The problem with a situation like a 'multi-decade multi-generational war with "terror"' is that the longer it lasts the more it becomes the norm, the status quo; and that's extremely resistent to change.
The cold war paranoia and hatred was the norm, it quickly evaporated with the threat and we all turned our attention to what to do with the "peace dividend."
And it will last indefinately. A "war on terror" is a war without a defined enemy, and without being able to identify your enemy you cannot possibly win. How do you define "terror"? What does the enemy look like? What flag do they fly? Where do they live?
The cold war was also a war on a philosophy, communism. The enemy was not only the nations of the soviet bloc but insurgents and terrorists trying to spark revolution. Sound familiar? If while prosecuting the war on terror we can greatly reduce state sponsorship (Iran, Syria), reduce non-governmental sponsorship (Saudi Arabia), support an open media (Al Jazeera may not be very open minded in the western sense but it is a first step), support moderate governments and emerging democracies (again, not necessary in the western sense) to demonstrate an alternative, support economic development so individuals believe the alternative is viable, etc. Again, there are many parallels to cold war. Philosophies are defeated with alternative philosophies, however the alternative philosophies may need nurturing and protection until they take hold. There will always been some fanatic in a cave, the goal is to marginal such cases, isolate them and reduce their capacity to cause damage.
The problem now is that the nature of the "war" is different. It is not clearly defined, with an easily defined end-point.
I'm not sure I agree with that. As an old fart who grew up doing the cold war I see many parallels. The cold war ended when we saw peaceful democratic institutions arise from the former soviet bloc (Yugoslavia one exception of course). Perhaps the war on terror will have a similar end when peaceful democratic institutions arise in countries that directly supported terrorism (Iran, Syria) or tacitly (Saudi Arabia).
Seriously, here in europe they still teach history in school. The USA are on a very dark path, and pretty soon the rest of the world are going to be forced to protect ourselves from them.
Perhaps there are some history lessons you have missed. In the US we have in times of war temporarily restricted liberty. During the US Civil War President Abraham Lincoln muzzled the press, declared martial law in areas of political opposition far from areas of military campaigns, suspended constitutional rights, and ordered the military to ignore Supreme Court orders to unhold these constitutional rights. What is great about the United States is that we can engage in such excesses in times of crisis but then restore liberty when the crisis is over or when we come to realize our overreactions and mistakes as with slavery, the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the anti-communist witchhunts of the Cold War. We can fix things with rebellion, ok, slavery was an exception.
As far as a threat to others, well that is a strange comment from a European. In times of emergency we have had major military forces in Europe and been pretty darn quick to largely pack up and go home, no carving up the spoils, in fact helping to rebuild both friend and foe alike. I think you confuse the hysteria and politically inspired exaggerations of the moment with long standing behavior, well long in the US sense of history not European sense.
I suspect that the hysteria and political differences are due to the US believing it is in a major war (War on Terror, not Irag) and Europe being in what many Americans would say is a state of denial. It doesn't really matter if it is true or not, it only matter that many Americans do feel that we are in a multi-decade multi-generational war with "terror" and they will accept temporary restrictions on liberty. I'm speaking in general, I don't know that RFID's on passports qualify as an attack on liberty. The hysteria may really be more luddite in nature. When the war/crisis is over government excesses will be rolled back due to public pressure, no rebellion required. Been there, done that.
Abraham Lincoln once said "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
I don't know about you all, but I think that Abe was a pretty wise man with a great idea. I sure wish that our government was like that...
Our current government is like Lincoln's in many ways. In the Union (the North) Lincoln was considered very controversial, hated by a large percentage of the population, and his handling of the war was frequently criticized (in New York there were Draft riots). Lincoln was one of our greatest Presidents and truly believed in liberty in general but in his day-to-day handling of a major war liberty was put aside. As it is with today's war. Don't get fixated on Iraq, think War on Terror in general, this will be a multi-decade multi-generational war like the Cold War with Communism.
"With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law."
"In pursuing victory, Lincoln assumed extralegal powers over the press, declared martial law in areas where no military action justified it, quelled draft riots with armed soldiers, and drafted soldiers to fight for the Union cause. No President in history had ever exerted so much executive authority."
So, just to take some numbers at random, let's assume I need 10 apps to work in order not to need to have a Windows machine. And let's assume that 90% of apps work under WINE. What are the odds that all 10 apps that I need are going to be available? Well, it's (90%)^10, which is about 35%.
