Isn't that essentially what the Business Software Alliance does today? They launder "anonymous" tips that woudln't pass muster before a judge. Then the BSA passes that muster as a reputable organization.
Search Warrents are issued and premises are invaded.
Pretty much illegal search and seizure, laundered through the "respecitable source" of the BSA without regard to the legitimacy of the original claims.
So there I was, presenting my proposal to the board when Microsoft Automatic Update kicked in. Id didn't so much as pop up a bubble-box notice. The interractive graphics ground to a halt and then the computer rebooted three times.
There was nothing I could do, and I couldn't explain it away because it was all happening in the background. They thought my general design was bad.
Fortunately it happened exactly the same way to the next three presenters, so I didn't lose my job.
Unfortunately the last guy got the bid, he'd still been working on his presentation via 802.11z in the back of the hall, so he was all patched up before it was his turn.
So what if it was only half-visualized demo-ware. His "worked" and mine "didn't"...
===
Don't think it will happen? Think I am just paranoid?
Think again.
"What can we do to your time-critical work-flow today?" -- New Microsoft marketing slogan.
Actually, (legally) one *CAN* *NOT* "steal" a credit card number unless one stole the card itself.
The "theft" happens when the number is used to *STEAL* the money. In that latter case, the thing being stolen is the money, because the rightful owner of the money is deprived of its use.
The fact that your local news uses common words to talk to their audience (which they presume to be filled with fifth-grade-at-most educated cretins 8-) dosn't make those words correct.
When one copies music or movies (etc) one is not depriving the "owner" of anything, so it isn't theft. Period. If they (the copyright holders et al) could *prove* that you would have bought if you didn't get for free, then the case might be made for some sort of economic undermining, but barring that, the words don't legally apply.
That is why persons are charged with "copyright *infringement*" and not "theft."
The slippery slope (probably) started with the idea of "theft of service" with respect to cable TV. This case is incredibly nit-picky and actually should have had other words applied to it. (You are reducing the signal strength of the network by your use... hmm... still seems weak for "theft" 8-)
Several, perhaps many, of the technologies in use and being developed by copyright holders have no impact on the ability to copy content, instead they controll post-acquisition use of legitimately acquired copies. A primary example is the Content Control System used in DVDs, which plays no role in the prevention of replication (you can copy the "encoded" dvd stream without paying any attention to the CCS encoding and then use the illegitimate copy equally with the original, hence it is not a copy control) but does encumber the usage of the original, restricting its use to "approved" players and platforms.
These technologies, which constrain the means used to access the legitimately acquired content, seem to assert and constitute a new "accessright" that copyright holders are asserting (post-distribution) over their customers. In the book-on-paper sense, this is equavilant to selling books that can only be read under "specially crafted red lights" and then perssuring lamp manufacturers and the government to prevent persons from selling "common red lights".
Further, "anti priracy" legislation, such as the DMCA is being drafted and enforced in such a way as to presume the validity of this new "accessright" and punish persons and entities that are preceived to infringe same.
What grounds exist to support the copyright holders assertion of their right to control how a legitimately produced and purchased copy is subsiquently accessed by an individual? Is this different than the existing constraints on commercial use? (e.g. videos have been labeled as "not for comercial performance" etc as a matter of accepted practice and constraint for years.)
The technologies like CCS are, to date, incapable of understanding the different types of use, what precident allows the copyright holder to presume control of the means of use (access), apparently on the grounds of "having provided plenty of means for non-infringing use"?
At what point, if any, is the government planning to protect individual accessright and/or limit this form prior restraint?
The real question is how wo would end up on the commity which determines whether Microsoft is "conforming" and how "bribable" they are.
A good strong law that says "the government shall not store any data in any format that is not *completely* accessible via an open standard, and shall be enjoined from purchasing or using products that do not directly and naturally favor the open and publically defined means of storage, unless no such open product does exist..." make sense.
Penalty taxes dont.
Microsoft and similar have rat-ba^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers and marketroids who *live* to be so constrained so that when they are ruled "compliant" by whatever means they are then validated that ".doc format is as open a standard as can be, see where this government body said so"
etc. od nausium, ahmen... 8-)
Re:Young coders have no life
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 0
oh! oh! oh! that's me!... ok, moment in the sun over....
Do I really want to encourage my boss to promise we will deliver this this protocol in java too, just so nobody will be tempted to reverse eng.... {wanders back into obscurity, mumbling incoherently}
I taught myself to program at 12 (didn't even have access to a computer until I was more like 16). By your analogy I am that child prodigy grown full up.
That has no impact on the fact that now that I am nearly 39 so I will be laughed off as too old for the biz.
So it has nothing to do with the initial age, it has everything to do with the current age.
By your late thirties you are preceived as too old. Or perhaps a late starter. Or perhaps just about ready to burn out. Or two expensive. Or god knows what.
Quite frankly, unless you know somebody, you arn't going to get the job.
In point of fact a lot of people my age from my field *did* burn out. A good number more have become so set in their ways about various things to be nearly unemployable. That would be true of any field.
I, myself, just single-handedly wrote the thing my current company is betting its future on. I can think of several DC area government contractors that totally missed out me because I was old enough to have opinions and know my shite, and they were looking for a young buck they could mould into a fekless government contracting drone.
Part of the problem is that we (IT and CompSci people) have been burdened with mystique: Young is pretty, sexy, better, and more filling. It's not that different than the mystique of almost anything that hit its stride after 1978. The Mtv generation was not supposed to get old you know, so everyone associated with such things must be replaced with a new young buck every three years.
