just blindly "cloudify" an existing well-designed infrastructure which currently has a pair of high performance database machines using battery backed DDR for insanely fast storage, a pair of file servers with well designed tiered storage, etc.
> If this bothers you: stop telling little girls that they're pretty, and instead tell them that they're smart. Don't ask them their favorite princess, ask them what they want to be when they grow up.
This! I asked my ex-wife's 17 year old daughter what she wanted to do for a living and they way she looked at me, it seems nobody had ever asked her that question before. She has no idea. My daughter, who is now one week old, will be able toanswer that question by the time she's five (and change her mind six times after that).
Considering that the number of H1Bs is limited to 0.0002% of the population, they might make a good scapegoat, but tthey make essentially zero impact on anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Big brother bama isn't a republican.
If CNN bought Fox News, MSNBC, and ABC would there be less competition in TV news? Of course. I don't see how payment or lack of payment has anything to do with whether or not two companies are competing .
That said, people DO effectively pay for YouTube and Twitch. You pay in the form of ads watched. Google converts those ad views to cash just as surely as they'd convert credit card numbers to cash if you paid by credit card.
Does Twitch really compete with YouTube? Probably not, but that's because Twitch is a speciality boutique and YouTube is a mass merchandiser. I don't think the form of payment has much to do with it.
In 1993, this page compared Mosaic to "Netscape Seamonkey". That's eleven years before Firefox.
http://kuliah-pegawai-stt-band...
See the Firefox 1.0 release notes, where they say Firefox (then called Phoenix) will be like Seamonkey, but with "features deemed geeky" removed.
http://website-archive.mozilla...
In the 1.0 release notes, Seamonkey is called "the Mozilla browser". The new Firefox (aka Phoenix aka Firebird) is contrasted with the pre-existing browser from Mozilla, internally known as Seamonkey. The Seamonkey name goes all the way back to Netscape. Extetnally, Netscape Inc. branded Seamonkey as "Netscape", the Mozilla Foundation branded it as "Mozilla browser", but it was always Seamonkey in the code.
After the ad in the New York Times and other marketing helped Firefox to become more popular than it's older brother, the Mozilla foundation switched it's focus away from Seamonkey to the new product, Firefox. After a few years of that, the governance of the Seamonkey project changed. That change came after Firefox, so that may be the event you're thinking of. That wasn't the birth of Seamonkey, though, far from it. That was a milestone marking the DECLINE of Seamonkey because Mozilla had moved focus away from Seamonkey.
> Mozilla is losing touch with the power users in their pursuit of the average user.
Seamonkey was supposed to be the full-featured Mozilla browser for power users. Firefox was launched as a stripped-down, lightweight version of Seamonkey for Average Joe to check Facebook with. Of course, after a couple of years they forgot about the lightweight thing. They are specifically not targeting power users though.
Having looked into the security related curriculum at MIT, Princeton, etc, I'd certainly be more likely to hire a student who had hands-on experience under the guidance of a security professional. Their academic programs do not prepare a student for serious security work, in my opinion. In fact, I'd say that a student needs to take all (both) of the security-related electives just to be prepared to write internet-accessible applications.
Not only is there a huge difference between theory and actual practice, but even the theory side is quite limited for security at the top universities. The best I've found is offered by a part of the Texas A&M system, called TEEX.
When I went to work at TEEX, I expected that I'd need to find diplomatic ways of telling them that their cyber-security classes suck, because most classes in the field do suck. I was surprised to see that the TEEX material is pretty good. I can only try to help them make the visual presentation be as good as the actual material is.
You consider armed robbery to be petty theft?
Interesting.
My policy is that to err is human, to have proper backups is professional. Running a complex SQL update statement on a million records? That sure might have unintended consequences, so first run "select into" so you have an untouched copy to revert to. I EXPECT people to mess up. I also expect them to realize that they'll mess up, and plan accordingly.
One could do that. Another common method of avoiding decoys is to avoid committing robbery and burglary. Felony crime as a career path doesn't tend to attract the brightest and most careful practitioners.
Nm
Zombie attack is used as great training because it combines many different types of scenarios into one. It's an infectious disease, so you're training mass prophylaxis etc, people get injured, so it covers mass casualties like a plane crash or big explosion, the zombies come after people in mass like a riot or invasion. The water is assumed to be infected with the zombie virus, so it trains infrastructure disaster, etc. Nearly everybody involved with emergency response has to do their job for a zombie scenario, so it's great for a large, coordinated training exercise.
The last time we ran zombies, here in College Station, I don't know that the computer emergency response people were included. That's the only group not trained by zombie that I can think of. Maybe next time we'lldo zombie hackers. :)
I work at TEEX in College Station, where we train all sorts of peoplefor every disaster imaginable - we have wrecked trains, buildings that collapse on demand, etc. Most of the classes we offer can probably be included in a zombie scenario .
Agreed, some problems might _arguably_ be caused by firmware.
> what about more controversial issues, like the problem with running a speaker too loud and actually damaging the hardware that was doing the rounds a little while back?