I disagree with your analysis. Your first flaw is that you ignore the requirements of your formula. The 90% of all apps working under Wine are not chosen at random, they do not have equal "weight", they are chosen by popularity. The odds that a random person's 10 important app are in that 90% are far above 35%. Your second flaw is arguing that one individual's particular case is important. In general it is too expensive to support everyone, more practically developer time is very scarce and supporting niche products in the 10% remaining is an exceptionally poor use of time. There will always be new/updated programs with greater popularity that are better recipients of that time.
Now the above represents the theoretical perspect of the Wine devs. The population of some niche community using an unsupported program may find it economical to spend *their* time adding support to Wine. When they are done they can contribute their changes. Ain't open source wonderful? Dev's can ignore the minority that is not worth their time and yet the minority can get serviced.
Please don't misunderstand. I am not suggesting that targetting a subset of MS APIs is fast or easy. I've been down that road in a product far more limitted in scope than Wine, it was painful for us too. I just wanted to clarify that a successful project does not need to be a perfect, or even near perfect, Windows clone (API perspective). I suspected that some readers would focus on the entirety of MS APIs and I wanted them to reconsider doing so.
Your point is well taken but it really seems to address how to pick which APIs go into that xx% that gives you optimal coverage. Optimal coverage is also not something that is fixed. Naturally as new or updated apps come out there will be more work (and pain) for the Wine developers. I guess another way to describe the point that I was trying to get at is that there is a lag between Microsoft introducing APIs and applications beginning to use those APIs, and that it would seem the latter is more important than the former. Adopting a new API can be tricky for a developer because that API may not be supported on older versions of Windows. I'm guessing here but I would expect apps with broader appeal, and more importance to the average Wine user, would be more resistant to requiring newer APIs with little backwards compatibility. I would expect that apps that immediately jump on new APIs and ignore backwards compatibility would tend to be more specialized and more niche oriented and less likely to be needed by Wine users. Again, just guessing.
Maybe this leads us to a way to estimate what xx is. Take the top 10 most commonly used apps, what APIs are used? Now the top 50, then top 250. Plot the % of API coverage required, maybe we'll have a useful curve.
This is really hard work. We're replicating the work of a billion-dollar company.
Yes and no. It is a little simpler than this quote suggests. Wine does not need to implement every API that Microsoft produces. It needs to implement every API that desired Windows applications use. In some ways it is a quality of service problem, the marginal cost between supporting 90% of apps and 100% of apps may be too expensive. Maybe 80% to 90% is too expensive. I don't pretend to know what the optimal percentage is but it is surely not 100% or even mid to high 90%s.
In any case this is a monumental task and the Wine developers deserve an awful lot of credit and thanks.
Re:Easy counter measures, not worth killing whales
on
Sonic Torpedo Defense
·
· Score: 1
My point is that we don't really know that his boss is such a problem. The programmer could easily be the problem, and when you have a recent grad saying everything is being done incorrectly the odds of the programmer being the problem go up.
You are also mistaken with respect to the only solution being to leave. If your boss is clueless with respect to current technology you might want to explain this fact to him and that he is setting *himself* up for failure. Sell yourself as the person who can help him, that by combining your tech knowledge with his knowledge from other fields (management being one of those) you both can get ahead. In short, developing a partnership with your boss.
Its called "shoot from the hip" programming. You won't find any books on that methodology because there is yet to be an expert in the field that ships a working product to the outside world that an end-user would call "good".
Sorry for the delay in responding, I've had scheduling problems of my own.;-) "Shooting from the hip" does not sound like anything new. It sounds like a new catchphrase for an old style that has been failing practitioners for decades.
We only have one side of this story - it could well be another case of a kid coming out of college with a ton of arrogance, no respect for people who have a ton more experience than he, skills that didn't translate to his job, and a problem working with others. Perhaps there's a reason he was canned?
Agreed, this guy may have simply have been clueless.
"Oftentimes, a non-technical manager, or an "old hand" who's edge is no longer sharp will be impressed enough to listen to your technical advice. If they were smart, they'd actually take it."
As someone who worked full time while in school I offer the following advice to recent grads. What we learned in class, and from textbooks, is often more theoretical than practical. Also, believe it or not there are sometimes rational reasons for not choosing the ideal technical solution. YMMV.
