There were plenty of people trying to take the place of MySpace. I assisted one such company. Only Facebook succeeded, beating not only MySpace but also all of the others trying to do the same thing. Clearly, Zuck did a lot of things right. In all likelihood, he must have been very good at hiring really good people, keeping them, and motivating them, along with leading them toward a unified vision.
Then Google spent a billion dollars or whatever trying to compete . With all of Google's resources - money, great engineers, captive eyeballs - they couldn't touch Facebook. They are obviously doing a lot of smart things.
The guy might be an asshole, I don't know. I'd bet he's obsessive, most people who are ridiculously successful in one area of their life get there by being obsessive about a goal. Most certainly, though, he achieved what thousands of other smart people couldn't.
"I worked at the school... I work at the same university", you said. I guess that's the big difference - people got to know you while you were in college, and you've stuck close to those people who know you. I didn't stick in one circle - couldn't. I was working in cybersecurity and had to leave my entire circle of acquaintances behind when moral issues forced me to leave that sphere. I couldn't, in good conscience, work with those people anymore. (I'll let you decipher what that means.)
It's interesting that your story starts and ends at a university.
You asked what it's like to compete for a job. It fucking sucks to go from well-known (in the field) to "I hope to get an interview". A few years ago, people sometimes got excited when they heard it was me calling. After two years at the agency I work for now, the leadership has finally begun to notice me. This week may be very interesting in that regard. The last two years HAVE been a nice break from management, though.
I've experienced the same frustration. There are certain technical circles in which I am well known, yet when I decided to get an 8-5 I had a heck of a time because I left college to run my business. I eventually took a job making half as much as someone with my experience would normally make.*
Not long ago, my boss ask me to look over some resumes for an opening we have. Most of the resumes looked pretty similar. It's one page, after all, and they are all applying for the same position. Those that were different had positives and negatives, so they all "scored" about the same. How to decide who to call first? It felt like forensic science, trying to find some clue of who might be better among the pile of nearly identical resumes. A typo MIGHT hint that the person isn't as careful with their work. That seems silly, but those were the kind of clues we had to go on.
We interviewed a couple of people and it was similarly "tied" - both seemed like they would be a decent fit. Without actually knowing either of the candidates, we had to choose one based on the tiny bits of information we had. Compared to the tiny clues we were looking for, a degree vs. no degree would have been huge. It's not a great indicator, but it sure is better than any of the other differences between two otherwise good resumes.
To look at it another way, suppose you have ten resumes that look okay, ten that made it past the "obviously no" filter. You have to find some way to narrow it down by eliminating nine of the ten candidates. Four years of study and carrying a four year project to successful completion obviously helps narrow it down.
It's now time for me to get off Slashdot and get back to my studies. With 17 years of experience I don't want to be narrowed down for lack of a degree, so I'm getting my degree from WGU. The "final exam" for most courses is an industry-recognized certification exam, so I'll end up with a degree and about a dozen certifications.
* The "low paying" job turned out to be a blessing, due to working with wonderful people.
Clearly you learned your American history from comedy central. For example, federal revenue INCREASED under Reagan. Debt? Republicans racking up debt? Almost half the federal debt has was incurred under one president - Barak Obama. He overspent by as much as all other presidents combined for the previous 200 years.
Your conclusions would be sound if the "facts" you've based them on were true, but they aren't. Your factual basis is pure fiction.
TFA and TFS don't make it quite clear - would the SCHOOL lose eligibility, or a specific degree plan? If a student gets a degree in art history or women's studies that probably won't do much for their employment prospects, regardless of whether the school is good or not.
What?!?! Chrome developer tools beat the pants of Firebug, in my opinion. I install Firefox for non-developers, for people who consume content. For developing sites, Chrome saves me gobs of time compared to Firefox.
> Is your social dynamic interest-driven or is it friendship-driven? Are you going there because there's this place where other folks are really into anime, or is this the place you're going because it's where your pals from school are hanging out?
I believe those different groups are called "social circles", and Facebook started supporting the concept in 2011, after Google+ made it central to their interface. Facebook is the MEDIUM for different grugroups to communicate. Facebook is not the group.
Yes, it would be weird if every group gathered at the same physical location. It would not be weird if they all drove in cars to get there. Facebook isn't a physical space that crams everyone together. It's a method of getting to different groups a person belongs to.