The core hidden message seeping into HR drones everywhere is simply this: Nobody much had experience in this new tech when it was new, and it did just fine, and that five year old has mastered WinDoze better than I ever will, so clearly experience has no value in computers.
So when the fly-by-wire car is finally released, "blue screen of death" will have the meaning we all expect, and we can point at some highschool student as the father of the automobile accident...
I think the U.S.A. Assimilation Progrom goes a long way towards explaining why China is planning (or at least trying for) a perminant human habitation on the Moon by 2016.
If the USA doesn't get thre first some of those nasty {politically useful racial epithet}'s will escape!
Interestingly this becomes a race for starvation. As soon as the black-hat realizes, and he will (thanks slashdot! 8-), that one of the URLs has been "infected" with the counter agent, he will make the counter-counteragent...
Comming soon: the black-hat update that removes the white-hat counter-agent site from the list of update sites in the virus, posted to one-or-more of the update sites.
It will be interesting to see which starves out first, and to what degree. The number of infected computers or the number of hits on the counter-agent site.
Quick Note: (not to reply to one's own post... 8-)
I use "employee" in the above, not in the technical sense where an employee is different than a contractor or a consultant. By "employee" I mean the generic someone being paid to do something.
Those rules apply no matter what the nature of your employment or the type of company involved. Email is eaiser when you work in computers instead of clean carpets, but the principles are unchanged.
Stratigic errors are invariably traced back to moments when the group/project changed direction. The small daily things are just that, small, they are dealt with and things carry on. Tactical mistakes on Tactical issues are just the day to day part.
One of the most important pieces of information being bought by anybody employing anyone for any purpose is the employee's "list of known bad things."
Pointers:
0) TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for EVERY MISTAKE YOU MAKE. Don't make a bid deal over them, don't "fall on your sword" just say "my bad" and move on. Hell take the casual fall for others if necessary to get the repairs started. To the greatest extent, who is at fault is the last thing that matters once the mistake is out. Most people have already decided anyway and almost everybody almost always knows the exact truth before the showdown anyway. As long as enough was learned to prevent a repeat, the issue is over.
1) Teling your boss "no" is your most sacroscant duty, but it should be approached the way you would tell him his fly is down (or there is toilet paper hanging out of her skirt band.) That is TACT and URGENCY are at war. A timly rescue of face in an emergency is more important than tact and will be remembered positively; but in the absence of extreme pressure, being less-than-tactful will be remembered negatively.
2) Know the difference between the stratigic and the tactical, NEVER let a issue or mistake you know is stratgic get treated as a tactical issue. "I didn't think it would matter this much" is the lament of the under informed. "I could have told you it would" is the response of the guy who most needs to be fired. 8-)
3) State your position as a recommendataion, especially if your boss is well invested in ego games. "I would reccomend against because..."
4) The next step is to banish "ok, but..." assume any positive assertion will be processed only up until the "but" and that the but, and all the following words will be. "We could do that but it will have problems when..." will feel like a vote in favor.
5) Learn the prefix phrase "I have no informed opinion", stress the "informed" as necessary. This phrase will, up front and attached to what you really want to say, easily and professionally presage that you would be guessing, are willing to guess, or not willing to guess about. Advice given in known ignorance is not a crime, it's a sin...
6) Finally, be willing to be out voted or overruled, and never let the fact that you were so overruled or outvoted color your ego or implementation. Presume there are factors you may not know or have control over and be part of the team once the team moves.
Many people suggest getting everything in writing. Don't do that. Just get the important things in writing. It's only important to get things into the record at whatever level "the record" belongs. Overstressing the "I want it in writing" vibe makes you look either weak willed or un-trustworthy. Depending on the type and nature of the circumstance being discussed there are lots of ways to get on the record. (for instance... 8-)
1) Get it in writing as a direct order if you must.
2) Send it in email with a request for confirmation or clarification.
3) Send an "unless otherwise directed" email. (especially when others are unwilling to make any decision at all, time is being wasted, and you know there is no inescapable harm. Fait Acompli can be outstanding mojo.)
4) (in casual company on minor matters where the relationship is good) just say "I reserve the right to laugh at everybody when the thing catches fire." (but don't over use this unless it's family 8-)
(The secret evil thing most people forget, if you bother to get it into the preminant record, *keep* a copy of that record somwhere you control, don't just leave it on the corporate email server... 8-)
In short, the three greatest failures in an employee of any sort are:
-- Failure to speak, to risk speaking, when others are in danger. -- Failure to act when direction has been set. -- Failure to balance both tact and urgency in any assessment.
Which is why I frequently say that anybody who goes on and on about what an "imporvement" it was for pyton to use whitespace as the block grouping indicator should be commited to at least ten years in RPG hell.
Most haxors think this is a fiirst-person-shooter reference.
"Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to roll it out at the next trade show as a fully authorized microsoft partner..." -- me.
The Python conformant version uses the single non-whitespace character "}" as a grouping construct. They *insist* it simplifies the language because whitespace should only be used for program text...
Seriously, it looks parsable. This just made the Lives of the NSA people incrediblly more interesting.
(This message may or may not compute a palemset............ 8-)
You may not be aware of this, but the UMCS has strict guidelines for what must be used as the dependent clause of any statement containing the phrase "about the size of".
Because (US)Americans are particularly dense and limited in their appreciation of the world at large, the USUMCS is particularly restricted.