"This one needs no explanation..."
Actual it does, the original author's words are those of a clueless newbie. Classic. Hopefully he was just overstating things out of frustration.
"... If you tell management that it will take 8 days, and they turn around and tell you they think it will take six, you need to leave. Rushed work is almost always subpar."
Rushed work is not the only solution to the timeframe problem. For example you can drop features. It often turns out that some are not essential. Cutting your timeframes may be management's subtle way to tell you that you are consistently over-designing, gold-plating, or otherwise doing unnecessary work.
This happened to me this very year, not to mention they tried their hardest to forget to pay me severance, my vaction pay, any way they could cheap out.
Sounds like a classic "last period" problem where there is a greater chance of "opportunistic behavior" when a "relationship" is ending.
It also sounds like the company is either poorly managed or near it's end. Remaining employees are likely to learn of your treatment. The one time I had the opportunity to witness a company in trouble it at least had management that was smart enough to take care of the people in early layoffs very well. This was reassuring to those who remained and gives the impression that the problems are temporary and survivable.
FWIW, when I quit my last job I did so on my return from vacation.
Some game producers, mainly id software usually release the source code for older versions of their games, have you ever thought of doing the same?
Id is a poor example. Their business relies heavily on licensing their engine (source code) to other developers. Letting people see and get used to their code, even older vesions of their engines, fits in well with their business. Releasing old Civ code would be charity, it might even be counterproductive to their business in that it might lead open source Civ-like teams away from dead ends and bad decisions.
Sorry, hit submit rather than preview, the previous post was missing the final comment. Everything is repeated here for convenience.
... However, the en-mass encirclement of a single person (unnecessary use of intimidation/force), and the incarceration (handcuffs!) of a citizen w/o any evidence of a criminal act is preposterous...
I was trained (Reserve Peace Officer, California) that "swarming" a person is legally justified via safety, both the person being interviewed and the officer's. Similiarly searching a person to be interviewed is legally justified via safety. In fact I was trained to begin the instructions for the search with the phrase "For your safety and mine...". Actually handcuffing the person would not be part of normal procedure, a violent history, intoxication, or some overt act would be needed. That said my training is 10+ years out of date.
Now I was not trained to deal with suicide bombers but it would seem a natural extention of past policies and law that handcuffing a person being interviewed and/or breifly detained regarding suicide bombing would be appropriate. The safety of the officers conducting the interview being the legal justification. It seems necessary to prevent a bomber from reaching for a detonator switch.
FWIW, handcuffing is not incarceration, it is not even arrest. It is retraint to facilitate safety, a judgement call where reasonableness varies wildly with the situation. It can be used during interviews and brief detensions before deciding to place someone under arrest and taking them to the station. It is merely uncommon to use handcuffs during interviews.
... However, the en-mass encirclement of a single person (unnecessary use of intimidation/force), and the incarceration (handcuffs!) of a citizen w/o any evidence of a criminal act is preposterous...
I was trained (Reserve Peace Officer, California) that "swarming" a person is legally justified via safety, both the person being interviewed and the officer's. Similiarly searching a person to be interviewed is legally justified via safety. In fact I was trained to begin the instructions for the search with the phrase "For your safety and mine...". Actually handcuffing the person would not be part of normal procedure, a violent history, intoxication, or some overt act would be needed. That said my training is 10+ years out of date.
Actually if you have the Anarchist's Cookbook they will be relieved. It is a piece of crap, the author actually admits this, and you will have identified yourself as a threat only to yourself.
You seem to be, and I apologize if I am reading you wrong, blaming developers for the chicken-and-egg problem. It's not their problem, it's not their mission to jump start a linux game market. Their job is to reach gamers, if a linux gamer is willing to dual boot or emulate then a Win32 version works. Blame those who dual boot or emulate for this situation, not the developers. I don't think developers dislikes linux, they are merely not evangelists.
Keep in mind, this guy guessed a password. This is not someone who wrote a worm that infected hundreds of computers.
Apparently you did not even read the summary:
"It turns out that the Hilton hack was just one of many Bad Things(tm) that he had been up to: calling in bomb threats to schools, creating T-Mobile accounts for himself and his friends, breaking in to data broker LexisNexis' systems are just a few of his exploits."
Telling someone they can't get on the internet because their crime was related to the internet makes no sense.
