Re:These examples have nothing to do with age
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 1
Why can't you be a coder in your 40's? I'm not talking about every 40 year old out there, I'm talking about YOU! Each individual's effectiveness in ANY job is only as good as the amount of work they're willing to put in.
While effort is essential, it's not always sufficient. Not everyone can be Einstein because not everyone is that gifted. Not everyone can play a violin because not everyone has the talent. Not everyone can be an architect because not everyone can visualize complex structures in detail (is that called spatial imagination, or did I just create a new term?) I do believe that there are things in software development that go beyond grunt work, where just effort is not sufficient. Think of it as art, if you will.
And my hooters example still stands. At least until you show me a 50-year-old hooter girl!:) Cheers!
He asks the wrong question
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 1
I mean, read this quote: What is the youngest you can be before some PHB declares you fit for the scrap-heap? Other than stocking up on hair dye and botox, what steps can I take to prepare for the future? Share your war stories here...
While I can understand the desire to find a job, the frustration with discrimination based on age, possibly the desperation he experiences, etc., he is asking the wrong question. I can understand that his potential employers may not be treating him fairly, but did he give it any thought that they may have a point (though probably not expressed very well). Slow down and think: 1. Are there any skills/abilities that I have lost over the years? 2. Have I changed in any way that makes me less productive (got the venerable carpal syndrome, got a family I'd rather spend time with than slave at the office, etc)? 3. Is my lifestyle more expensive then 10-20 years ago? (aka "Do I expect more compensation for what I do?")
Now, imagine yourself in your employer's shoes and think: A certain prospective employee is great. He is experienced, has good reputation/resume/references, education and does high quality work. But do I really want to hire him, if can't do [insert things from list 1 above] as well as a 20-year-old who also sumbited a resume? Who is also slower than the same 20-year-old because of [2] and expects more pay [3]? Just based on your resume and (hopefully) an interview, all your strengths that may outweigh the benefits of hiring a younger person won't be obvious to the employer.
Now, consider that in today's market there can be 10 resumes of those 20-year-olds that will literally 'code for food' slaving around the clock competing with yours.
You may die your hair (grow it first if some is missing) all you want, but chances are you don't look as attractive to an employer as you think. And there is no better way of seeing this than getting out of your own bubble, getting over the hurt feelings, and trying to get into the hiring manager's shoes. His job isn't easy either.
The problem is that I do not believe his idiocy is unique
Where did you get that idea from? It's not idiocy - it's a reality. I know that I won't be coding till I am in my 40s. Neither do I want to. I mean, it's true, people are different, and some people in their 40s are indistinguishable in many ways from people in their early 20s. But if you think about it, there are some abilities that are required that few 'older' people people possess. Among them
- If you are older, married and have a family you are less excited about staying till unholy hour of the morning finishing a project that has an imminent deadline tomorrow... - If you are older, you are more set in your ways and would rather use the skills you already have rather than learn something totally new and off-the-wall. Yes, your skills may be very valuable, but you may lack the flexibility your employer is looking for. Let me re-phrase that. When faced with a new problem, I first try to see if I already know from prior experience how to solve it, and, if I do, use that experience, even though it may not be the most optimal solution. That's how we, human beings operate. That's why we have education, right? On the other hand, few areas change as quickly as software and your "solution based on experience", while still good, may not be the best one, and not the one your employer is looking for. In that sense, under some circumstances, your experience may be more of a drawback than a benefit. - While some older people become wiser, and take criticism better, many others do become grumpy old men, and find it hard to be taught and criticised by the kids in their teens that apparently know some things better. - When you get older you won't be willing to accept some of the jobs and tasks (especially the thankless ones like sysadmin) as readily as the younger people. - Last, but not least (especially in today's pitiful economy), when you are younger, you will settle for less pay, more hours, and your insurance will be cheaper. Isn't that why a lot of developer jobs are moving to Russia, Romania, India, et.al.?
No idiocy - just face the reality! While discrimination based on age is illegal, it is true that you may not be able to perform certain tasks when you get older. Just like a 60-year old lady won't get a job at hooters, you won't be a coder in your 40s. So, start transitioning to a manager position in your 30s, while you still can - that's where you belong, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Well, a perpetual and irrevocable license doesn't mean anything if you violate the terms of the license.
True, but I don't think you can revoke a license based on a mere allegation.
It's like your old mortgage company, whom you already paid in full for your house, coming to your door and saying "We are taking your house back because we know that you remodeled your den into a bedroom without permission from us, and you weren't alllowed to do so. No, we can't prove that, and we are not going to come in to see if it's really remodeled. We'll just take your house back."
You think anybody can do that? I do not think a mere allegation is enough to break or revert a contract, unless both parties agree to that, and I am sure IBM won't agree to kill its AIX for nothing.
