Maybe this will mean that radio stations will have to be less predictable in order to compete?
Bah, what am I thinking, this will just mean that radio stations will now start suing Microsoft. (The ABA ought to award Microsoft a lifetime appreciation award.)
He wasn't actually thrown out. Priest interrupted him for a bit near the end to declare that DefCon didn't condone his actions, and then did so again just before the end of the time slot. In the meantime, you can be sure that the speaker was being hammered by various members of the crowd during the question period.
Incidentally, Priest indicated at the closing ceremony that the con would continue to host similar speakers in the future, regardless of differences between the con's beliefs and the speaker's.
I'm betting Google has already had mechanisms in place to deny service to networks and hosts that flood it with connections or requests for a long time.
So any network which had a high rate of MyDoom infection would quickly be denied service.
Which probably means every single major news organizations' networks. Sigh...
Thanks for the great screenshot
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
Here but for a fleeting moment, I was able to capture the hand of the Devil upon Slashdot's blasphemous discussion:
Whenever I sign up to a web site, or give my email address away to a company or mailing list, I almost always give an address of the form:
[name-of-company]@mydomain.com
For example, slashdot-at-keithtyler.com.
Then, if that email address turns out to be sold or used for spam purposes, I can block that source very reliably just by filtering out that particular inbound address.
I also have a semi-robust procmail recipe that adds the first part of the email address to the subject, for easy detection:
# ID all incoming messages by username
:0f * ^To:.*keithtyler.com { TO=`formail -xTo:| sed 's/ <*\([a-z0-9\_\-\.]*\)@keithtyler.com.*/\1/i'` :0f | sed "s/^Subject:/Subject: ->$TO<-/" }
The report claims that less than 3% of Q1 2004 jobs were lost to offshoring.
Oddly enough, the number of mass layoffs in '03 where no reason for the layoff was reported, a continually growing portion of the mass layoff data, has more than doubled in 2003 over 2002. And the 2003 numbers are not complete yet.
The number itself more than doubled in the five years between 1997 and 2002. It is the only continually increasing annual number in the available range of data. For 2003, this mysteriously unexplained portion accounts for 12.1% of the layoff data set; 2.5 times the portion it represented in the 2002 data and 3.5 the portion it represented in the 2001 data.
So why are corporations suddenly so much less willing to indicate why they are laying off workers? Could it be because the reasons are unsavory?
And don't forget, BLS data does not include layoff events of less than 50 people. Which itself is larger than some of the companies that I've worked for.
My point about Linux was that it's a Unix clone, it has some interesting design choices that make it easy to port, but hardly something "innovative".
Oh. Alright. (And btw, it was actually started as a clone of a clone [Minix]).
My apologies.
But after all, the source story was about the importance of America's alleged strength in innovation to the viability of its siphoning economy, so I was reading your post from that angle.
When I talk to CEOs about the career paths of the engineers in their companies, they say that many reach a career plateau very early, often after only five years. This happens not because of any technical deficiency, but because of a lack of "people" skills such as communication and teamwork. Moreover, engineers often come up short when they have to deal with people from different fields, such as manufacturing and marketing.
This does not explain why companies continue to only hire vertical engineers who have laundry lists of languages, technologies, and certs on their resumes, rather than horizontal engineers who are well-rounded and have better-than-average understanding of a wide range of industries and disciplines.
The whole statement that we need more "broader" technical talent is bullshit. It clearly has not been communicated down to the people in HR who are continually and consistently denying resumes because they haven't hit enough of the checkboxes on the acronym chart.
Corporations failed all through the 90s to truly harness and benefit from the diverse interests of broad-minded workers, instead fostering a stovepipe theory of corporate growth which in fact lowered the morale of broad-minded employees because the areas they were once able to branch out into (due to small-company necessity) were yanked from them in the name of territoriality.
If corporations think they need more broad-minded talent, they need to do two things (well three, but "get their head out of their ass" goes without saying): 1. Un-fuck the unenlightened roboticness of HR resume filtering, and 2. Actually create and promote positions that have broad domains.
I love the "Canadian healthcare kills people" argument. American HMO bureaucracy and denials of coverage (not just *delays*, but DENIALS) kill people too. So what's your fucking point? Or do we all need to sit here and throw isolated anecdotes at each other?