Actually it makes a lot of sense. It's very much like felons being banned from owning guns, restraining orders preventing someone from returning to the place of the crime or a victim, drunk drivers losing their driving privelages, etc. Furthermore these orders often have exceptions for activities at school or work so the library argument may be a red herring.
I remember old PC games being sold (illegally) in the streets. The CD included a directory called "crack" which contained some patches.
I wonder how long before someone hacks into the OS/X code and does this...
Maybe never. The consumer hardware that ultimately ships may only partly resemble PC compatible hardware. Using Intel CPUs and PCI chipsets does not mean you have a PC compatible motherboard. The current hack only works because Apple is using an off-the-shelf Intel PC motherboard. Apple has quite a bit of experience designing their own motherboards, they could easily redo their current custom design, or redo an Intel reference design, and ship something that does not use PC compatible parts and Mac OS X can be coded to only support those parts. Think interrupt controllers, DMA controllers, etc. The real cost savings comes from using Intel CPUs and PCI chipsets, not from having Intel design your motherboard.
Remember, Apple only said they would do nothing to stop Windows from running on their hardware. That does not mean the version of Windows you have today will run, they may merely mean they would not prevent MS from doing a version of Windows for Apple hardware.
With the high density drives that we have today, the info can still be recovered. Not by your average computer user, but there ARE companies around that can re-mount the platters in special drives and recover the bits.
Well maybe if you were using pistols or shotguns. My friends and I tended to use rifles at 100 yards. When a platter has multiple.30 caliber holes data recovery becomes much more difficult.;-)
They can even recover a failed drive from a striped array, if you supply them with all the other drives in the array.
What is so special about that, that's how RAID is supposed to work? Remove failed drive, insert replacement, wait, data regenerated.
The legislature is largely to blame not the populace. The California legislature is largely out of control, it has been so for many years, it's nearly impossible to vote out an incumbant.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with a situation like a 'multi-decade multi-generational war with "terror"' is that the longer it lasts the more it becomes the norm, the status quo; and that's extremely resistent to change.
The cold war paranoia and hatred was the norm, it quickly evaporated with the threat and we all turned our attention to what to do with the "peace dividend."
And it will last indefinately. A "war on terror" is a war without a defined enemy, and without being able to identify your enemy you cannot possibly win. How do you define "terror"? What does the enemy look like? What flag do they fly? Where do they live?
The cold war was also a war on a philosophy, communism. The enemy was not only the nations of the soviet bloc but insurgents and terrorists trying to spark revolution. Sound familiar? If while prosecuting the war on terror we can greatly reduce state sponsorship (Iran, Syria), reduce non-governmental sponsorship (Saudi Arabia), support an open media (Al Jazeera may not be very open minded in the western sense but it is a first step), support moderate governments and emerging democracies (again, not necessary in the western sense) to demonstrate an alternative, support economic development so individuals believe the alternative is viable, etc. Again, there are many parallels to cold war. Philosophies are defeated with alternative philosophies, however the alternative philosophies may need nurturing and protection until they take hold. There will always been some fanatic in a cave, the goal is to marginal such cases, isolate them and reduce their capacity to cause damage.
The problem now is that the nature of the "war" is different. It is not clearly defined, with an easily defined end-point.
I'm not sure I agree with that. As an old fart who grew up doing the cold war I see many parallels. The cold war ended when we saw peaceful democratic institutions arise from the former soviet bloc (Yugoslavia one exception of course). Perhaps the war on terror will have a similar end when peaceful democratic institutions arise in countries that directly supported terrorism (Iran, Syria) or tacitly (Saudi Arabia).
Seriously, here in europe they still teach history in school. The USA are on a very dark path, and pretty soon the rest of the world are going to be forced to protect ourselves from them.
Perhaps there are some history lessons you have missed. In the US we have in times of war temporarily restricted liberty. During the US Civil War President Abraham Lincoln muzzled the press, declared martial law in areas of political opposition far from areas of military campaigns, suspended constitutional rights, and ordered the military to ignore Supreme Court orders to unhold these constitutional rights. What is great about the United States is that we can engage in such excesses in times of crisis but then restore liberty when the crisis is over or when we come to realize our overreactions and mistakes as with slavery, the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the anti-communist witchhunts of the Cold War. We can fix things with rebellion, ok, slavery was an exception.