I don't see how in this case FTC can support their claim that they should be able to go beyond what ordinary private citizens are allowed to do. Nothing prevents them from gathering the evidence and not telling the spammer they are doing so. Just like I can watch you and gather evidence against you as long as it does not go beyond what's allowed by law. No secret powers needed. On the other hand, if you already have sufficient evidence, you can get a court warrant on wiretapping, etc - here is a mechanism for you to use some secret surveilance powers - and that's fine.
I think all the secrecy necessary is already provided to them to the maximum extent possible (and arguably even beyond that). Looks like just another government organization trying "ride the wave" of a popular legislation to grab a bit more power (that they don't even need).
For comparison, remember the not-so-old antiterrorist bills that had everything-and-a-kitchen-sink in them. Since the antiterrorist bill is obviously going to pass no matter what, why not cram something totally unrelated (and hard to get passed otherwise) into it? Everyone, from FBI to RIAA tried to put their own little pieces in. Now we have a different popular legislative wave - this time for a righteous case of SPAM fighting.
There will be tons of people who will try to cram privacy-invading clauses and amendments into any legislation under the anti-SPAM banner. Since SPAM is arguably becoming the biggest legislative target after terrorism, it's a good vehicle to drive your little privacy-invading amendments into becoming the law.
Why would they charge more for SMP and Memory > 4 Gig? I could have sworn that SMP was available in the standard kernel and that the Memory > 4 was just a patch.
Why? Four reasons: 1. If you can't figure out how to patch and recompile a kernel, you pay up. 2. If you can, but your boss wants "Supported 24x7" written all over the OS of choice, you pay up. 3. If neither of the above apply, but you have some spare cash, and just feel like helping RedHat out, you can pay too...
There is nothing wrong with that that. In fact, I like that model. If you are (1) you pay the "stupidity tax"; in (2) you pay the "corporate assurance tax"; in (3) you are essentially doing a charity contribution (albeit, not tax-deductable). I find myself in any of the three categories once in a while. However, Redhat just came out with a new one -
4. If you can't use Redhat9 because it's such a major pain-in-the-butt, you pay up for a decent distro (advanced server).
<rant> It took me a couple days just to recompile all the things necessary because of the stupid Kerberos location (everything in/usr/kerberos) and OpenSSL dependency on it. That change alone broke (on source level) essentially every package out there that depends on OpenSSL and doesn't care about Kerberos. There are others </rant>
It's not fun... Even if have the tools and the expertise in-house, it's just too painful to deal with. The time it took me to build a redhat9-based server multiplied by the $/hour my labor is worth probably was more expensive than buying an "Advanced Server" in the first place. (but on the other hand I am reading/. for the same $/hour right now, so I should probably just shut up)
Let's see, I still have a couple of machines running Red Hat 6.2, which hit EOL in March. Number of any kind of updates for RH 6.2 since March: 0.
There is nothing wrong with just keeping an eye on the bugs/security issues yourself, without having redhat do the homework for you. That's what most admins end up doing anyway, whether their distro is supported or not.
It's because all us developers think our way is the better way:P
No, it's because re-inventing the wheel is a lot easier than customizing someone else's utra-cryptic-spaghetti-coded "wheel".
For instance, I was just looking a good SMTP AUTH solution (aka roaming SMTP) that would integrate well into our customized version of qmail. There were a few solutions that almost did the job, but not quite, while offering a ton of extra bloat that we didn't need. A few hours and a hundred or so lines of C code later I had a working solution. Yes, I re-invented the wheel, but it was a whole lot quicker than figuring out and fixing someone else's code, and without all the bloat attached.
My point: Often re-inventing the wheel is good, and sometimes is the only way to go.
I just loooove those numbers! 600:1, 450cd/m^2, 22ms... So amazing... NOT!
For instance, Viewsonic boasts some imressive contrast ratios. In reality they suck. At least, the viewsonics that I saw on display and had a chance to compare to some other brands were left to shame. Same, but even to a greater extent can be said about response times. Everyone seems to find their own way of defining those. Some for fading of a pixel from white to black; some - from black to white. (notice that those two are QUITE different due to the way those transistors operate). Some go even further and declare that very dark colors are very close to completely black, and very bright colors to white, so they'll measure times for those 'approximate' extremes, and some even just measure the 'common case' response time, whatever that is.
I (and a lot of other people - just check Tom's hardware guide for their LCD overview) seem to notice that there is just way too much fudge in those numbers when it comes to measuring different aspects of LCDs.
