...video linked supplied, there's no chaos, and despite the insinuation of more than one person, including children, having seizures - I saw one guy whose legs were trembling. I've seen shock victims trembling worse.
I'm not saying this didn't happen, I am just saying that the video basically shows nothing (and maybe there's something wrong with me, but I didn't think it was 'graphic' in the slightest.)
I have one that logs into my company's server to retrieve configuration information (and has a special 'Apple' account that the Apple testers use to validate the app.)
I can see them testing releases in real-time on the server monitoring dashboard - "Oh, look, Apple just ran the app..."
Many business applications require this type of functionality when being tested by the App store (as mine does.)
If you would take the time to re-read her OP you would see that you're actually quite wrong in claiming she has contradicted herself in the follow on post. It would seem especially obvious to you given that you profess to understand the Yucca mountain issues as well. I'm moderately aware of the issues and I understood exactly what she meant by her post.
Maybe next time you'll start with a more objective viewpoint towards someone (since you apparently [and demonstrably] harbor a dislike for her) before shooting yourself in the foot again.
...company; however, great advice for a private company.
Suddenly the majority of your revenue base is entirely dependent upon subscriptions. That works great for a few quarters (really great actually), and if Wall Street wasn't a ridiculous place where people could care less if you posted 1B in revenue two quarters in a row - they only care about growth irrespective of how healthy or profitable your business is - it could work.
Sadly, that's not how publicly traded companies are evaluated. Finding new revenue generation mechanisms that do not preclude the pre-existing mechanisms is pretty much Facebook's only way forward.
I used to live in Tamalpais Valley in the Bay Area, paying $900/month for a single room in a house, this was in 1996. Things have gotten astronomically worse from what I hear from my friends. Heck, a pair of friends dropped $300k on a crappy little house in the canal district of San Rafael that year as well. I didn't tell them this, but it was a sh**hole! Things are just insane out there.
While I have a very nice $500k house now in the South-East, and the cost of living is great, I don't think you're going to be finding any decent lake property for $500k with a house on it without wheels;).
I think the only way I could afford to live in the Bay Area without living in a dump now would be a live-aboard on a nice boat - the only problem is that getting a live-aboard permit in the Bay Area is supposed to be nigh on impossible (although I'm sure tons of people are doing it illegally.)
Mobile is iOS and Android with serious clients insisting on Android first and less savvy clients only concerned with iOS (despite my efforts to explain market share to them.)
Middleware development is almost entirely CentOS/Mint mix.
Back end is WS2003/2008/CentOS for horizontally scalable, and exclusively CentOS for massively scalable (i.e. something along the lines of the AKF cube.)
What does that have to do with the issue being discussed?
My comment isn't some comparison to whether or not NASA software is more or less stable.
I'm replying to someone who says that "proper software engineering" doesn't work and that code that does work is invariably ugly and violates best practices.
Someone countered with "well, NASA seems to disprove that with the following example", which was then asserted to be a very special case because NASA had a large number of people in a relatively small amount of code written to unchanging (basically) specifications.
I'm countering that with an example of what was a well engineered codebase with far less people than NASA used and far more code, and the code works well.
Hmmm... Didn't seem like a problem when I was at SoftImage and we had several million lines of code and 80 devs. We had to adapt to changing market conditions, we had to get out ahead of our competitors, and we had to produce quality software.
That being said, we burned out a few QA guys here and there;)...
My anecdote is not meaningless, it's a direct example of how the OP's suggestion to pick the guy who suffered through math over a guy who went to a more 'programming oriented' curriculum can be the wrong choice.
I'm not saying it is always the wrong choice, I'm not saying it is often the wrong choice, I"m saying that you can't simply dictate that you take the guy with the math over the guy without the math.
I didn't enjoy Calc I, but it wasn't too bad. I slogged my way through Calc II, while more intense, it wasn't too back either. Calc III where we went back and proved Calc I and II made me want to give birth to an accountant (props to Dangerfield here.)
The ability to perform abstractions, and do so mathematically, is INCREDIBLY important in any complicated software system.
I didn't like math either - just gut it out, you'll be happy you did.
While I understand your point, it also has weaknesses.
I worked with a guy who was a math guru - and he was an absolute sh** software engineer. Oh, he could program some - give him a very finite problem to solve and he could solve it very functionally; however, when it came to actual software *engineering* he was an total loss.
Normally we'd replace a guy like that, but like I said, he was great with numbers - so we gave him a sandbox to play in. He never ever, ever, checked in code into our system. He'd finish something and turn it over to another engineer who'd refactor it and check it in.
He was a hell of a nice guy too, but being smart has nothing to do with being a good software engineer (although it surely makes it easier.)
Installed it on the log room computer when the Chiefs weren't looking and coded away the long trip to Wake Island from Hawaii at 8-12 knots (and the way back.)
I'd always been good with computers before, but after this I was totally hooked on coding.