As far as a threat to others, well that is a strange comment from a European. In times of emergency we have had major military forces in Europe and been pretty darn quick to largely pack up and go home, no carving up the spoils, in fact helping to rebuild both friend and foe alike. I think you confuse the hysteria and politically inspired exaggerations of the moment with long standing behavior, well long in the US sense of history not European sense.
I suspect that the hysteria and political differences are due to the US believing it is in a major war (War on Terror, not Irag) and Europe being in what many Americans would say is a state of denial. It doesn't really matter if it is true or not, it only matter that many Americans do feel that we are in a multi-decade multi-generational war with "terror" and they will accept temporary restrictions on liberty. I'm speaking in general, I don't know that RFID's on passports qualify as an attack on liberty. The hysteria may really be more luddite in nature. When the war/crisis is over government excesses will be rolled back due to public pressure, no rebellion required. Been there, done that.
Abraham Lincoln once said "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." I don't know about you all, but I think that Abe was a pretty wise man with a great idea. I sure wish that our government was like that...
h tm
i ncoln/
Our current government is like Lincoln's in many ways. In the Union (the North) Lincoln was considered very controversial, hated by a large percentage of the population, and his handling of the war was frequently criticized (in New York there were Draft riots). Lincoln was one of our greatest Presidents and truly believed in liberty in general but in his day-to-day handling of a major war liberty was put aside. As it is with today's war. Don't get fixated on Iraq, think War on Terror in general, this will be a multi-decade multi-generational war like the Cold War with Communism.
"With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law."
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.
"In pursuing victory, Lincoln assumed extralegal powers over the press, declared martial law in areas where no military action justified it, quelled draft riots with armed soldiers, and drafted soldiers to fight for the Union cause. No President in history had ever exerted so much executive authority."
http://www.americanpresident.org/history/abrahaml
So, just to take some numbers at random, let's assume I need 10 apps to work in order not to need to have a Windows machine. And let's assume that 90% of apps work under WINE. What are the odds that all 10 apps that I need are going to be available? Well, it's (90%)^10, which is about 35%.
I disagree with your analysis. Your first flaw is that you ignore the requirements of your formula. The 90% of all apps working under Wine are not chosen at random, they do not have equal "weight", they are chosen by popularity. The odds that a random person's 10 important app are in that 90% are far above 35%. Your second flaw is arguing that one individual's particular case is important. In general it is too expensive to support everyone, more practically developer time is very scarce and supporting niche products in the 10% remaining is an exceptionally poor use of time. There will always be new/updated programs with greater popularity that are better recipients of that time.
Now the above represents the theoretical perspect of the Wine devs. The population of some niche community using an unsupported program may find it economical to spend *their* time adding support to Wine. When they are done they can contribute their changes. Ain't open source wonderful? Dev's can ignore the minority that is not worth their time and yet the minority can get serviced.
Please don't misunderstand. I am not suggesting that targetting a subset of MS APIs is fast or easy. I've been down that road in a product far more limitted in scope than Wine, it was painful for us too. I just wanted to clarify that a successful project does not need to be a perfect, or even near perfect, Windows clone (API perspective). I suspected that some readers would focus on the entirety of MS APIs and I wanted them to reconsider doing so.
Your point is well taken but it really seems to address how to pick which APIs go into that xx% that gives you optimal coverage. Optimal coverage is also not something that is fixed. Naturally as new or updated apps come out there will be more work (and pain) for the Wine developers. I guess another way to describe the point that I was trying to get at is that there is a lag between Microsoft introducing APIs and applications beginning to use those APIs, and that it would seem the latter is more important than the former. Adopting a new API can be tricky for a developer because that API may not be supported on older versions of Windows. I'm guessing here but I would expect apps with broader appeal, and more importance to the average Wine user, would be more resistant to requiring newer APIs with little backwards compatibility. I would expect that apps that immediately jump on new APIs and ignore backwards compatibility would tend to be more specialized and more niche oriented and less likely to be needed by Wine users. Again, just guessing.
Maybe this leads us to a way to estimate what xx is. Take the top 10 most commonly used apps, what APIs are used? Now the top 50, then top 250. Plot the % of API coverage required, maybe we'll have a useful curve.
This is really hard work. We're replicating the work of a billion-dollar company.