Let me give you an example. My monitor (Samsung 181T), for example, boasts 25ms response time. I'd say it's more like 35 (at least that's what tom's hardware guesses it to be and I think he is quite close), but FPS games are a lot more playable on mine than on a lot of other 25ms panels. Why? Probably because their "fudge" factor is a bit smaller. The only real way to tell a difference easily is to look at the same set of tests being displayed on an array of several different panels. First and foremost you'll notice that color fidelity on some of them sucks. That factor alone will probably eliminate more than half of the panels from what you could consider buying. After that try adjusting contrast/brightness and notice that some monitors (notable ViewSonics) are pathetic. After that, if there are any monitors still left, check if their response time is reasonable. Chances are, it isn't. After that, slow down, think and lower your expectations.
When shopping for an LCD I learned a lesson that the numbers you see describing LCDs are not what they appear. There is so much discrepancy in how manufacturers define various parameters that those numbers become close to meaningless. The only numbers that aren't fudged are the resolution and hom much power they use. Maybe also the life of the bulb. That's about it. So, next time you are impressed with the specs of some particular LCD panel, try to see if you can have a look at it next to some other panels, performance of which is known to you. Make sure they are running the same stuff, and see what difference you can see.
Man, were you one of those people who thought the Soviet Union was the land of revolution and the last, best hope for mankind?
Man, how did you guess? I am from Soviet Union... errr... Russia. Seriously.
And though I didn't think that we were the best hope, as you say (c'mon Russians weren't like borgs though most westerners did view us as such), being in Soviet Union at that time taught me to view government spending as an incomprehensible formula with thousands of variables, and just a few constants. One of the latter being 'defense budget'. To my amazement, this fenomenon was not unique to our evil communist party - I've seen it in virtually every other country since then. There are a few exceptions, of course, like Japan and Germany after the WW2 (who were forced into that 'exceptionsl' state, a few european countries that don't feel threatened, etc.
Yes, they are evil and we are democratic. I don't disagree with that. But when it comes to military budgets somehow we look very much alike. Defense budget is like your house payment. Usually the more you earn, the more you pay for your housing, but you can't pay less than the cheapest rent in your area. Unless, of course, you opt to be homeless. In that sense, Korea doesn't want to be homeless, so they keep paying through the nose, even though the very cheapest place they could find would still be killing their economy. Most developed countries can cough up a lot more cash for a lot better dwelling. Despite that, N.Koreans still want to live "in style" (with nukes, that is).
While it may be difficult to get into large systems here in the United States and do a lot of damage, it it much easier to install backdoors and logging programs.
All I have to say is You are so funny!!! Most of the damage (in terms of $$$ lost by various companies) is done by 15-year-old 13313 h4x0rz who fail their SATs, while more serious hackers (like Kevin Mitnick) cause virtually no monetary damage whatsoever. Do you really think N.Korea can't acheive the intelligence level of a 13313 h4z0r?
I do agree with you that they could very well use that knowlege to also spy on their own people. Though I doubt they have the people to spy on. After all, with all the electrical problems, I tend to think that they do not have have much of internet to spy on at all.
North Korea builds 8-lane highways that go virtually unused for future growth,
In TotalAnnihilation this is called a nano-stall. Such 'future expansion' is the beginning of your demise. Check out a strategy game of your choice and try a strategy like that:) Then tell me if you survived 10 minutes.
Yes. Something like 1/3 of N. Korea's GNP is spent on military. That's why people are starving.
Well, it's just like your credit card bill. You have to pay a certain percentage of your balance, OR a minimum monthly payment, whichever is more.
It works the same way for defense budgets. While most countries fall under the 'percentage' category, Koreans don't have enough dough, so they have to cough up the 'minimum payment'. Which in their case happens to be 1/3 of their GNP. And not (only) because they are so militaristic, but mostly just because their GNP is so small. That's gotta suck...
Even if they do have a hacker school, so what? Like we here in the states do not teach a subset of our military these skills. Hacking is cheap and easy way of causing a lot of damage. It's a smart thing for them to try.
I think there is one thing to note. US feels more vulnerable than they do. I mean, while both US and Korea can train hackers, and even if a US hacker is worth 10 Korean ones, who is more vulnerable? Definitely not them.
While there is an abundance of targets to hack in US, one can hardly even identify one to hack in Korea. I mean, are you going to hack a power plant that doesn't work anyway? On the other hand, just a couple of good hacks on US/european soil can create major havoc on wall street with all the usual consequences.
I believe this is one of the areas where US feels threatened. US cannot be threatened by Korean arms, but very well can be by the cyber-warfare. Hence, all the FUD about them having every weapon out there, from Nukes to hackerz. It takes one stupid politician to start the FUD and the national paranoia ensues.
Oh, the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea has no problem keeping the lights on at its military bases.