Geographical areas can only be described as about the size of: 1) Texas (the "largest" US state*) 2) Rhodeisland (the "smallest" US state) 3) Manhatan island (**)
For any item that moves, flies, or can be thrown: 1) The VW Bug (+) 2) A battleship (++) 3) An aircraft carrier (+++)
If it is a "weather object" or a part of the human anatomy: 1) a golfball 2) a softball 3) a grapefruit (&) 4) a mellon (&&)
(* In fact Alaska is larger than Texas, but since that "largness" involves lots of separate parts [islands] and unreal areas [ocean bits] the US Public School education doesn't prepare the populous well enough to use Alaska as a USUMCS referrent.)
(** sorry, can't spell it, but I live on the west coast now so, like everyone else not on the east coast, I don't really beleive it exists...)
(+ A VW bug is "cute" so everybody knows how big it is. We could also use something like "a kitten" but the idea of a kitten plummeting through the outer dark of space to burn up on reentry and explode over Kansas is too disturbing to be allowd on TV)
(++ Most people have never seen a battleship, but because they have seen the *game* battlship they know a battle ship is 3/5ths the size of an aircraft carrier because it takes three pegs and an aircraft carrier takes five. And three pegs is a hell of a lot, heck a VW bug cant even hold one peg!)
=== Side note: people who actually know about battleships and talk to other people, will often make reference to the fact that the big guns fire really big rounds. That act, in accordance with the Universal Military Comparison System [this UMCS is not to be convused with that UMCS], is routinely described as "tossing a VW bug across several miles of ocean" etc. ===
(+++ Every body has seen aricraft carriers on TV and knows they are at least twice as large as a battleship. Recursively applied everything is either infinitely large or infinitely small dependig on hol long ago the person last played the game battleship and on how big their TV set is.)
(& Grapefruit is used because every person who needs to use the UMCS has picked up a grapefrut and noticed how dissimilar it is to a grape, which is a fruit, and the irony is fixed in their head.)
(&& the UMCS [Universal Mellon Comparison System] dictates that all mellons, reguardless of pedegree or growth environment, are the same size.)
This was on "Night Flight" exactly once. It was a mixed-languaged (half english half french) thing from the some major canadian film school/university.
It was odd. It was surreal. And for about half an hour after watching it I could speak french...
And I wasn't stoned or nothing...
ASIDE: do you remember "Night Flight" from back in the last days before the all-night infomercial?
Actually, no, I don't think they would have been likely to do the printf you suggest and then jump to the same conclusion.
The point you missed is that they, through the IDEs permiscuous display of "all" the values in scope at the time. A debugging printf of X would likely have happened, but the "Y" came from a casual look for the "5" (the value) and there is no print_every_variable_name_whos_current_value_match es_F() function call they could have used.
They would have had to think about the variables and pick which ones to display.
In short they would have had to ask "Why" instead of just "What."
I amd "seriously suggesting" that in the several years that I worked at a university I have personally witnessed students write some of the worst code on the planet. Code that would never have made it *near* CPU's exection unit if not for an IDE.
Actual Quote: Student 1: This isn't right. Student 2: Check the debugger. Student 1: X should be 5. Student 2: hmm, oh look, Y is 5... Student 1: (adds line "X = Y;") "good catch."
Now in the actual conversation "X" and "Y" were longer variable names that described their apparent purposes. X and Y were not related beyond ther presence as global variables in the same program.
This is not an exageration.
I also regularly just poked around on the lab hard disks when I was bored.
IDEs *DO* *MAKE* *BAD* *PROGRAMMERS* because they relieve the requirement that the neophite really understand the static state of their logic before they start hacking (classic definiton of "hack" here).
This "any trash that works" mentality is not what I want to be the primary technique of the guy writing my new fly-by-wire car's OS.
This is the difference between a "lab technician" and "scientist" or between a "carpenter" and an "architect". You need both, but only those qualified to design/plan should be allowed too.
Too much "practice" with insufficent "theory" to back it up ruins, or at least grotesquely limits, a practitioner. The earilier the corruption the more difficult it is to overcome.
Most of these comments do not particularly apply to "the web" as, in my mind, a web browser is just another interface surface (like a printer or a live screen) and the IO parts of a program are only the surface.
During the construction of a program I almost always end up writing a test harness for each significant module. Where possible I like to include the test harness inside the library for that module.
I then, when assembling the final product, do compile time control of whether the target application does, or does not, have the hooks to branch into the test harnesses. When an application ehxibits an error that doesn't have a clear source origin I switch to the "debugging version" of a product and that brings in a fully-featured set of back doors and hacks. Clearly the dubugging version is not suitable for production.
That having been said.
A certian lazyness on the part of the developers combined with a sloppy mind set being promulgated by the "I can drag and I can drop so I am a programmer" school of language-constructors, debuggers, and IDEs, has led to a plague of escaped code.
A primary example of these escapes are "cheat codes" in games. Now days, you can't even expect to sell a game at all unless it is rife with cehat codes you can include in the book. These are the "send a message to all from the console saying "I Am Rich" and you will get $100,000 credits at the start of your next (event)" things. They clearly exist so that the developers can go in and exercise the extreme limits of their design but then they are never disabled later for the production release.
This is dumb and annoying in games. In "real" applications this is potentially catostrophic.
But the "whats good for bob is goog dor ted" mentality causes the cheating haxor kiddies, who have seen these back channels as required parts of every program they have used growing up (e.g. the games) and now somehow think such things *BELONG* in code.