Speaking of "no, idiot", sunlight IS radiation. As anyone who has ever had a sunburn knows, it's damaging radiation. Quite a bit more damaging than any radiation anyone has ever received from. US nuclear power plant, in fact.
According to TFA, both systems are on one breaker. Someone would need to check the manual to see which breaker. Either of us could do that in about ten minutes, I'd think.
This article repeats an error that bugs me in so many "whodunit" cases. Disabling the transponders would require flipping a circuit breaker, so whoever did so had "a high degree of technical knowledge", the article says. Really? Flipping a circuit breaker off is that hard? The piece must have been written by a Yankee.
I notice the same thing in other cases - the bad guy built a pipe bomb, so he must have had explosives training. He connected it to a clock, so he must be an expert in electronics. I have yet to see any of these "must have been trained" bad guys do anything I didn't do when I was twelve years old.
I'm wondering what happened to all the./ers who argued that Obama would NOT actively try to remove the US from its unique superpower position. All those who said "he doesn't dislike America, that's ridiculous. His wife misspoke when she said they've never been proud of their country."
ANY company or service can go away or change. That's why you keep a copy of the data, coordinates, etc. Then you can display that data with Google maps, openstreetmap, or a dozen other ways and you're not dependent on anyone.
If you keep a copy of your data, you don't need to decide based on one option having a 0.01% chance of going away versus another with a 0.02% chance.
My guess, as a security professional who could have been recruited for a three-letter agency, is that many of them are boiled frogs. There are technical challenges that smart geeks love, plus the whole hacker mystique, but you don't want to be criminal, so you go white-hat, hacking bin Ladin. That adds the whole "international spy" thing into it and maybe you help catch some really bad guys. That would be awesome, spying on al Qaeda. Hmm, if you expanded that technique you could catch a lot of bad guys. So you expand it to log calls to and from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. After a few years, you end up in a place you never would have knowingly sought to go.
The original FISA ruling was "because the court you're being sued in has NOT ordered you to keep them, that suit isn't justification to keep them".
Then, the federal district court did in fact order them to preserve the evidence. That's a fact, not a claim.
So FISA, consistent with its earlier order, now said "because the district court has ordered you to keep them, you should now do so."
There's no "claims" to it, the federal district court entered an order in open court. That order was discussed here on Slashdot a few days ago. The FISA court has simply acknowledged the fact that the district court so ordered.
The NSA hasn't been cancelled, or even had a major budget cut. Ergo clearly bad government programs and agencies continue. Has even one person responsible for that mess been fired?
"Temporary" programs designed to address conditions during the great depression continue to this day.
Of course you can also find ridiculous examples of programs that worked well being shut down. It doesn't appear that there is any logic to it.
That may not be a bad idea, even if you are doing the same work twice. A project that Google or Apple would spend $100M on could pay $75M to the loser and $130M to the winner and still come out better than the current system.
However, to make it worth doing for $150M, you'd need to seriously reduce the government paperwork and delays, the layers of approvals for little minor stuff. Where I work, a government agency, the budget specificity is maddening. The state approves $X million for new computers, I had to spend $4,800 on a new workstation even though the old one has 16GB of RAM, four monitors, etc. A few months later, my UPS battery went bad and needed a $25 replacement. It's been weeks and I'm still waiting for approval to replace the battery.
My colleague saved $30,000 on a project by pointing out we had already purchased the thing we were supposed to spend $30,000 on. This is a big problem, trying to figure out how to send that $30,000 to/dev/null. We can't spend it on things we need, like batteries, because it's not approved for that use.
It's not the the government is BAD, mkay. It's that the government is purposely designed for a specific role, with specific goals. The government is supposed to forcefully take from you, and spend about a third of your income. The government is responsible for bombing the correct people. Due to government's role, it's designed for justice, fairness, accountability to the public, etc. It's not designed to be efficient and effective. The North Korea government gets shit done - Lil Kim gives an order and it's done. We don't WANT our government to operate that way.
My company had North Korea style efficiency - when the founder and president made a decision, it was quickly carried out. In the US government, youneed ccongressional hearings in both houses of Congress before you make a decision. You also need to find out what the voters think. How about the AG and SCOTUS - are we even allowed to change the healthcare? There's a reason Hillary Care (aka Obamacare) took eight years while a corporation can change its health plan in a month, and that's as it should be. Good government is slow, deliberative government. Tyranny is fast and efficient.