Show me a country that does have a problem with that. Especailly a non-democratic country. But even in a democratic one. Consider our military budget versus, say, education or wellfare budget. The ratio is kinda skewed, isn't it? Notice I said 'our' - that's because a similar ratio can be observed in any country you are reading slashdot from (some are notorious for over-bloated 'defence' budgets, but all are guilty to some extent).
And while your country can afford the bloat without starving the people, N.Korea can't. So they opt to starving them. Very sad, very inhumane, yet not terribly different from the country you or I come from.
They're a lot more real than Iraq's WMD. It might be debatable if they have one today, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.
I wouldn't bet on it either - everything is quite possible. But I sure do hope that they are, as you say "a lot more real than Iraq's WMD". I mean, after all that time searching in Iraq, anyone can claim to have more real WMD than them... That's like saying 'I am stronger than a 2-year old!' Duh!...
Funny... Iraq probably had some WMD a while back, but did their best to deny it. N.Korea probably doesn't have anything, but tries to make it look like they do. Both get screwed. That's what I call justice:)
While that's true, they've also managed to turn out atomic weapons, which is quite a bit more complicated than training someone to use nmap.
You've gotta love our fellow/.'ers who are still that naive. We've got to put them in a jar and keep them in a museum for future generations to look at - it would be a shame if we loose you guys for good...
No, I didn't mean to insult you, skyshadow (sorry if I did), but seriously, when was the last time we could trust what we hear from the media in general or the whitehouse in particular? Even South Korea now says that most likely the Noth is bluffing, and there is precisely zero conclusive intelligence results to substantiate the claim that they have any nukes. They are bluffing and trying to blackmail US and others into giving them energy (they really don't have much of a choice, BTW). It's that simple.
Also consider that according to intelligence, N Korea possibly has enough radioactive material for a bomb. No proof of the existence of the bomb itself though. No word of whether they have sufficient expertise to build one. If you consider that we have an 'undeniable' proof that Iraq has chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons, and we haven't found squat there yet, I wouldn't be very convinced that allegations about Korea are anywhere close to truth at all. After all, if we can't find evidence to back up the 'undeniable proof', what are the chances of finding evidence to support the 'possibility'?
And claiming that they were preparing hackers for 20 years... Give me a break! If 20 years ago we knew what computers would become now, chances are everyone would've given much thought to such things as security, Y2K problems, etc, and we wouldn't be seeing a few dozen new M$ holes a week. I doubt any country, including (and especially) N.Korea could've had that much foresight. US didn't see that; Europe didn't; N.Korea did. They must have a really good magic 8-ball or something!
It's very easy to declare someone you don't like a terrorist, an axis of evil, and blame them for all possible sins while attaching every negative label available. Especially when no proof of such allegations is necessary, or even expected. While I don't know much about N.Korea in particular (besides that they aren't the nicest guys on the block), I am very sceptical that any of the allegations made can stick to them. The only reason why these allegations aren't seen as totally bogus is that it's not in their best interests to refute them. They want to look scarier than they really are so they can blackmail others into giving them what they need (in this case energy, whether in petroleum from US or otherwise). And all that cyber-terrorism crap is nothing more than a FUD that is a result of someone's sick imagination.
If you don't know where to scan, it would take a while. On the other hand, how often do you just scan things totally at random? If they guy scans 700K IPs, he probably know where they are, or at least has a very good idea where to search.
Are you nuts, expect AOL to use IE and get rid of any remaining Mozilla developers. It's a business not a charity.
Actually, AOL's savings by getting rid of a developer or two are negligible. M$, on the other hand, wins big time by having an entire AOL base suddenly switch to IE (I wonder, if it the cash for the settlement was the only thing AOL was after in the first place... We'll never know...)
For them it's a win-win situation. MS has excess cash and wants more domination; AOL doesn't care which browser its customers use, and wouldn't mind the cash.
The problem is that they are a couple years too late. If this happened a couple years earlier, when mozilla was much weaker, it could've crippled it a lot. Now, when I hear people saying that AOL switching from mozilla to IE will kill mozilla, I can't help but laugh. I seriously doubt that it will even significantly impact the userbase - a lot of AOL people use IE right now simply because there is a cool blue icon on their desktop saying "Internet", and that's what they click on when they check their msn.com...
Slashdot Mirror
Since they have to pay for bandwidth... ... and a mosquito didn't like the elephant, so it landed on his back to increase his burden...
At most you'll make some poor colocation guy rather unhappy. Most likely you'll just look like an idiot if you do that.
looks like the aussie computerworld article got slashdotted, but here's a similar one: http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/gove rnment/legalissues/story/0,10801,82070,00.html
Why can't you be a coder in your 40's? I'm not talking about every 40 year old out there, I'm talking about YOU! Each individual's effectiveness in ANY job is only as good as the amount of work they're willing to put in.