Our own government admits that Canadians have better health hopes than Americans:
America: Death rate: 8.44 deaths/1,000 population (2003 est.) Infant mortality rate: total: 6.75 deaths/1,000 live births Life expectancy at birth: total population: 77.14 years
Canada: Death rate: 7.61 deaths/1,000 population (2003 est.) Infant mortality rate: total: 4.88 deaths/1,000 live births Life expectancy at birth: total population: 79.83 years
They manage to beat us at every reasonably meaningful measurement of health and longevity, and they do it without privatization!
Though they don't leave more money in *your* pocket; and therefore, as a strategy of national interest, it fails.
Note: the above numbers are not isolated to well-off conservatives.
In the US, there's a really big wait, if your industry is being offshored/downsized/cost-cut/etc. and you can't find work or afford decent healthcare.
I mean, shit. The argument against universal health care seems to be that, in the American privatized model, if you're lucky enough to get a good deal, you're better off.
Can we be just a bit more holistic and less self-centered about our national policy, please?
Overall, health insurance (and pretty much any other insurance) is a complete scam. After all, in order for health insurance to work, the majority of people have to pay more for it than they actually use of it. Otherwise insurance companies would go broke overnight. The industry lives off of fear -- fear that you'll suddenly get sick and not be able to pay for the medical care to make you healthy again, for example. Lest healthy people wise up and decide not to bother with health insurance, it's in the health insurance's best interest to keep people afraid. (Hmm, parallels abound.)
Any country truly worried about keeping its people safe should be more than happy to cover the cost of maintaining it's people's health. We (i.e. our politicians) gleefully spend hundreds of billions of dollars on overseas wars in the name of keeping us "safe"; why can't we spend even so much as one tenth as much money on keeping us healthy?
I *knew* the rolling ball at Boston Museum of Science couldn't really be doing all those clangs, bells, and chimes! There must have been a squirrel inside the ball to keep it moving, and a drummer at a drum set hidden behind the back wall!
Not that a degree is necessarily going to get you everywhere (lots of people with degrees in the field are out of work lately), but it shows that you have breadth of experience, can learn well, can work relatively hard, and have experience working with others, expressing yourself, etc. (At one point, just having a degree -- in ANYTHING -- could get you a job -- in ANYTHING else. Annoyingly, I know people who are programmers who have degrees in such technologically relevant fields as FORESTRY.)
Anyway, a degree will also give you broader technological exposure than any path you focus on in a career path. You'll learn fundamental concepts that you won't likely pick up on the modern career path (like the concept of assembly language, or microprocessor operation, or how to determine the optimization of an algorithm, etc.)
ob.anecdote.amusing: A non-degreed co-worker who is a coder and former MS employee asked once what he would learn from a college degree that he wouldn't learn just from career experience.
So after converting all our GIFs to JPGs in the middle of the 90s, now that the other patent has expired, we'll be converting all our JPGs back to GIFs.
Would they have more to say than Mitnick? Almost for sure, yes.
Big deal. Quantity over quality?
What was the original poster saying? Oh yes. That Mitnick is too mainstream and has been out of the tech world for too long.
The point there? I dunno. Because any CIA/NSA person you could get to come to speak wouldn't be able to talk about anything that happened in about the last FIFTY YEARS.
"It sure was a hoot when we had them Krauts all a-flutter cause we'd convinced them they'd put too much mustard gas on their Frankfurt!"
Mitnick has, lets see: entertaining real-world anecdotes, first-hand experience of how social engineering is used in NON-MILITARY contexts, and useful ideas on how companies and organizations can prevent themselves from being socially engineered.
NOT things you can get from a Fed with the same or even greater level of experience.
(Best Mitnick speech evar: Defcon 2003, when he wasn't supposed to be speaking, but took over a badly flopping social engineering presentation.)
Slashdot Mirror
And here I thought /. was going to teach me how to attack people's minds via Wikipedia.
Maybe this will mean that radio stations will have to be less predictable in order to compete?
Bah, what am I thinking, this will just mean that radio stations will now start suing Microsoft. (The ABA ought to award Microsoft a lifetime appreciation award.)
He wasn't actually thrown out. Priest interrupted him for a bit near the end to declare that DefCon didn't condone his actions, and then did so again just before the end of the time slot. In the meantime, you can be sure that the speaker was being hammered by various members of the crowd during the question period.