Any culture that teaches kids to just use the cheats (the cheat codes are even commonly printed in the manuals now, and then *explained* in detail in the walkthrough & cheat book you can buy seperately) and that any program without those cheats is probably trash, should not be surprised that when those kids enter the workforce they will, as a matter of self-pride include such things in the code they then write.
(Example: my room mate is 12 years younger than I. He can't function in a game, or at least "can't enjoy" a game, unless he has got the FAQ and walkthrough around "just in case." What has he learned from life about "working it out himself?" and what should that teach the rest of us?)
Test harnesses are necessary for development.
They should be expunged from production code.
Programmers should *know* *how* to write code that doesn't change core behavior when you take out the test harnesses.
Games and toys should not be an exception as that sets bad habbits.
As always, use the wrong tool, get a cruddy result.
On the other hand, if you go around calling yourself a "scripter" instead of a "programmer" you get what you diserve.
I am a programmer. I program in many different languages. Some better than others. If someone gives me a task I do a quick analysis and pick the right language. If there is someone better suited to the task or language, I pawn the problem off on them.
If someone *only* knows how to script I do consider them lower on the programming food chain. The typical "scripter" doesn't necessarily understand the cost of their solutions. A (properly trained/talented) programmer usually does. (If he doesn't he isn't properly trained.)
(If your only language is Visual Basic, you need not apply, you are "a dragger and a dropper". 8-)
On the other hand there are many reasons that a job that could be done in perl in a few hours might be better given to a C++ developer for a few days. For example, if I am sending this code out into the wild where I know nosy system admins or web weasels might edit the code but then call me for support, they are getting a bound executable, period.
Similarly, I will not give to a perl "scripter" a program that I know can be written in three lines of bash because they *WILL* write it in perl no matter what.
"To a man with only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." -- know the aphorisim, live the aphorisim, be the aphorisim...
Nuclear DNA is only part of the story. If the eggs are not from a direct female descendent of the original mother then all the other DNA would be different.
Yes, I said it, "other DNA". The mitocondrial (sp?) DNA and the RNA in all those tidbits floating around in a cell do things too.
Go look up things like the two-headed fly. Chemicals in-utero affect development a lot.
Barring a replicator (a la Star Trek) cloning won't make anything close to *exact* copies.
Several things are different between the license plate, the actual VIN, and having a series of RFID tags put in your tires.
1) The official nmbers are issued and controlled by an official process, not my local mechanic.
2) The tag number and VIN are singular to their purposes. That is, there aren't five and more of these numbers to each veichle at the same time.
3) They (the real numbers) don't transfer between vheciles wihtout official process.
4) They (the real numbers) don't broadcast information beyond line of sight. (This is significant for the same reasons that [legally] "you can not trespass with the eyes" because seeing and being seen are orthogonal operations. If you don't understand this, consider that you can photograph or video people wihtout sound, in public, for any legal purpose, but recording sound or radio is verboten.)
5) RFID tags are actively/electrically "interrogated" and that interrogative action begs to be tied into a larger system.
6) Who will control the concordance of these comercial numbers with the governmental information?
7) Who will see that old or inaccurate information is properly expurgated? (When I take my license plates from the DMV it starts a chain of possession with clear boundries and requirements. If my plates are stolen, there is a clear means to propigate that chain of information. If I recycle my tires when I buy a new set, and Clem "recycles" them by putting them on his trans-am, how do I know and what are my options to separate him from me?
8) "everyone knows" they have license plates and a VIN. How many people will know "automatically" that they are being tracked by their tires?
9) What if the installer transposes the numbers while recording the numbers when installing your tires and now you are the infamous burglar or child molester down the block?
In short, being arbitrarily branded with numbers that will be broadcast in response to all sorts of random queries by unlimited numbers of people is A BAD IDEA.
If you car is "suddenly" equipt with five (don't forget the spare) transmitters that each broadcast a unique serial number in response to a promiscuously broadcasted request, well, that is "bad" from a privacy standpoint.
Now associate those numbers with your VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) which uniquely identifies your car.
Your VIN is already connected to things like your name, address, insurance carrier and so on.
So now you are driving down a street and any number of automated systems can know it is you (well, your car at least). So you have essentially been tagged like a spring buck.
Worse, but more interesting, a well equipt "ring" of duck-and-squat or similar con artists can now "interview" your car to see if you've got good rip-off potential.
Authorities can target and track you. Who needs racial profiling? The cop is asleep in his car when an alarm goes off to tell him someone meeting his favorite criteria is driving by. How about "that car is owned by a white person" listing getting your black roomate killed for borrowing your car?
Far worse than that, the piece in question is easily accessable.
If systems (toll booths etc?) start using this data for any purpose then I could "swap out" one of your tires and drive around "as you", possibly for days. When was the last time you *really* looked at your passenger side rear wheel? How about your spare?
In even legitimate cases ("Sure Clem, you can borrow my snow tires for the weekend...") of transfer you could become identity-entangled with who knows what...
Look at complaining to FTC.gov (obviously if you are a US citizen only 8-). Go to "Consumer Protection" and there are several forms that may apply. The FTC can really work. Yahoo is big business and involved in stealing your money (those messages use up your money or your minutes etc.) so it is Trade Comission business.
My roommate ended up costing Bank Of America a $60,000(US) fine for holding a certified check.
There are petty buraucrats out there waiting to help...
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that essentially what the Business Software Alliance does today? They launder "anonymous" tips that woudln't pass muster before a judge. Then the BSA passes that muster as a reputable organization.
Search Warrents are issued and premises are invaded.