While effort is essential, it's not always sufficient. Not everyone can be Einstein because not everyone is that gifted. Not everyone can play a violin because not everyone has the talent. Not everyone can be an architect because not everyone can visualize complex structures in detail (is that called spatial imagination, or did I just create a new term?) I do believe that there are things in software development that go beyond grunt work, where just effort is not sufficient. Think of it as art, if you will.
And my hooters example still stands. At least until you show me a 50-year-old hooter girl!
I mean, read this quote: What is the youngest you can be before some PHB declares you fit for the scrap-heap? Other than stocking up on hair dye and botox, what steps can I take to prepare for the future? Share your war stories here...
While I can understand the desire to find a job, the frustration with discrimination based on age, possibly the desperation he experiences, etc., he is asking the wrong question. I can understand that his potential employers may not be treating him fairly, but did he give it any thought that they may have a point (though probably not expressed very well). Slow down and think:
1. Are there any skills/abilities that I have lost over the years?
2. Have I changed in any way that makes me less productive (got the venerable carpal syndrome, got a family I'd rather spend time with than slave at the office, etc)?
3. Is my lifestyle more expensive then 10-20 years ago? (aka "Do I expect more compensation for what I do?")
Now, imagine yourself in your employer's shoes and think: A certain prospective employee is great. He is experienced, has good reputation/resume/references, education and does high quality work. But do I really want to hire him, if can't do [insert things from list 1 above] as well as a 20-year-old who also sumbited a resume? Who is also slower than the same 20-year-old because of [2] and expects more pay [3]? Just based on your resume and (hopefully) an interview, all your strengths that may outweigh the benefits of hiring a younger person won't be obvious to the employer.
Now, consider that in today's market there can be 10 resumes of those 20-year-olds that will literally 'code for food' slaving around the clock competing with yours.
You may die your hair (grow it first if some is missing) all you want, but chances are you don't look as attractive to an employer as you think. And there is no better way of seeing this than getting out of your own bubble, getting over the hurt feelings, and trying to get into the hiring manager's shoes. His job isn't easy either.
The problem is that I do not believe his idiocy is unique
Where did you get that idea from? It's not idiocy - it's a reality. I know that I won't be coding till I am in my 40s. Neither do I want to. I mean, it's true, people are different, and some people in their 40s are indistinguishable in many ways from people in their early 20s. But if you think about it, there are some abilities that are required that few 'older' people people possess. Among them
- If you are older, married and have a family you are less excited about staying till unholy hour of the morning finishing a project that has an imminent deadline tomorrow...
- If you are older, you are more set in your ways and would rather use the skills you already have rather than learn something totally new and off-the-wall. Yes, your skills may be very valuable, but you may lack the flexibility your employer is looking for. Let me re-phrase that. When faced with a new problem, I first try to see if I already know from prior experience how to solve it, and, if I do, use that experience, even though it may not be the most optimal solution. That's how we, human beings operate. That's why we have education, right? On the other hand, few areas change as quickly as software and your "solution based on experience", while still good, may not be the best one, and not the one your employer is looking for. In that sense, under some circumstances, your experience may be more of a drawback than a benefit.
- While some older people become wiser, and take criticism better, many others do become grumpy old men, and find it hard to be taught and criticised by the kids in their teens that apparently know some things better.
- When you get older you won't be willing to accept some of the jobs and tasks (especially the thankless ones like sysadmin) as readily as the younger people.
- Last, but not least (especially in today's pitiful economy), when you are younger, you will settle for less pay, more hours, and your insurance will be cheaper. Isn't that why a lot of developer jobs are moving to Russia, Romania, India, et.al.?
No idiocy - just face the reality! While discrimination based on age is illegal, it is true that you may not be able to perform certain tasks when you get older. Just like a 60-year old lady won't get a job at hooters, you won't be a coder in your 40s. So, start transitioning to a manager position in your 30s, while you still can - that's where you belong, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Well, a perpetual and irrevocable license doesn't mean anything if you violate the terms of the license.
True, but I don't think you can revoke a license based on a mere allegation.
It's like your old mortgage company, whom you already paid in full for your house, coming to your door and saying "We are taking your house back because we know that you remodeled your den into a bedroom without permission from us, and you weren't alllowed to do so. No, we can't prove that, and we are not going to come in to see if it's really remodeled. We'll just take your house back."
You think anybody can do that? I do not think a mere allegation is enough to break or revert a contract, unless both parties agree to that, and I am sure IBM won't agree to kill its AIX for nothing.