So no, government isn't bad. I'd rather have government courts than private courts, because I want deliberative, fair courts that take their time. I wouldn't want government email - I want my email to be fast and reliable, and I don't need to vote on the UI, I can always switch clients or providers if the UI is really bad.
That is so true, in my experience also. Large companies have slow bureaucracies because they're large, and there's a lot of management overhead. The federal government is several orders of magnitude larger, and there's no incentive to succeed. Google is big, but Google employees know that if they don't get the job done , Apple and Microsoft will eat their lunch. If the federal bureau of whatever doesn't get the job done... nothing, they'll still be there next year. Add to that the extra layers and layers of paperwork and crap because it's taxpayer money...
We see examples on Slashdot all the time. Some government decided to build a fiber network. Ten years and a billion dollars later, it's still not working. Google takes over and six months later - happy customers.
Big companies are bureaucratic like an elephant is big. Government is bureaucratic like Jupiter is big.
I'm in exactly the same situation. We had a group plan with Blue Cross / Blue Shield of Texas. We spent a good amount of time shopping for a plan that fit our needs well, with the right coverage and the right deductible for us. In the last two years the cost has nearly doubled. I left the business I'd had for 17 years and am now working for a government agency related to security.
Just call Google and they'll take care of it. I called them the other day when an AUTHORISED purchase was charged to the wrong card. I wanted to switch the charge to a different CC. I had intended to pay with one card (mine), but Wallet had defaulted to another (my employer's). Google refunded it and suggested I pay them again after changing the account settings.
Of they'll refund an AUTHORISED charge I'm sure they'll handle an unauthorised charge.
Slashdot Mirror
There were plenty of people trying to take the place of MySpace. I assisted one such company. Only Facebook succeeded, beating not only MySpace but also all of the others trying to do the same thing. Clearly, Zuck did a lot of things right. In all likelihood, he must have been very good at hiring really good people, keeping them, and motivating them, along with leading them toward a unified vision.
Then Google spent a billion dollars or whatever trying to compete . With all of Google's resources - money, great engineers, captive eyeballs - they couldn't touch Facebook. They are obviously doing a lot of smart things.
The guy might be an asshole, I don't know. I'd bet he's obsessive, most people who are ridiculously successful in one area of their life get there by being obsessive about a goal. Most certainly, though, he achieved what thousands of other smart people couldn't.
"I worked at the school ... I work at the same university", you said. I guess that's the big difference - people got to know you while you were in college, and you've stuck close to those people who know you. I didn't stick in one circle - couldn't. I was working in cybersecurity and had to leave my entire circle of acquaintances behind when moral issues forced me to leave that sphere. I couldn't, in good conscience, work with those people anymore. (I'll let you decipher what that means.)
It's interesting that your story starts and ends at a university.
You asked what it's like to compete for a job. It fucking sucks to go from well-known (in the field) to "I hope to get an interview". A few years ago, people sometimes got excited when they heard it was me calling. After two years at the agency I work for now, the leadership has finally begun to notice me. This week may be very interesting in that regard. The last two years HAVE been a nice break from management, though.
I've experienced the same frustration. There are certain technical circles in which I am well known, yet when I decided to get an 8-5 I had a heck of a time because I left college to run my business. I eventually took a job making half as much as someone with my experience would normally make.*
Not long ago, my boss ask me to look over some resumes for an opening we have. Most of the resumes looked pretty similar. It's one page, after all, and they are all applying for the same position. Those that were different had positives and negatives, so they all "scored" about the same. How to decide who to call first? It felt like forensic science, trying to find some clue of who might be better among the pile of nearly identical resumes. A typo MIGHT hint that the person isn't as careful with their work. That seems silly, but those were the kind of clues we had to go on.
We interviewed a couple of people and it was similarly "tied" - both seemed like they would be a decent fit. Without actually knowing either of the candidates, we had to choose one based on the tiny bits of information we had. Compared to the tiny clues we were looking for, a degree vs. no degree would have been huge. It's not a great indicator, but it sure is better than any of the other differences between two otherwise good resumes.