You've got to be joking. Irix is the Windows ME of *nix operating systems. It was a running joke with everyone I ever met that was using an SGI box. We used to get os/tool distributions every couple of weeks, ostensibly 'updates to increase the productivity of the system' - but in fact emergency crash patches.
Ignoring the fact that I've seen SunOS/Solaris core dump its own utilities and X windows implementation HUNDREDS of times, Irix 5.x and 6.x crashed all the time during the whole of the 90's (I haven't used it since 1999.)
I'm sorry, but if you didn't experience an Irix crash daily in the 90's then you weren't using your IR/IR2/Indy/O2/Octane for much more than running a single tool.
It is impossible for you to have ever used an Irix 5.0 machine and not experience routine crashing.
Well, you haven't used Irix, SunOS/Solaris, HP-Unix/UX, or several other distros of Linux - as these also exhibit various levels of instability from crashing several times a day to just daily.
Have an OSX box that has crashed several times in the past few months, an OpenSUSE box where the window managers (more than one) crash periodically, and a Windows 7 box that has never crashed.
I also have boxes that exhibit strengths the other way. I have CentOS boxes in the QA cloud thathave never been down, and WS 2003 boxes that fragment memory when they shouldn't (only crashing a process, but I count that when the cause is memory fragmentation and the process is carefully and strictly engineered to account for this.
Funny, I can crash our CentOS servers by making some minor changes to our firewall...
The point being that I've seen Windows servers that were up for years (especially back in the Windows 2000 days) and *nix boxes that crash all the time. I've also seen the reverse.
Actually, according to the article you supplied a link for, the sticking point that Google failed upon was part of the original requirements. There were changes to some of the FBI's requirements after the signing in 2009, but the changes were not those that Google has failed to deliver upon.
Slashdot Mirror
...video linked supplied, there's no chaos, and despite the insinuation of more than one person, including children, having seizures - I saw one guy whose legs were trembling. I've seen shock victims trembling worse.
I'm not saying this didn't happen, I am just saying that the video basically shows nothing (and maybe there's something wrong with me, but I didn't think it was 'graphic' in the slightest.)
Maybe they linked the wrong video.
I have one that logs into my company's server to retrieve configuration information (and has a special 'Apple' account that the Apple testers use to validate the app.)
I can see them testing releases in real-time on the server monitoring dashboard - "Oh, look, Apple just ran the app..."
Many business applications require this type of functionality when being tested by the App store (as mine does.)
Where do I send royalties for using that analogy in the future?
Cheers for hitting that right on the head...
If you would take the time to re-read her OP you would see that you're actually quite wrong in claiming she has contradicted herself in the follow on post.
It would seem especially obvious to you given that you profess to understand the Yucca mountain issues as well.
I'm moderately aware of the issues and I understood exactly what she meant by her post.
Maybe next time you'll start with a more objective viewpoint towards someone (since you apparently [and demonstrably] harbor a dislike for her) before shooting yourself in the foot again.
You want to be treated equal and not have to worry about sexism? Post as an AC you ignorant fuck.
The insipid stupidity found in your statement is, ironically enough, quite impressive. +1 for posting as AC as well - LOL.
...company; however, great advice for a private company.
Suddenly the majority of your revenue base is entirely dependent upon subscriptions. That works great for a few quarters (really great actually), and if Wall Street wasn't a ridiculous place where people could care less if you posted 1B in revenue two quarters in a row - they only care about growth irrespective of how healthy or profitable your business is - it could work.
Sadly, that's not how publicly traded companies are evaluated. Finding new revenue generation mechanisms that do not preclude the pre-existing mechanisms is pretty much Facebook's only way forward.
Ignoring that he suddenly goes from one of the elite of the elites in penetration testing to an average guy in a group of thousands...
I used to live in Tamalpais Valley in the Bay Area, paying $900/month for a single room in a house, this was in 1996. Things have gotten astronomically worse from what I hear from my friends. Heck, a pair of friends dropped $300k on a crappy little house in the canal district of San Rafael that year as well. I didn't tell them this, but it was a sh**hole! Things are just insane out there.
While I have a very nice $500k house now in the South-East, and the cost of living is great, I don't think you're going to be finding any decent lake property for $500k with a house on it without wheels ;).
I think the only way I could afford to live in the Bay Area without living in a dump now would be a live-aboard on a nice boat - the only problem is that getting a live-aboard permit in the Bay Area is supposed to be nigh on impossible (although I'm sure tons of people are doing it illegally.)
...
Thin client development is Windows/OSX.
Mobile is iOS and Android with serious clients insisting on Android first and less savvy clients only concerned with iOS (despite my efforts to explain market share to them.)
Middleware development is almost entirely CentOS/Mint mix.
Back end is WS2003/2008/CentOS for horizontally scalable, and exclusively CentOS for massively scalable (i.e. something along the lines of the AKF cube.)