I don't see how in this case FTC can support their claim that they should be able to go beyond what ordinary private citizens are allowed to do. Nothing prevents them from gathering the evidence and not telling the spammer they are doing so. Just like I can watch you and gather evidence against you as long as it does not go beyond what's allowed by law. No secret powers needed. On the other hand, if you already have sufficient evidence, you can get a court warrant on wiretapping, etc - here is a mechanism for you to use some secret surveilance powers - and that's fine.
I think all the secrecy necessary is already provided to them to the maximum extent possible (and arguably even beyond that). Looks like just another government organization trying "ride the wave" of a popular legislation to grab a bit more power (that they don't even need).
For comparison, remember the not-so-old antiterrorist bills that had everything-and-a-kitchen-sink in them. Since the antiterrorist bill is obviously going to pass no matter what, why not cram something totally unrelated (and hard to get passed otherwise) into it? Everyone, from FBI to RIAA tried to put their own little pieces in. Now we have a different popular legislative wave - this time for a righteous case of SPAM fighting.
There will be tons of people who will try to cram privacy-invading clauses and amendments into any legislation under the anti-SPAM banner. Since SPAM is arguably becoming the biggest legislative target after terrorism, it's a good vehicle to drive your little privacy-invading amendments into becoming the law.
What are you going to do if a nasty exploit was found in, say, glibc?
:)
I am paid to recompile those... sometimes...
Of course, unofficial support might continue, by community members releasing fixed SRPMs. But do you want to count on that?
As I said, if it's not out there, nothing stops you from doing it yourself. You can build a patched SRPM - it's not really rocket science...
Why would they charge more for SMP and Memory > 4 Gig? I could have sworn that SMP was available in the standard kernel and that the Memory > 4 was just a patch.
Why? Four reasons:
1. If you can't figure out how to patch and recompile a kernel, you pay up.
2. If you can, but your boss wants "Supported 24x7" written all over the OS of choice, you pay up.
3. If neither of the above apply, but you have some spare cash, and just feel like helping RedHat out, you can pay too...
There is nothing wrong with that that. In fact, I like that model. If you are (1) you pay the "stupidity tax"; in (2) you pay the "corporate assurance tax"; in (3) you are essentially doing a charity contribution (albeit, not tax-deductable). I find myself in any of the three categories once in a while. However, Redhat just came out with a new one -
4. If you can't use Redhat9 because it's such a major pain-in-the-butt, you pay up for a decent distro (advanced server).
<rant>
It took me a couple days just to recompile all the things necessary because of the stupid Kerberos location (everything in
</rant>
It's not fun... Even if have the tools and the expertise in-house, it's just too painful to deal with. The time it took me to build a redhat9-based server multiplied by the $/hour my labor is worth probably was more expensive than buying an "Advanced Server" in the first place. (but on the other hand I am reading
Let's see, I still have a couple of machines running Red Hat 6.2, which hit EOL in March. Number of any kind of updates for RH 6.2 since March: 0.
There is nothing wrong with just keeping an eye on the bugs/security issues yourself, without having redhat do the homework for you. That's what most admins end up doing anyway, whether their distro is supported or not.
It's because all us developers think our way is the better way :P
No, it's because re-inventing the wheel is a lot easier than customizing someone else's utra-cryptic-spaghetti-coded "wheel".
For instance, I was just looking a good SMTP AUTH solution (aka roaming SMTP) that would integrate well into our customized version of qmail. There were a few solutions that almost did the job, but not quite, while offering a ton of extra bloat that we didn't need. A few hours and a hundred or so lines of C code later I had a working solution. Yes, I re-invented the wheel, but it was a whole lot quicker than figuring out and fixing someone else's code, and without all the bloat attached.
My point: Often re-inventing the wheel is good, and sometimes is the only way to go.
I just loooove those numbers! 600:1, 450cd/m^2, 22ms... So amazing... NOT!
For instance, Viewsonic boasts some imressive contrast ratios. In reality they suck. At least, the viewsonics that I saw on display and had a chance to compare to some other brands were left to shame. Same, but even to a greater extent can be said about response times. Everyone seems to find their own way of defining those. Some for fading of a pixel from white to black; some - from black to white. (notice that those two are QUITE different due to the way those transistors operate). Some go even further and declare that very dark colors are very close to completely black, and very bright colors to white, so they'll measure times for those 'approximate' extremes, and some even just measure the 'common case' response time, whatever that is.
I (and a lot of other people - just check Tom's hardware guide for their LCD overview) seem to notice that there is just way too much fudge in those numbers when it comes to measuring different aspects of LCDs.