Incidentally, Priest indicated at the closing ceremony that the con would continue to host similar speakers in the future, regardless of differences between the con's beliefs and the speaker's.
I'm betting Google has already had mechanisms in place to deny service to networks and hosts that flood it with connections or requests for a long time.
So any network which had a high rate of MyDoom infection would quickly be denied service.
Which probably means every single major news organizations' networks. Sigh...
Here but for a fleeting moment, I was able to capture the hand of the Devil upon Slashdot's blasphemous discussion:
http://www.keithtyler.com/gamewithgod.jpg
Whenever I sign up to a web site, or give my email address away to a company or mailing list, I almost always give an address of the form:
[name-of-company]@mydomain.com
For example, slashdot-at-keithtyler.com.
Then, if that email address turns out to be sold or used for spam purposes, I can block that source very reliably just by filtering out that particular inbound address.
I also have a semi-robust procmail recipe that adds the first part of the email address to the subject, for easy detection:
I should add that it's the first job I've had where this happened (though I got a 25% discount on net access when I worked for an ISP...)
The small software company I work for allows us to expense broadband and cell (though we are telecom related) up to a decent cap.
Pic
The report claims that less than 3% of Q1 2004 jobs were lost to offshoring.
Oddly enough, the number of mass layoffs in '03 where no reason for the layoff was reported, a continually growing portion of the mass layoff data, has more than doubled in 2003 over 2002. And the 2003 numbers are not complete yet.
The number itself more than doubled in the five years between 1997 and 2002. It is the only continually increasing annual number in the available range of data. For 2003, this mysteriously unexplained portion accounts for 12.1% of the layoff data set; 2.5 times the portion it represented in the 2002 data and 3.5 the portion it represented in the 2001 data.
So why are corporations suddenly so much less willing to indicate why they are laying off workers? Could it be because the reasons are unsavory?
And don't forget, BLS data does not include layoff events of less than 50 people. Which itself is larger than some of the companies that I've worked for.
My point about Linux was that it's a Unix clone, it has some interesting design choices that make it easy to port, but hardly something "innovative".
Oh. Alright. (And btw, it was actually started as a clone of a clone [Minix]).
My apologies.
But after all, the source story was about the importance of America's alleged strength in innovation to the viability of its siphoning economy, so I was reading your post from that angle.
Linux isn't an example either (firstly it's non-commercial, second it's a rewrite of Unix - the change is more social than technical).
And it was started by a Finnish-born Swede and undoubtedly most of the work on it historically and currently is non-American.
I guess the browser is THE standout example - now how long did it take for that to become a commodity item?
The WWW was created by a Brit while working in Switzerland. The Web didn't have American presence until a few months later.
Oh, and the extent of its innovativeness is arguable, given the existence of Gopher.
...will wearers of these glasses, with center-mounted camera, start to contract Optigrab syndrome?
When I talk to CEOs about the career paths of the engineers in their companies, they say that many reach a career plateau very early, often after only five years. This happens not because of any technical deficiency, but because of a lack of "people" skills such as communication and teamwork. Moreover, engineers often come up short when they have to deal with people from different fields, such as manufacturing and marketing.
This does not explain why companies continue to only hire vertical engineers who have laundry lists of languages, technologies, and certs on their resumes, rather than horizontal engineers who are well-rounded and have better-than-average understanding of a wide range of industries and disciplines.
The whole statement that we need more "broader" technical talent is bullshit. It clearly has not been communicated down to the people in HR who are continually and consistently denying resumes because they haven't hit enough of the checkboxes on the acronym chart.
Corporations failed all through the 90s to truly harness and benefit from the diverse interests of broad-minded workers, instead fostering a stovepipe theory of corporate growth which in fact lowered the morale of broad-minded employees because the areas they were once able to branch out into (due to small-company necessity) were yanked from them in the name of territoriality.
If corporations think they need more broad-minded talent, they need to do two things (well three, but "get their head out of their ass" goes without saying): 1. Un-fuck the unenlightened roboticness of HR resume filtering, and 2. Actually create and promote positions that have broad domains.
I love the "Canadian healthcare kills people" argument. American HMO bureaucracy and denials of coverage (not just *delays*, but DENIALS) kill people too. So what's your fucking point? Or do we all need to sit here and throw isolated anecdotes at each other?