Eddie Münster rebellion anyone?
What does that have to do with the issue being discussed?
My comment isn't some comparison to whether or not NASA software is more or less stable.
I'm replying to someone who says that "proper software engineering" doesn't work and that code that does work is invariably ugly and violates best practices.
Someone countered with "well, NASA seems to disprove that with the following example", which was then asserted to be a very special case because NASA had a large number of people in a relatively small amount of code written to unchanging (basically) specifications.
I'm countering that with an example of what was a well engineered codebase with far less people than NASA used and far more code, and the code works well.
Hmmm... Didn't seem like a problem when I was at SoftImage and we had several million lines of code and 80 devs. We had to adapt to changing market conditions, we had to get out ahead of our competitors, and we had to produce quality software.
That being said, we burned out a few QA guys here and there ;)...
My anecdote is not meaningless, it's a direct example of how the OP's suggestion to pick the guy who suffered through math over a guy who went to a more 'programming oriented' curriculum can be the wrong choice.
I'm not saying it is always the wrong choice, I'm not saying it is often the wrong choice, I"m saying that you can't simply dictate that you take the guy with the math over the guy without the math.
It's never about the number of lines of code you check in, it's about the quality of your work.
Totally agreed.
I didn't enjoy Calc I, but it wasn't too bad.
I slogged my way through Calc II, while more intense, it wasn't too back either.
Calc III where we went back and proved Calc I and II made me want to give birth to an accountant (props to Dangerfield here.)
The ability to perform abstractions, and do so mathematically, is INCREDIBLY important in any complicated software system.
I didn't like math either - just gut it out, you'll be happy you did.
While I understand your point, it also has weaknesses.
I worked with a guy who was a math guru - and he was an absolute sh** software engineer. Oh, he could program some - give him a very finite problem to solve and he could solve it very functionally; however, when it came to actual software *engineering* he was an total loss.
Normally we'd replace a guy like that, but like I said, he was great with numbers - so we gave him a sandbox to play in. He never ever, ever, checked in code into our system. He'd finish something and turn it over to another engineer who'd refactor it and check it in.
He was a hell of a nice guy too, but being smart has nothing to do with being a good software engineer (although it surely makes it easier.)
I had previously dabbled in logo, basic, Applesoft basic, et cetera.
Heard we were being deployed to Wake Island for a downed aircraft recovery (interesting term when the aircraft is in 17,000+ feet of water...)
So, I bought a little book titled "Learn C in 3 days" - http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61OPqyHTH%2BL.jpg
Then I bought a copy of Turbo C++.
Installed it on the log room computer when the Chiefs weren't looking and coded away the long trip to Wake Island from Hawaii at 8-12 knots (and the way back.)
I'd always been good with computers before, but after this I was totally hooked on coding.
Exactly, I get 100 mbps, unlimited, and static IP for $122/month (that's a good price in my area.)
You've got to be joking. Irix is the Windows ME of *nix operating systems. It was a running joke with everyone I ever met that was using an SGI box. We used to get os/tool distributions every couple of weeks, ostensibly 'updates to increase the productivity of the system' - but in fact emergency crash patches.
Ignoring the fact that I've seen SunOS/Solaris core dump its own utilities and X windows implementation HUNDREDS of times, Irix 5.x and 6.x crashed all the time during the whole of the 90's (I haven't used it since 1999.)
I'm sorry, but if you didn't experience an Irix crash daily in the 90's then you weren't using your IR/IR2/Indy/O2/Octane for much more than running a single tool.
It is impossible for you to have ever used an Irix 5.0 machine and not experience routine crashing.
Well, you haven't used Irix, SunOS/Solaris, HP-Unix/UX, or several other distros of Linux - as these also exhibit various levels of instability from crashing several times a day to just daily.
Have an OSX box that has crashed several times in the past few months, an OpenSUSE box where the window managers (more than one) crash periodically, and a Windows 7 box that has never crashed.
I also have boxes that exhibit strengths the other way. I have CentOS boxes in the QA cloud thathave never been down, and WS 2003 boxes that fragment memory when they shouldn't (only crashing a process, but I count that when the cause is memory fragmentation and the process is carefully and strictly engineered to account for this.
Funny, I can crash our CentOS servers by making some minor changes to our firewall...
The point being that I've seen Windows servers that were up for years (especially back in the Windows 2000 days) and *nix boxes that crash all the time. I've also seen the reverse.
...outside of static target shooting, it doesn't appear to be of much use; and, for static target shooting it is only of value as an evaluation tool.
Actually, according to the article you supplied a link for, the sticking point that Google failed upon was part of the original requirements. There were changes to some of the FBI's requirements after the signing in 2009, but the changes were not those that Google has failed to deliver upon.
...whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think about if they should.
Talk about a technology ripe for abuse/hacking/et cetera.
Damn, that sounds rough. I think when I was 10 I could stay up to 9PM.