Pretty much illegal search and seizure, laundered through the "respecitable source" of the BSA without regard to the legitimacy of the original claims.
So there I was, presenting my proposal to the board when Microsoft Automatic Update kicked in. Id didn't so much as pop up a bubble-box notice. The interractive graphics ground to a halt and then the computer rebooted three times.
There was nothing I could do, and I couldn't explain it away because it was all happening in the background. They thought my general design was bad.
Fortunately it happened exactly the same way to the next three presenters, so I didn't lose my job.
Unfortunately the last guy got the bid, he'd still been working on his presentation via 802.11z in the back of the hall, so he was all patched up before it was his turn.
So what if it was only half-visualized demo-ware. His "worked" and mine "didn't"...
===
Don't think it will happen? Think I am just paranoid?
Think again.
"What can we do to your time-critical work-flow today?" -- New Microsoft marketing slogan.
not to follow up one's onw post, but I really do know how to spell creation... 8-)
Actually, (legally) one *CAN* *NOT* "steal" a credit card number unless one stole the card itself.
The "theft" happens when the number is used to *STEAL* the money. In that latter case, the thing being stolen is the money, because the rightful owner of the money is deprived of its use.
The fact that your local news uses common words to talk to their audience (which they presume to be filled with fifth-grade-at-most educated cretins 8-) dosn't make those words correct.
When one copies music or movies (etc) one is not depriving the "owner" of anything, so it isn't theft. Period. If they (the copyright holders et al) could *prove* that you would have bought if you didn't get for free, then the case might be made for some sort of economic undermining, but barring that, the words don't legally apply.
That is why persons are charged with "copyright *infringement*" and not "theft."
The slippery slope (probably) started with the idea of "theft of service" with respect to cable TV. This case is incredibly nit-picky and actually should have had other words applied to it. (You are reducing the signal strength of the network by your use... hmm... still seems weak for "theft" 8-)
IANAL
Several, perhaps many, of the technologies in use and being developed by copyright holders have no impact on the ability to copy content, instead they controll post-acquisition use of legitimately acquired copies. A primary example is the Content Control System used in DVDs, which plays no role in the prevention of replication (you can copy the "encoded" dvd stream without paying any attention to the CCS encoding and then use the illegitimate copy equally with the original, hence it is not a copy control) but does encumber the usage of the original, restricting its use to "approved" players and platforms.
These technologies, which constrain the means used to access the legitimately acquired content, seem to assert and constitute a new "accessright" that copyright holders are asserting (post-distribution) over their customers. In the book-on-paper sense, this is equavilant to selling books that can only be read under "specially crafted red lights" and then perssuring lamp manufacturers and the government to prevent persons from selling "common red lights".
Further, "anti priracy" legislation, such as the DMCA is being drafted and enforced in such a way as to presume the validity of this new "accessright" and punish persons and entities that are preceived to infringe same.
What grounds exist to support the copyright holders assertion of their right to control how a legitimately produced and purchased copy is subsiquently accessed by an individual? Is this different than the existing constraints on commercial use? (e.g. videos have been labeled as "not for comercial performance" etc as a matter of accepted practice and constraint for years.)
The technologies like CCS are, to date, incapable of understanding the different types of use, what precident allows the copyright holder to presume control of the means of use (access), apparently on the grounds of "having provided plenty of means for non-infringing use"?
At what point, if any, is the government planning to protect individual accessright and/or limit this form prior restraint?
The real question is how wo would end up on the commity which determines whether Microsoft is
"conforming" and how "bribable" they are.
A good strong law that says "the government shall not store any data in any format that is not *completely* accessible via an open standard, and shall be enjoined from purchasing or using products that do not directly and naturally favor the open and publically defined means of storage, unless no such open product does exist..." make sense.
Penalty taxes dont.
Microsoft and similar have rat-ba^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers and marketroids who *live* to be so constrained so that when they are ruled "compliant" by whatever means they are then validated that ".doc format is as open a standard as can be, see where this government body said so"
etc. od nausium, ahmen... 8-)
oh! oh! oh! that's me! ... ok, moment in the sun over ....
Do I really want to encourage my boss to promise we will deliver this this protocol in java too, just so nobody will be tempted to reverse eng.... {wanders back into obscurity, mumbling incoherently}
I taught myself to program at 12 (didn't even have access to a computer until I was more like 16). By your analogy I am that child prodigy grown full up.
That has no impact on the fact that now that I am nearly 39 so I will be laughed off as too old for the biz.
So it has nothing to do with the initial age, it has everything to do with the current age.
By your late thirties you are preceived as too old. Or perhaps a late starter. Or perhaps just about ready to burn out. Or two expensive. Or god knows what.
Quite frankly, unless you know somebody, you arn't going to get the job.
In point of fact a lot of people my age from my field *did* burn out. A good number more have become so set in their ways about various things to be nearly unemployable. That would be true of any field.
I, myself, just single-handedly wrote the thing my current company is betting its future on. I can think of several DC area government contractors that totally missed out me because I was old enough to have opinions and know my shite, and they were looking for a young buck they could mould into a fekless government contracting drone.
Part of the problem is that we (IT and CompSci people) have been burdened with mystique: Young is pretty, sexy, better, and more filling. It's not that different than the mystique of almost anything that hit its stride after 1978. The Mtv generation was not supposed to get old you know, so everyone associated with such things must be replaced with a new young buck every three years.
The core hidden message seeping into HR drones everywhere is simply this: Nobody much had experience in this new tech when it was new, and it did just fine, and that five year old has mastered WinDoze better than I ever will, so clearly experience has no value in computers.