Let me give you an example. My monitor (Samsung 181T), for example, boasts 25ms response time. I'd say it's more like 35 (at least that's what tom's hardware guesses it to be and I think he is quite close), but FPS games are a lot more playable on mine than on a lot of other 25ms panels. Why? Probably because their "fudge" factor is a bit smaller. The only real way to tell a difference easily is to look at the same set of tests being displayed on an array of several different panels. First and foremost you'll notice that color fidelity on some of them sucks. That factor alone will probably eliminate more than half of the panels from what you could consider buying. After that try adjusting contrast/brightness and notice that some monitors (notable ViewSonics) are pathetic. After that, if there are any monitors still left, check if their response time is reasonable. Chances are, it isn't. After that, slow down, think and lower your expectations.
When shopping for an LCD I learned a lesson that the numbers you see describing LCDs are not what they appear. There is so much discrepancy in how manufacturers define various parameters that those numbers become close to meaningless. The only numbers that aren't fudged are the resolution and hom much power they use. Maybe also the life of the bulb. That's about it. So, next time you are impressed with the specs of some particular LCD panel, try to see if you can have a look at it next to some other panels, performance of which is known to you. Make sure they are running the same stuff, and see what difference you can see.
Man, were you one of those people who thought the Soviet Union was the land of revolution and the last, best hope for mankind?
Man, how did you guess? I am from Soviet Union... errr... Russia. Seriously.
And though I didn't think that we were the best hope, as you say (c'mon Russians weren't like borgs though most westerners did view us as such), being in Soviet Union at that time taught me to view government spending as an incomprehensible formula with thousands of variables, and just a few constants. One of the latter being 'defense budget'. To my amazement, this fenomenon was not unique to our evil communist party - I've seen it in virtually every other country since then. There are a few exceptions, of course, like Japan and Germany after the WW2 (who were forced into that 'exceptionsl' state, a few european countries that don't feel threatened, etc.
Yes, they are evil and we are democratic. I don't disagree with that. But when it comes to military budgets somehow we look very much alike. Defense budget is like your house payment. Usually the more you earn, the more you pay for your housing, but you can't pay less than the cheapest rent in your area. Unless, of course, you opt to be homeless. In that sense, Korea doesn't want to be homeless, so they keep paying through the nose, even though the very cheapest place they could find would still be killing their economy. Most developed countries can cough up a lot more cash for a lot better dwelling. Despite that, N.Koreans still want to live "in style" (with nukes, that is).
While it may be difficult to get into large systems here in the United States and do a lot of damage, it it much easier to install backdoors and logging programs.
All I have to say is You are so funny!!! Most of the damage (in terms of $$$ lost by various companies) is done by 15-year-old 13313 h4x0rz who fail their SATs, while more serious hackers (like Kevin Mitnick) cause virtually no monetary damage whatsoever. Do you really think N.Korea can't acheive the intelligence level of a 13313 h4z0r?
I do agree with you that they could very well use that knowlege to also spy on their own people. Though I doubt they have the people to spy on. After all, with all the electrical problems, I tend to think that they do not have have much of internet to spy on at all.
North Korea builds 8-lane highways that go virtually unused for future growth,
:) Then tell me if you survived 10 minutes.
In TotalAnnihilation this is called a nano-stall. Such 'future expansion' is the beginning of your demise. Check out a strategy game of your choice and try a strategy like that
Yes. Something like 1/3 of N. Korea's GNP is spent on military. That's why people are starving.
Well, it's just like your credit card bill. You have to pay a certain percentage of your balance, OR a minimum monthly payment, whichever is more.
It works the same way for defense budgets. While most countries fall under the 'percentage' category, Koreans don't have enough dough, so they have to cough up the 'minimum payment'. Which in their case happens to be 1/3 of their GNP. And not (only) because they are so militaristic, but mostly just because their GNP is so small. That's gotta suck...
And the babez?
Don't need no academy for that. I've been offered those for $10/month about 20 times since yesterday (my poor innocent INBOX).
No they didn't; they admitted to having *a nuclear weapons programme*.
And the last time I player poker I admitted to having two Ace's! The trick is to keep a straight face when you you cards are crap.
Even if they do have a hacker school, so what? Like we here in the states do not teach a subset of our military these skills. Hacking is cheap and easy way of causing a lot of damage. It's a smart thing for them to try.
I think there is one thing to note. US feels more vulnerable than they do. I mean, while both US and Korea can train hackers, and even if a US hacker is worth 10 Korean ones, who is more vulnerable? Definitely not them.
While there is an abundance of targets to hack in US, one can hardly even identify one to hack in Korea. I mean, are you going to hack a power plant that doesn't work anyway? On the other hand, just a couple of good hacks on US/european soil can create major havoc on wall street with all the usual consequences.