Yes and no. It is a little simpler than this quote suggests. Wine does not need to implement every API that Microsoft produces. It needs to implement every API that desired Windows applications use. In some ways it is a quality of service problem, the marginal cost between supporting 90% of apps and 100% of apps may be too expensive. Maybe 80% to 90% is too expensive. I don't pretend to know what the optimal percentage is but it is surely not 100% or even mid to high 90%s.
In any case this is a monumental task and the Wine developers deserve an awful lot of credit and thanks.
College
My point is that we don't really know that his boss is such a problem. The programmer could easily be the problem, and when you have a recent grad saying everything is being done incorrectly the odds of the programmer being the problem go up.
You are also mistaken with respect to the only solution being to leave. If your boss is clueless with respect to current technology you might want to explain this fact to him and that he is setting *himself* up for failure. Sell yourself as the person who can help him, that by combining your tech knowledge with his knowledge from other fields (management being one of those) you both can get ahead. In short, developing a partnership with your boss.
Its called "shoot from the hip" programming. You won't find any books on that methodology because there is yet to be an expert in the field that ships a working product to the outside world that an end-user would call "good".
;-) "Shooting from the hip" does not sound like anything new. It sounds like a new catchphrase for an old style that has been failing practitioners for decades.
Sorry for the delay in responding, I've had scheduling problems of my own.
We only have one side of this story - it could well be another case of a kid coming out of college with a ton of arrogance, no respect for people who have a ton more experience than he, skills that didn't translate to his job, and a problem working with others. Perhaps there's a reason he was canned?
..."
Agreed, this guy may have simply have been clueless.
"Oftentimes, a non-technical manager, or an "old hand" who's edge is no longer sharp will be impressed enough to listen to your technical advice. If they were smart, they'd actually take it."
As someone who worked full time while in school I offer the following advice to recent grads. What we learned in class, and from textbooks, is often more theoretical than practical. Also, believe it or not there are sometimes rational reasons for not choosing the ideal technical solution. YMMV.
"This one needs no explanation
Actual it does, the original author's words are those of a clueless newbie. Classic. Hopefully he was just overstating things out of frustration.
"... If you tell management that it will take 8 days, and they turn around and tell you they think it will take six, you need to leave. Rushed work is almost always subpar."
Rushed work is not the only solution to the timeframe problem. For example you can drop features. It often turns out that some are not essential. Cutting your timeframes may be management's subtle way to tell you that you are consistently over-designing, gold-plating, or otherwise doing unnecessary work.
This happened to me this very year, not to mention they tried their hardest to forget to pay me severance, my vaction pay, any way they could cheap out.
Sounds like a classic "last period" problem where there is a greater chance of "opportunistic behavior" when a "relationship" is ending.
It also sounds like the company is either poorly managed or near it's end. Remaining employees are likely to learn of your treatment. The one time I had the opportunity to witness a company in trouble it at least had management that was smart enough to take care of the people in early layoffs very well. This was reassuring to those who remained and gives the impression that the problems are temporary and survivable.
FWIW, when I quit my last job I did so on my return from vacation.
No need to hide your heat signature when it's 100 degrees outside.
Thermal imaging doesn't care if you are hotter or colder, it only matters that your temperature is different than your surroundings.
Some game producers, mainly id software usually release the source code for older versions of their games, have you ever thought of doing the same?
Id is a poor example. Their business relies heavily on licensing their engine (source code) to other developers. Letting people see and get used to their code, even older vesions of their engines, fits in well with their business. Releasing old Civ code would be charity, it might even be counterproductive to their business in that it might lead open source Civ-like teams away from dead ends and bad decisions.
Sorry, hit submit rather than preview, the previous post was missing the final comment. Everything is repeated here for convenience.
... However, the en-mass encirclement of a single person (unnecessary use of intimidation/force), and the incarceration (handcuffs!) of a citizen w/o any evidence of a criminal act is preposterous ...
...". Actually handcuffing the person would not be part of normal procedure, a violent history, intoxication, or some overt act would be needed. That said my training is 10+ years out of date.
I was trained (Reserve Peace Officer, California) that "swarming" a person is legally justified via safety, both the person being interviewed and the officer's. Similiarly searching a person to be interviewed is legally justified via safety. In fact I was trained to begin the instructions for the search with the phrase "For your safety and mine
Now I was not trained to deal with suicide bombers but it would seem a natural extention of past policies and law that handcuffing a person being interviewed and/or breifly detained regarding suicide bombing would be appropriate. The safety of the officers conducting the interview being the legal justification. It seems necessary to prevent a bomber from reaching for a detonator switch.