So when the fly-by-wire car is finally released, "blue screen of death" will have the meaning we all expect, and we can point at some highschool student as the father of the automobile accident...
I think the U.S.A. Assimilation Progrom goes a long way towards explaining why China is planning (or at least trying for) a perminant human habitation on the Moon by 2016.
If the USA doesn't get thre first some of those nasty {politically useful racial epithet}'s will escape!
Interestingly this becomes a race for starvation. As soon as the black-hat realizes, and he will (thanks slashdot! 8-), that one of the URLs has been "infected" with the counter agent, he will make the counter-counteragent...
Comming soon: the black-hat update that removes the white-hat counter-agent site from the list of update sites in the virus, posted to one-or-more of the update sites.
It will be interesting to see which starves out first, and to what degree. The number of infected computers or the number of hits on the counter-agent site.
I *STILL* can not figure out how Amazon.com thinks is is approprate to charge sales tax on the Shipping And Handling portion of my purchase.
When I contacted their web sites address for such inquiries I receive absolutely no response.
Quick Note: (not to reply to one's own post... 8-)
I use "employee" in the above, not in the technical sense where an employee is different than a contractor or a consultant. By "employee" I mean the generic someone being paid to do something.
Those rules apply no matter what the nature of your employment or the type of company involved. Email is eaiser when you work in computers instead of clean carpets, but the principles are unchanged.
The answer is simple.
Stratigic errors are invariably traced back to moments when the group/project changed direction. The small daily things are just that, small, they are dealt with and things carry on. Tactical mistakes on Tactical issues are just the day to day part.
One of the most important pieces of information being bought by anybody employing anyone for any purpose is the employee's "list of known bad things."
Pointers:
0) TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for EVERY MISTAKE YOU MAKE. Don't make a bid deal over them, don't "fall on your sword" just say "my bad" and move on. Hell take the casual fall for others if necessary to get the repairs started. To the greatest extent, who is at fault is the last thing that matters once the mistake is out. Most people have already decided anyway and almost everybody almost always knows the exact truth before the showdown anyway. As long as enough was learned to prevent a repeat, the issue is over.
1) Teling your boss "no" is your most sacroscant duty, but it should be approached the way you would tell him his fly is down (or there is toilet paper hanging out of her skirt band.) That is TACT and URGENCY are at war. A timly rescue of face in an emergency is more important than tact and will be remembered positively; but in the absence of extreme pressure, being less-than-tactful will be remembered negatively.
2) Know the difference between the stratigic and the tactical, NEVER let a issue or mistake you know is stratgic get treated as a tactical issue. "I didn't think it would matter this much" is the lament of the under informed. "I could have told you it would" is the response of the guy who most needs to be fired. 8-)
3) State your position as a recommendataion, especially if your boss is well invested in ego games. "I would reccomend against because..."
4) The next step is to banish "ok, but..." assume any positive assertion will be processed only up until the "but" and that the but, and all the following words will be. "We could do that but it will have problems when..." will feel like a vote in favor.
5) Learn the prefix phrase "I have no informed opinion", stress the "informed" as necessary. This phrase will, up front and attached to what you really want to say, easily and professionally presage that you would be guessing, are willing to guess, or not willing to guess about. Advice given in known ignorance is not a crime, it's a sin...
6) Finally, be willing to be out voted or overruled, and never let the fact that you were so overruled or outvoted color your ego or implementation. Presume there are factors you may not know or have control over and be part of the team once the team moves.
Many people suggest getting everything in writing. Don't do that. Just get the important things in writing. It's only important to get things into the record at whatever level "the record" belongs. Overstressing the "I want it in writing" vibe makes you look either weak willed or un-trustworthy. Depending on the type and nature of the circumstance being discussed there are lots of ways to get on the record. (for instance... 8-)
1) Get it in writing as a direct order if you must.
2) Send it in email with a request for confirmation or clarification.
3) Send an "unless otherwise directed" email. (especially when others are unwilling to make any decision at all, time is being wasted, and you know there is no inescapable harm. Fait Acompli can be outstanding mojo.)
4) (in casual company on minor matters where the relationship is good) just say "I reserve the right to laugh at everybody when the thing catches fire." (but don't over use this unless it's family 8-)
(The secret evil thing most people forget, if you bother to get it into the preminant record, * keep * a copy of that record somwhere you control, don't just leave it on the corporate email server... 8-)
In short, the three greatest failures in an employee of any sort are:
-- Failure to speak, to risk speaking, when others are in danger.
-- Failure to act when direction has been set.
-- Failure to balance both tact and urgency in any assessment.
Which is why I frequently say that anybody who goes on and on about what an "imporvement" it was for pyton to use whitespace as the block grouping indicator should be commited to at least ten years in RPG hell.
Most haxors think this is a fiirst-person-shooter reference.
"Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to roll it out at the next trade show as a fully authorized microsoft partner..." -- me.
The Python conformant version uses the single non-whitespace character "}" as a grouping construct. They *insist* it simplifies the language because whitespace should only be used for program text...
... ... ..... 8-)
Seriously, it looks parsable. This just made the Lives of the NSA people incrediblly more interesting.
(This message may or may not compute a palemset.
You may not be aware of this, but the UMCS has strict guidelines for what must be used as the dependent clause of any statement containing the phrase "about the size of".
Because (US)Americans are particularly dense and limited in their appreciation of the world at large, the USUMCS is particularly restricted.