To look at it another way, suppose you have ten resumes that look okay, ten that made it past the "obviously no" filter. You have to find some way to narrow it down by eliminating nine of the ten candidates. Four years of study and carrying a four year project to successful completion obviously helps narrow it down.
It's now time for me to get off Slashdot and get back to my studies. With 17 years of experience I don't want to be narrowed down for lack of a degree, so I'm getting my degree from WGU. The "final exam" for most courses is an industry-recognized certification exam, so I'll end up with a degree and about a dozen certifications.
* The "low paying" job turned out to be a blessing, due to working with wonderful people.
Under Reagan, tax revenue increased from $600 billion to $1 trillion. The assertion that Reagan slashed tax revenue is therefore ridiculous.
* note for the occupy crowd - trillion is more than billion.
Further, the Reagan deficits were a few billion.
The Obama deficits are a few trillion.
Clearly you learned your American history from comedy central. For example, federal revenue INCREASED under Reagan. Debt? Republicans racking up debt? Almost half the federal debt has was incurred under one president - Barak Obama. He overspent by as much as all other presidents combined for the previous 200 years.
Your conclusions would be sound if the "facts" you've based them on were true, but they aren't. Your factual basis is pure fiction.
TFA and TFS don't make it quite clear - would the SCHOOL lose eligibility, or a specific degree plan? If a student gets a degree in art history or women's studies that probably won't do much for their employment prospects, regardless of whether the school is good or not.
How well does that energy source work?
It sinks energy instead of sourcing it.
I'd say an energy source that doesn't source energy
doesn't "work well".
What?!?! Chrome developer tools beat the pants of Firebug, in my opinion. I install Firefox for non-developers, for people who consume content. For developing sites, Chrome saves me gobs of time compared to Firefox.
> Is your social dynamic interest-driven or is it friendship-driven? Are you going there because there's this place where other folks are really into anime, or is this the place you're going because it's where your pals from school are hanging out?
I believe those different groups are called "social circles", and Facebook started supporting the concept in 2011, after Google+ made it central to their interface. Facebook is the MEDIUM for different grugroups to communicate. Facebook is not the group.
Yes, it would be weird if every group gathered at the same physical location. It would not be weird if they all drove in cars to get there. Facebook isn't a physical space that crams everyone together. It's a method of getting to different groups a person belongs to.
Speaking of "no, idiot", sunlight IS radiation.
As anyone who has ever had a sunburn knows, it's damaging radiation. Quite a bit more damaging than any radiation anyone has ever received from. US nuclear power plant, in fact.
Your sarcasm is ironically correct. Only nature has fusion reactors, mankind is still trying to figure out how to build one.
Check the bugzilla and the security update the next day for full details on Firefox.
Poof http://www.escort-europe.com/S...
According to TFA, both systems are on one breaker. Someone would need to check the manual to see which breaker. Either of us could do that in about ten minutes, I'd think.
This article repeats an error that bugs me in so many "whodunit" cases. Disabling the transponders would require flipping a circuit breaker, so whoever did so had "a high degree of technical knowledge", the article says. Really? Flipping a circuit breaker off is that hard? The piece must have been written by a Yankee.
I notice the same thing in other cases - the bad guy built a pipe bomb, so he must have had explosives training. He connected it to a clock, so he must be an expert in electronics. I have yet to see any of these "must have been trained" bad guys do anything I didn't do when I was twelve years old.
I'm wondering what happened to all the ./ers who argued that Obama would NOT actively try to remove the US from its unique superpower position. All those who said "he doesn't dislike America, that's ridiculous. His wife misspoke when she said they've never been proud of their country."
ANY company or service can go away or change.
That's why you keep a copy of the data, coordinates, etc. Then you can display that data with Google maps, openstreetmap, or a dozen other ways and you're not dependent on anyone.
If you keep a copy of your data, you don't need to decide based on one option having a 0.01% chance of going away versus another with a 0.02% chance.
My guess, as a security professional who could have been recruited for a three-letter agency, is that many of them are boiled frogs. There are technical challenges that smart geeks love, plus the whole hacker mystique, but you don't want to be criminal, so you go white-hat, hacking bin Ladin. That adds the whole "international spy" thing into it and maybe you help catch some really bad guys. That would be awesome, spying on al Qaeda. Hmm, if you expanded that technique you could catch a lot of bad guys. So you expand it to log calls to and from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. After a few years, you end up in a place you never would have knowingly sought to go.