FWIW, handcuffing is not incarceration, it is not even arrest. It is retraint to facilitate safety, a judgement call where reasonableness varies wildly with the situation. It can be used during interviews and brief detensions before deciding to place someone under arrest and taking them to the station. It is merely uncommon to use handcuffs during interviews.
... However, the en-mass encirclement of a single person (unnecessary use of intimidation/force), and the incarceration (handcuffs!) of a citizen w/o any evidence of a criminal act is preposterous ...
...". Actually handcuffing the person would not be part of normal procedure, a violent history, intoxication, or some overt act would be needed. That said my training is 10+ years out of date.
I was trained (Reserve Peace Officer, California) that "swarming" a person is legally justified via safety, both the person being interviewed and the officer's. Similiarly searching a person to be interviewed is legally justified via safety. In fact I was trained to begin the instructions for the search with the phrase "For your safety and mine
Actually if you have the Anarchist's Cookbook they will be relieved. It is a piece of crap, the author actually admits this, and you will have identified yourself as a threat only to yourself.
You seem to be, and I apologize if I am reading you wrong, blaming developers for the chicken-and-egg problem. It's not their problem, it's not their mission to jump start a linux game market. Their job is to reach gamers, if a linux gamer is willing to dual boot or emulate then a Win32 version works. Blame those who dual boot or emulate for this situation, not the developers. I don't think developers dislikes linux, they are merely not evangelists.
Keep in mind, this guy guessed a password. This is not someone who wrote a worm that infected hundreds of computers.
Apparently you did not even read the summary:
"It turns out that the Hilton hack was just one of many Bad Things(tm) that he had been up to: calling in bomb threats to schools, creating T-Mobile accounts for himself and his friends, breaking in to data broker LexisNexis' systems are just a few of his exploits."
Telling someone they can't get on the internet because their crime was related to the internet makes no sense.
Actually it makes a lot of sense. It's very much like felons being banned from owning guns, restraining orders preventing someone from returning to the place of the crime or a victim, drunk drivers losing their driving privelages, etc. Furthermore these orders often have exceptions for activities at school or work so the library argument may be a red herring.
I remember old PC games being sold (illegally) in the streets. The CD included a directory called "crack" which contained some patches. I wonder how long before someone hacks into the OS/X code and does this...
Maybe never. The consumer hardware that ultimately ships may only partly resemble PC compatible hardware. Using Intel CPUs and PCI chipsets does not mean you have a PC compatible motherboard. The current hack only works because Apple is using an off-the-shelf Intel PC motherboard. Apple has quite a bit of experience designing their own motherboards, they could easily redo their current custom design, or redo an Intel reference design, and ship something that does not use PC compatible parts and Mac OS X can be coded to only support those parts. Think interrupt controllers, DMA controllers, etc. The real cost savings comes from using Intel CPUs and PCI chipsets, not from having Intel design your motherboard.
Remember, Apple only said they would do nothing to stop Windows from running on their hardware. That does not mean the version of Windows you have today will run, they may merely mean they would not prevent MS from doing a version of Windows for Apple hardware.
"used old hard drives for target practice"
.30 caliber holes data recovery becomes much more difficult. ;-)
With the high density drives that we have today, the info can still be recovered. Not by your average computer user, but there ARE companies around that can re-mount the platters in special drives and recover the bits.
Well maybe if you were using pistols or shotguns. My friends and I tended to use rifles at 100 yards. When a platter has multiple
They can even recover a failed drive from a striped array, if you supply them with all the other drives in the array.
What is so special about that, that's how RAID is supposed to work? Remove failed drive, insert replacement, wait, data regenerated.
A "new era", no, it's just an incremental improvement. 32- to 64-bit x86 is going to be far less dramatic than 16- to 32-bit.
The populace continues to surprise.
The legislature is largely to blame not the populace. The California legislature is largely out of control, it has been so for many years, it's nearly impossible to vote out an incumbant.
Fine by me. There are lots of players out there who do see fit to cater to my needs.
3 /
Actually they seem to be going out of business doing so.
"D&M Holdings will exit the mass-market portable digital audio player business, currently marketed under the Rio brand, by Sept. 30."
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/696