Geographical areas can only be described as about the size of:
1) Texas (the "largest" US state*)
2) Rhodeisland (the "smallest" US state)
3) Manhatan island (**)
For any item that moves, flies, or can be thrown:
1) The VW Bug (+)
2) A battleship (++)
3) An aircraft carrier (+++)
If it is a "weather object" or a part of the human anatomy:
1) a golfball
2) a softball
3) a grapefruit (&)
4) a mellon (&&)
(* In fact Alaska is larger than Texas, but since that "largness" involves lots of separate parts [islands] and unreal areas [ocean bits] the US Public School education doesn't prepare the populous well enough to use Alaska as a USUMCS referrent.)
(** sorry, can't spell it, but I live on the west coast now so, like everyone else not on the east coast, I don't really beleive it exists...)
(+ A VW bug is "cute" so everybody knows how big it is. We could also use something like "a kitten" but the idea of a kitten plummeting through the outer dark of space to burn up on reentry and explode over Kansas is too disturbing to be allowd on TV)
(++ Most people have never seen a battleship, but because they have seen the *game* battlship they know a battle ship is 3/5ths the size of an aircraft carrier because it takes three pegs and an aircraft carrier takes five. And three pegs is a hell of a lot, heck a VW bug cant even hold one peg!)
=== Side note: people who actually know about battleships and talk to other people, will often make reference to the fact that the big guns fire really big rounds. That act, in accordance with the Universal Military Comparison System [this UMCS is not to be convused with that UMCS], is routinely described as "tossing a VW bug across several miles of ocean" etc. ===
(+++ Every body has seen aricraft carriers on TV and knows they are at least twice as large as a battleship. Recursively applied everything is either infinitely large or infinitely small dependig on hol long ago the person last played the game battleship and on how big their TV set is.)
(& Grapefruit is used because every person who needs to use the UMCS has picked up a grapefrut and noticed how dissimilar it is to a grape, which is a fruit, and the irony is fixed in their head.)
(&& the UMCS [Universal Mellon Comparison System] dictates that all mellons, reguardless of pedegree or growth environment, are the same size.)
"The Music of the Spheres" was the title.
This was on "Night Flight" exactly once. It was a mixed-languaged (half english half french) thing from the some major canadian film school/university.
It was odd.
It was surreal.
And for about half an hour after watching it I could speak french...
And I wasn't stoned or nothing...
ASIDE: do you remember "Night Flight" from back in the last days before the all-night infomercial?
Actually, no, I don't think they would have been likely to do the printf you suggest and then jump to the same conclusion.
h es_F() function call they could have used.
The point you missed is that they, through the IDEs permiscuous display of "all" the values in scope at the time. A debugging printf of X would likely have happened, but the "Y" came from a casual look for the "5" (the value) and there is no print_every_variable_name_whos_current_value_matc
They would have had to think about the variables and pick which ones to display.
In short they would have had to ask "Why" instead of just "What."
I amd "seriously suggesting" that in the several years that I worked at a university I have personally witnessed students write some of the worst code on the planet. Code that would never have made it *near* CPU's exection unit if not for an IDE.
Actual Quote:
Student 1: This isn't right.
Student 2: Check the debugger.
Student 1: X should be 5.
Student 2: hmm, oh look, Y is 5...
Student 1: (adds line "X = Y;") "good catch."
Now in the actual conversation "X" and "Y" were longer variable names that described their apparent purposes. X and Y were not related beyond ther presence as global variables in the same program.
This is not an exageration.
I also regularly just poked around on the lab hard disks when I was bored.
IDEs *DO* *MAKE* *BAD* *PROGRAMMERS* because they relieve the requirement that the neophite really understand the static state of their logic before they start hacking (classic definiton of "hack" here).
This "any trash that works" mentality is not what I want to be the primary technique of the guy writing my new fly-by-wire car's OS.
This is the difference between a "lab technician" and "scientist" or between a "carpenter" and an "architect". You need both, but only those qualified to design/plan should be allowed too.
Too much "practice" with insufficent "theory" to back it up ruins, or at least grotesquely limits, a practitioner. The earilier the corruption the more difficult it is to overcome.
Most of these comments do not particularly apply to "the web" as, in my mind, a web browser is just another interface surface (like a printer or a live screen) and the IO parts of a program are only the surface.
During the construction of a program I almost always end up writing a test harness for each significant module. Where possible I like to include the test harness inside the library for that module.
I then, when assembling the final product, do compile time control of whether the target application does, or does not, have the hooks to branch into the test harnesses. When an application ehxibits an error that doesn't have a clear source origin I switch to the "debugging version" of a product and that brings in a fully-featured set of back doors and hacks. Clearly the dubugging version is not suitable for production.
That having been said.
A certian lazyness on the part of the developers combined with a sloppy mind set being promulgated by the "I can drag and I can drop so I am a programmer" school of language-constructors, debuggers, and IDEs, has led to a plague of escaped code.
A primary example of these escapes are "cheat codes" in games. Now days, you can't even expect to sell a game at all unless it is rife with cehat codes you can include in the book. These are the "send a message to all from the console saying "I Am Rich" and you will get $100,000 credits at the start of your next (event)" things. They clearly exist so that the developers can go in and exercise the extreme limits of their design but then they are never disabled later for the production release.
This is dumb and annoying in games. In "real" applications this is potentially catostrophic.
But the "whats good for bob is goog dor ted" mentality causes the cheating haxor kiddies, who have seen these back channels as required parts of every program they have used growing up (e.g. the games) and now somehow think such things *BELONG* in code.