A great example. Many intelligent people here thought that was definitely a hardware problem - the speaker should be able to handle anything the amplifier can put out. As a DJ and band tech, I know that MOST audio systems can be damaged by overmodulation. Speakers normally don'tbliw because it's too loud, but because one particular stage is overmodulated, creating something that more like a square wave than a sine wave. Speakers don't like square waves. An example would be turning your amp to 8, with your phone plugged in and turned all the way up. That's likely to blow speakers because your phone isn't outputting a clean wave at max volume. Pro audio equipment has indicator lights that warn when your getting into that territory so you can turn down the gain at the right stage, which often isn't the amp. So anyway, intelligent people can disagree on that case (and they do in fact disagree).
That's a disagreement of FACT though, not of law. The question is whether the firmware caused the damage, not whether or not the warranty applies to damage unrelated to the firmware.
GP said:
> if the software doesn't actually cause the damage, so that reason isn't in my list.
ABG replied:
> flashing custom firmware, bricking the device
GP specifically said his comments don't apply if flashing the new firmware bricks the device.
If the power adapter fails or an RJ-45 jack breaks those failures are clearly not caused by the firmware. Those are the kinds of things that often can not be excluded from warranty just because you ran third party firmware. The history of these laws has to do with car manufacturers demanding that purchasers use their service facilities and parts such as spark plugs and tires. Ford's warranty could CLAIM that it's void if you use third party tires or spark plugs, but that's unlawful and therefore unenforceable. They can deny warranty coverage only if they can show that the third-party spark plugs likely caused the damage.
Also look up "warranty of merchantability" and "fitness for a particular purpose". Sellers can't put terms on those, those are warranties granted by law. In some (most?) jurisdictions they are not allowed to impose certain limitations in the other warranties they offer.
I double checked and I see there are TWO links in TFS. The one I read focuses on load balancers. The other one does indeed talk about cable modems.
One of us needs to re-read TFA, because I read it as enterprise firewalls, I read where it said twice that they are not consumer devices, and where it said there are thousands (not millions) of them connected to the internet.
Lots of expensive, easily stolen electronics, eh? I have the perfect solution I can mail to you. What is your address?
"them is" here's one guy who didn't get the job "because H1B stole it from him".
I didn't say IQ, but if you want to use IQ as a numerical measure of "smart", IQ is DEFINED based on the median. Each standard deviation from the median is defined as 15 IQ points. So I'm not ASSUMING, that's true by definition.
We just discovered one person who is in the 40%.
I hope my math is correct. :)
To get 33% too high, you're subtracting the 50% who might actually be above average. Then you're calculating that ANOTHER 16% are above average. In total, you have 66.5% above average. There's something on your shoe.
At most, 50% are above average, meaning at least 33% of the total wrongly believe they are above average. If 83 people think they are, and 33 of those are wrong, that's 40% who are wrong. So at least 40% of the people who think they are smarter than average aren't.
Research suggests it's actually higher. The more you know, then more you realize there are things you DON'T know, and the more you assume that other people probably know things. Therefore, people who are above average are more likely to rate themselves as below average. (Consider a college student walking past a calculus or physics class. If they haven't taken that class, they may rate themselves as below average. Meanwhile, the Occupy crowd thinks that 99% of people sit around smoking weed and living off their parents).
With that tendency included, about 50% of the people who think they are above average are actually below average.
> couldn't have answered that I wanted to go and do a PhD in computer engineering, or that I wanted to move to Colorado.
> In fact, when I was 22 I still couldn't have told you that.
I bet that at 17 you knew you wanted to go to college and study computers. That's what you wanted to do when you were 17 or so. Maybe later you decided exactly how MUCH college - a PhD. I doubt that at 17 you had no idea what direction you wanted to head. I say that because seventeen year olds with no plan whatsoever are more likely to end up with convictions than with PhDs.
Suppose one area had 1000X as many H1B as average. That area would have 0.2% H1B.
83% of people think they are smarter than average.
Which means that nearly half of the people who THINK they are smart are actually dumb. All of those people search for some expanation of why they didn't get hired. They are certainly smart enough, they think.
Peterson is being kind of silly. Cloud makes very good sense for some applications, in some situations. It's a bad idea in others. When you have very peaky demand, a flood of traffic once in a while, cloud may well make sense. A site with primary live coverage of the Super Bowl is a clear example - it would be silly to buy thousands of servers to use them for just a few hours.
An opposite example is the building I'm in right now. It's an office building full of high-paid workers who use email to communicate with coworkers all day. Due to geography, we have a single-homed internet connection. If our email were out in the cloud, an internet outage (or slowness) might cost $20,000 per hour in lost productivity. We should definitely have our email and AD servers on site.
Of course, where on site servers make sense, you can still apply _some_ "cloud" concepts for high availability. Those should be targeted, though, a specific action for a specific need. It would be silly to just blindly "cloudify" an existing well-designed infrastructure which currently has a pair of high performance database machines using battery backed DDR for insanely fast storage, a pair of file servers with well designed tiered storage, etc.
> If this bothers you: stop telling little girls that they're pretty, and instead tell them that they're smart. Don't ask them their favorite princess, ask them what they want to be when they grow up.
This! I asked my ex-wife's 17 year old daughter what she wanted to do for a living and they way she looked at me, it seems nobody had ever asked her that question before. She has no idea. My daughter, who is now one week old, will be able toanswer that question by the time she's five (and change her mind six times after that).
Considering that the number of H1Bs is limited to 0.0002% of the population, they might make a good scapegoat, but tthey make essentially zero impact on anything.