The original FISA ruling was "because the court you're being sued in has NOT ordered you to keep them, that suit isn't justification to keep them".
Then, the federal district court did in fact order them to preserve the evidence. That's a fact, not a claim.
So FISA, consistent with its earlier order, now said "because the district court has ordered you to keep them, you should now do so."
There's no "claims" to it, the federal district court entered an order in open court. That order was discussed here on Slashdot a few days ago. The FISA court has simply acknowledged the fact that the district court so ordered.
The NSA hasn't been cancelled, or even had a major budget cut. Ergo clearly bad government programs and agencies continue. Has even one person responsible for that mess been fired?
"Temporary" programs designed to address conditions during the great depression continue to this day.
Of course you can also find ridiculous examples of programs that worked well being shut down. It doesn't appear that there is any logic to it.
That may not be a bad idea, even if you are doing the same work twice. A project that Google or Apple would spend $100M on could pay $75M to the loser and $130M to the winner and still come out better than the current system.
However, to make it worth doing for $150M, you'd need to seriously reduce the government paperwork and delays, the layers of approvals for little minor stuff. Where I work, a government agency, the budget specificity is maddening. The state approves $X million for new computers, I had to spend $4,800 on a new workstation even though the old one has 16GB of RAM, four monitors, etc. A few months later, my UPS battery went bad and needed a $25 replacement. It's been weeks and I'm still waiting for approval to replace the battery.
My colleague saved $30,000 on a project by pointing out we had already purchased the thing we were supposed to spend $30,000 on. This is a big problem, trying to figure out how to send that $30,000 to /dev/null. We can't spend it on things we need, like batteries, because it's not approved for that use.
It's not the the government is BAD, mkay. It's that the government is purposely designed for a specific role, with specific goals. The government is supposed to forcefully take from you, and spend about a third of your income. The government is responsible for bombing the correct people. Due to government's role, it's designed for justice, fairness, accountability to the public, etc. It's not designed to be efficient and effective. The North Korea government gets shit done - Lil Kim gives an order and it's done. We don't WANT our government to operate that way.
My company had North Korea style efficiency - when the founder and president made a decision, it was quickly carried out. In the US government, youneed ccongressional hearings in both houses of Congress before you make a decision. You also need to find out what the voters think. How about the AG and SCOTUS - are we even allowed to change the healthcare? There's a reason Hillary Care (aka Obamacare) took eight years while a corporation can change its health plan in a month, and that's as it should be. Good government is slow, deliberative government. Tyranny is fast and efficient.
So no, government isn't bad. I'd rather have government courts than private courts, because I want deliberative, fair courts that take their time. I wouldn't want government email - I want my email to be fast and reliable, and I don't need to vote on the UI, I can always switch clients or providers if the UI is really bad.
That is so true, in my experience also. Large companies have slow bureaucracies because they're large, and there's a lot of management overhead. The federal government is several orders of magnitude larger, and there's no incentive to succeed. Google is big, but Google employees know that if they don't get the job done , Apple and Microsoft will eat their lunch. If the federal bureau of whatever doesn't get the job done ... nothing, they'll still be there next year. Add to that the extra layers and layers of paperwork and crap because it's taxpayer money ...
We see examples on Slashdot all the time. Some government decided to build a fiber network. Ten years and a billion dollars later, it's still not working. Google takes over and six months later - happy customers.
Big companies are bureaucratic like an elephant is big.
Government is bureaucratic like Jupiter is big.
I'm in exactly the same situation. We had a group plan with Blue Cross / Blue Shield of Texas. We spent a good amount of time shopping for a plan that fit our needs well, with the right coverage and the right deductible for us. In the last two years the cost has nearly doubled. I left the business I'd had for 17 years and am now working for a government agency related to security.
Just call Google and they'll take care of it. I called them the other day when an AUTHORISED purchase was charged to the wrong card. I wanted to switch the charge to a different CC. I had intended to pay with one card (mine), but Wallet had defaulted to another (my employer's). Google refunded it and suggested I pay them again after changing the account settings.
Of they'll refund an AUTHORISED charge I'm sure they'll handle an unauthorised charge.