Any culture that teaches kids to just use the cheats (the cheat codes are even commonly printed in the manuals now, and then *explained* in detail in the walkthrough & cheat book you can buy seperately) and that any program without those cheats is probably trash, should not be surprised that when those kids enter the workforce they will, as a matter of self-pride include such things in the code they then write.
(Example: my room mate is 12 years younger than I. He can't function in a game, or at least "can't enjoy" a game, unless he has got the FAQ and walkthrough around "just in case." What has he learned from life about "working it out himself?" and what should that teach the rest of us?)
Test harnesses are necessary for development.
They should be expunged from production code.
Programmers should *know* *how* to write code that doesn't change core behavior when you take out the test harnesses.
Games and toys should not be an exception as that sets bad habbits.
===
We are all doomed...
As always, use the wrong tool, get a cruddy result.
On the other hand, if you go around calling yourself a "scripter" instead of a "programmer" you get what you diserve.
I am a programmer. I program in many different languages. Some better than others. If someone gives me a task I do a quick analysis and pick the right language. If there is someone better suited to the task or language, I pawn the problem off on them.
If someone *only* knows how to script I do consider them lower on the programming food chain. The typical "scripter" doesn't necessarily understand the cost of their solutions. A (properly trained/talented) programmer usually does. (If he doesn't he isn't properly trained.)
(If your only language is Visual Basic, you need not apply, you are "a dragger and a dropper". 8-)
On the other hand there are many reasons that a job that could be done in perl in a few hours might be better given to a C++ developer for a few days. For example, if I am sending this code out into the wild where I know nosy system admins or web weasels might edit the code but then call me for support, they are getting a bound executable, period.
Similarly, I will not give to a perl "scripter" a program that I know can be written in three lines of bash because they *WILL* write it in perl no matter what.
"To a man with only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." -- know the aphorisim, live the aphorisim, be the aphorisim...
Nuclear DNA is only part of the story. If the eggs are not from a direct female descendent of the original mother then all the other DNA would be different.
Yes, I said it, "other DNA". The mitocondrial (sp?) DNA and the RNA in all those tidbits floating around in a cell do things too.
Go look up things like the two-headed fly. Chemicals in-utero affect development a lot.
Barring a replicator (a la Star Trek) cloning won't make anything close to *exact* copies.
How sad... 8-)
Several things are different between the license plate, the actual VIN, and having a series of RFID tags put in your tires.
1) The official nmbers are issued and controlled by an official process, not my local mechanic.
2) The tag number and VIN are singular to their purposes. That is, there aren't five and more of these numbers to each veichle at the same time.
3) They (the real numbers) don't transfer between vheciles wihtout official process.
4) They (the real numbers) don't broadcast information beyond line of sight. (This is significant for the same reasons that [legally] "you can not trespass with the eyes" because seeing and being seen are orthogonal operations. If you don't understand this, consider that you can photograph or video people wihtout sound, in public, for any legal purpose, but recording sound or radio is verboten.)
5) RFID tags are actively/electrically "interrogated" and that interrogative action begs to be tied into a larger system.
6) Who will control the concordance of these comercial numbers with the governmental information?
7) Who will see that old or inaccurate information is properly expurgated? (When I take my license plates from the DMV it starts a chain of possession with clear boundries and requirements. If my plates are stolen, there is a clear means to propigate that chain of information. If I recycle my tires when I buy a new set, and Clem "recycles" them by putting them on his trans-am, how do I know and what are my options to separate him from me?
8) "everyone knows" they have license plates and a VIN. How many people will know "automatically" that they are being tracked by their tires?
9) What if the installer transposes the numbers while recording the numbers when installing your tires and now you are the infamous burglar or child molester down the block?
In short, being arbitrarily branded with numbers that will be broadcast in response to all sorts of random queries by unlimited numbers of people is A BAD IDEA.
Rob.
If you car is "suddenly" equipt with five (don't forget the spare) transmitters that each broadcast a unique serial number in response to a promiscuously broadcasted request, well, that is "bad" from a privacy standpoint.
Now associate those numbers with your VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) which uniquely identifies your car.
Your VIN is already connected to things like your name, address, insurance carrier and so on.
So now you are driving down a street and any number of automated systems can know it is you (well, your car at least). So you have essentially been tagged like a spring buck.
Worse, but more interesting, a well equipt "ring" of duck-and-squat or similar con artists can now "interview" your car to see if you've got good rip-off potential.
Authorities can target and track you. Who needs racial profiling? The cop is asleep in his car when an alarm goes off to tell him someone meeting his favorite criteria is driving by. How about "that car is owned by a white person" listing getting your black roomate killed for borrowing your car?
Far worse than that, the piece in question is easily accessable.
If systems (toll booths etc?) start using this data for any purpose then I could "swap out" one of your tires and drive around "as you", possibly for days. When was the last time you *really* looked at your passenger side rear wheel? How about your spare?
In even legitimate cases ("Sure Clem, you can borrow my snow tires for the weekend...") of transfer you could become identity-entangled with who knows what...
Being made "trackable" is always a rights issue.
Look at complaining to FTC.gov (obviously if you are a US citizen only 8-). Go to "Consumer Protection" and there are several forms that may apply. The FTC can really work. Yahoo is big business and involved in stealing your money (those messages use up your money or your minutes etc.) so it is Trade Comission business.
My roommate ended up costing Bank Of America a $60,000(US) fine for holding a certified check.
There are petty buraucrats out there waiting to help...