I believe this is one of the areas where US feels threatened. US cannot be threatened by Korean arms, but very well can be by the cyber-warfare. Hence, all the FUD about them having every weapon out there, from Nukes to hackerz. It takes one stupid politician to start the FUD and the national paranoia ensues.
Oh, the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea has no problem keeping the lights on at its military bases.
Show me a country that does have a problem with that. Especailly a non-democratic country. But even in a democratic one. Consider our military budget versus, say, education or wellfare budget. The ratio is kinda skewed, isn't it? Notice I said 'our' - that's because a similar ratio can be observed in any country you are reading slashdot from (some are notorious for over-bloated 'defence' budgets, but all are guilty to some extent).
And while your country can afford the bloat without starving the people, N.Korea can't. So they opt to starving them. Very sad, very inhumane, yet not terribly different from the country you or I come from.
Hah! I just scanned 127.0.0.1 and all your ports are open, prepare for the system halt of your li+++ATH NO CARRIER
No, just checked - 127.0.0.1 is still up, and all ports are still open. Nuking again!
They're a lot more real than Iraq's WMD. It might be debatable if they have one today, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.
:)
I wouldn't bet on it either - everything is quite possible. But I sure do hope that they are, as you say "a lot more real than Iraq's WMD". I mean, after all that time searching in Iraq, anyone can claim to have more real WMD than them... That's like saying 'I am stronger than a 2-year old!' Duh!...
Funny... Iraq probably had some WMD a while back, but did their best to deny it. N.Korea probably doesn't have anything, but tries to make it look like they do. Both get screwed. That's what I call justice
While that's true, they've also managed to turn out atomic weapons, which is quite a bit more complicated than training someone to use nmap.
/.'ers who are still that naive. We've got to put them in a jar and keep them in a museum for future generations to look at - it would be a shame if we loose you guys for good...
You've gotta love our fellow
No, I didn't mean to insult you, skyshadow (sorry if I did), but seriously, when was the last time we could trust what we hear from the media in general or the whitehouse in particular? Even South Korea now says that most likely the Noth is bluffing, and there is precisely zero conclusive intelligence results to substantiate the claim that they have any nukes. They are bluffing and trying to blackmail US and others into giving them energy (they really don't have much of a choice, BTW). It's that simple.
Also consider that according to intelligence, N Korea possibly has enough radioactive material for a bomb. No proof of the existence of the bomb itself though. No word of whether they have sufficient expertise to build one. If you consider that we have an 'undeniable' proof that Iraq has chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons, and we haven't found squat there yet, I wouldn't be very convinced that allegations about Korea are anywhere close to truth at all. After all, if we can't find evidence to back up the 'undeniable proof', what are the chances of finding evidence to support the 'possibility'?
And claiming that they were preparing hackers for 20 years... Give me a break! If 20 years ago we knew what computers would become now, chances are everyone would've given much thought to such things as security, Y2K problems, etc, and we wouldn't be seeing a few dozen new M$ holes a week. I doubt any country, including (and especially) N.Korea could've had that much foresight. US didn't see that; Europe didn't; N.Korea did. They must have a really good magic 8-ball or something!
It's very easy to declare someone you don't like a terrorist, an axis of evil, and blame them for all possible sins while attaching every negative label available. Especially when no proof of such allegations is necessary, or even expected. While I don't know much about N.Korea in particular (besides that they aren't the nicest guys on the block), I am very sceptical that any of the allegations made can stick to them. The only reason why these allegations aren't seen as totally bogus is that it's not in their best interests to refute them. They want to look scarier than they really are so they can blackmail others into giving them what they need (in this case energy, whether in petroleum from US or otherwise). And all that cyber-terrorism crap is nothing more than a FUD that is a result of someone's sick imagination.
If you don't know where to scan, it would take a while. On the other hand, how often do you just scan things totally at random? If they guy scans 700K IPs, he probably know where they are, or at least has a very good idea where to search.
Are you nuts, expect AOL to use IE and get rid of any remaining Mozilla developers. It's a business not a charity.
Actually, AOL's savings by getting rid of a developer or two are negligible. M$, on the other hand, wins big time by having an entire AOL base suddenly switch to IE (I wonder, if it the cash for the settlement was the only thing AOL was after in the first place... We'll never know...)
For them it's a win-win situation. MS has excess cash and wants more domination; AOL doesn't care which browser its customers use, and wouldn't mind the cash.
The problem is that they are a couple years too late. If this happened a couple years earlier, when mozilla was much weaker, it could've crippled it a lot. Now, when I hear people saying that AOL switching from mozilla to IE will kill mozilla, I can't help but laugh. I seriously doubt that it will even significantly impact the userbase - a lot of AOL people use IE right now simply because there is a cool blue icon on their desktop saying "Internet", and that's what they click on when they check their msn.com...