Our own government admits that Canadians have better health hopes than Americans:
America:
Death rate:
8.44 deaths/1,000 population (2003 est.)
Infant mortality rate:
total: 6.75 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 77.14 years
Canada:
Death rate:
7.61 deaths/1,000 population (2003 est.)
Infant mortality rate:
total: 4.88 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 79.83 years
They manage to beat us at every reasonably meaningful measurement of health and longevity, and they do it without privatization!
Though they don't leave more money in *your* pocket; and therefore, as a strategy of national interest, it fails.
Note: the above numbers are not isolated to well-off conservatives.
In the US, there would be no such wait
In the US, there's a really big wait, if your industry is being offshored/downsized/cost-cut/etc. and you can't find work or afford decent healthcare.
I mean, shit. The argument against universal health care seems to be that, in the American privatized model, if you're lucky enough to get a good deal, you're better off.
Can we be just a bit more holistic and less self-centered about our national policy, please?
Overall, health insurance (and pretty much any other insurance) is a complete scam. After all, in order for health insurance to work, the majority of people have to pay more for it than they actually use of it. Otherwise insurance companies would go broke overnight. The industry lives off of fear -- fear that you'll suddenly get sick and not be able to pay for the medical care to make you healthy again, for example. Lest healthy people wise up and decide not to bother with health insurance, it's in the health insurance's best interest to keep people afraid. (Hmm, parallels abound.)
Any country truly worried about keeping its people safe should be more than happy to cover the cost of maintaining it's people's health. We (i.e. our politicians) gleefully spend hundreds of billions of dollars on overseas wars in the name of keeping us "safe"; why can't we spend even so much as one tenth as much money on keeping us healthy?
Canadians are much better respected globally than Americans for whatever reason.
Some theories have it that it's because Canada doesn't send its bombers and spies into their countries in order to impose their control over them.
But yes, I've also seen advertisements for Canadian passports for Americans traveling abroad.
I, for one, would much rather be bombarded with your Rush than with our Rush.
Just make sure that you don't open your prize-winning Coke indoors.
I *knew* the rolling ball at Boston Museum of Science couldn't really be doing all those clangs, bells, and chimes! There must have been a squirrel inside the ball to keep it moving, and a drummer at a drum set hidden behind the back wall!
because none of the mp3.com bands that I can still remember come up in a search on garageband.com.
Not that a degree is necessarily going to get you everywhere (lots of people with degrees in the field are out of work lately), but it shows that you have breadth of experience, can learn well, can work relatively hard, and have experience working with others, expressing yourself, etc. (At one point, just having a degree -- in ANYTHING -- could get you a job -- in ANYTHING else. Annoyingly, I know people who are programmers who have degrees in such technologically relevant fields as FORESTRY.)
Anyway, a degree will also give you broader technological exposure than any path you focus on in a career path. You'll learn fundamental concepts that you won't likely pick up on the modern career path (like the concept of assembly language, or microprocessor operation, or how to determine the optimization of an algorithm, etc.)
ob.anecdote.amusing:
A non-degreed co-worker who is a coder and former MS employee asked once what he would learn from a college degree that he wouldn't learn just from career experience.
I responded, "OSes other than Windows."
So after converting all our GIFs to JPGs in the middle of the 90s, now that the other patent has expired, we'll be converting all our JPGs back to GIFs.
Would they have more to say than Mitnick? Almost for sure, yes.
Big deal. Quantity over quality?
What was the original poster saying? Oh yes. That Mitnick is too mainstream and has been out of the tech world for too long.
The point there? I dunno. Because any CIA/NSA person you could get to come to speak wouldn't be able to talk about anything that happened in about the last FIFTY YEARS.
"It sure was a hoot when we had them Krauts all a-flutter cause we'd convinced them they'd put too much mustard gas on their Frankfurt!"
Mitnick has, lets see: entertaining real-world anecdotes, first-hand experience of how social engineering is used in NON-MILITARY contexts, and useful ideas on how companies and organizations can prevent themselves from being socially engineered.
NOT things you can get from a Fed with the same or even greater level of experience.
(Best Mitnick speech evar: Defcon 2003, when he wasn't supposed to be speaking, but took over a badly flopping social engineering presentation.)