The problem is, the people performing the peer review, often rely on me to explain to them exactly what i did, and what the changes I made actually accomplish. This is not because the person is absolutely retarded, it has more to do with the fact that the position I occupy is a higher paying position, and the person doing the review... well... is not so well paying, thus a more junior (read as: less experienced) person.
This is part of why you have peer reviews. It's so you can educate the PFYs in the ways of whatever you're building.
I would. I've read enough of the backstory to believe that, paranoid as he was, Childs was the only one competent to deal with the network, or at best one of a few. Regardless, would you give up the goods to a wet behind the ears 'security consultant' who just got there a month ago? Given the idiocy in the department and the fact that he'd be the one to clean things up, I'd say no.
The way around this is to design your app such that heavy lifting, where possible, is done in native leaf nodes; most of the time, I don't really run into problems like this: stuff is either fast enough or it's obviously doing way too much work.
If you're in a position where there are separate roles for DBA, AD, etc, then you can be better at each if you stick to one. Sure, you can do all of them, but it's less efficient. If I were in a small startup, sure, I'd do DBA (and software dev too), but I'm not, and i'm more productive for it.
That's because you just don't get it: having different skills for similar roles is far different than rotating through different roles. That's as stupid as the japanese habit of rotating people through engineering, AP, and PR.
If speed were your primary concern, how could you not go with assembly.
With rare exceptions (like codecs), c++ is just as fast as asm, and twice as easy to maintain. Most of your gains are from algorithm choice, anyway.
If you were to program OO using C++, it should always be significantly slower than Java due to the large number of tiny heap allocations/de-allocations. In order to compete, C++ programmers constantly have to consider putting every object on the Stack.
Or maybe a C++ programmer just throws things in there as needed. No mallocs = fast memory usage.
Also, many languages are going away from speed concerns altogether. Ruby is so far out of the C++/Java ballpark that it's silly.
Dunno about that, but python allows you to replace chunks of your script with native code, so you get script dev speed and the slow parts are a native library.
Of course they were. If you're running around in the hills and someone shoots at you, you kill them. Warning shots are for threats that you'd rather not kill.
No, mattel won a contract for building the grips (and hand guards?). They stamped their logo on it and, since the original m16 was such shit (it's still temperamental), it got called things like Barbie combat rifle.
you buy m-16s, sniper rifles, and pistols because of the specialized applications - I don't buy the one size fits all thing - a pistol is about 2 lbs, and a sniper rifle is good out to a kilometer or so - I doubt anything can fill both roles. Regardless, soldiers want reliability - I wouldn't trust a single complicated device to save my bacon
I can think of at least 2 places, where the military might like to have a multi purpose gun, Iraq and Afghanistan, just toggle it to 'stun' and fire away without worries that it wasn't the right guy, if you need lethal force because they're firing back at you, then you can switch the setting while hiding behind a building.
I doubt the locals will grok the whole non-lethal thing - they'd be totally justified in trying to kill some asshole who's shooting at them. Hell, if a cop just started shooting at me, I'd assume he was trying to kill me and shoot back.
Amazon does more than patent something stupid like oneclick (and yes, I worked there for a few years). They sell lots of books, dvds, and random crap like the badonkadonk for decent prices.
Or that they can make some precedent to go after the big fish with. If I were bezos' legal counsel, I might suggest funding the defense of one of these guys.
"Sure, the odds are 1000:1 against that I'll be hit by a bus, but there are a lot of ways disaster can strike, and they add up. You willing to ignore 5:1 odds? How about 10:1, or 15:1?"
You don't get it, do you? If you leave and management doesn't like you, any fuckups will be your fault. Doesn't matter who causes them. If I were in jail being prosecuted, I sure as hell wouldn't give my ex-boss the ability to fuck up further and then tell the prosecuter about it. At least, I'd get a lawyer to manage that interaction.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, the people performing the peer review, often rely on me to explain to them exactly what i did, and what the changes I made actually accomplish. This is not because the person is absolutely retarded, it has more to do with the fact that the position I occupy is a higher paying position, and the person doing the review... well... is not so well paying, thus a more junior (read as: less experienced) person.
This is part of why you have peer reviews. It's so you can educate the PFYs in the ways of whatever you're building.
Lots of people had access to the systems
No they didn't. They hadn't had access to the routers for a year or more.
I would. I've read enough of the backstory to believe that, paranoid as he was, Childs was the only one competent to deal with the network, or at best one of a few. Regardless, would you give up the goods to a wet behind the ears 'security consultant' who just got there a month ago? Given the idiocy in the department and the fact that he'd be the one to clean things up, I'd say no.
The system had been like that for quite some time; it's reasonable considering the level of physical security in branch offices.
Childs was arguably the smartest technical person willing to work for SF; outsourcing isn't really an option with him.
The way around this is to design your app such that heavy lifting, where possible, is done in native leaf nodes; most of the time, I don't really run into problems like this: stuff is either fast enough or it's obviously doing way too much work.
If you're in a position where there are separate roles for DBA, AD, etc, then you can be better at each if you stick to one. Sure, you can do all of them, but it's less efficient. If I were in a small startup, sure, I'd do DBA (and software dev too), but I'm not, and i'm more productive for it.
Network, AD, and system support are very different specialties. Are you saying that the Cisco guy should cross train with the DBA on AD?
That's because you just don't get it: having different skills for similar roles is far different than rotating through different roles. That's as stupid as the japanese habit of rotating people through engineering, AP, and PR.
If speed were your primary concern, how could you not go with assembly.
With rare exceptions (like codecs), c++ is just as fast as asm, and twice as easy to maintain. Most of your gains are from algorithm choice, anyway.
If you were to program OO using C++, it should always be significantly slower than Java due to the large number of tiny heap allocations/de-allocations. In order to compete, C++ programmers constantly have to consider putting every object on the Stack.
Or maybe a C++ programmer just throws things in there as needed. No mallocs = fast memory usage.
Also, many languages are going away from speed concerns altogether. Ruby is so far out of the C++/Java ballpark that it's silly.
Dunno about that, but python allows you to replace chunks of your script with native code, so you get script dev speed and the slow parts are a native library.
Why bother? Plenty of graduates of accredited programs are idiots anyway - better to test their ability to do the job.
Shouldn't be surprising - that's why microwaves work: they excite water.
It Does have a label already: ESRB is widely used and better than the MPAA ratings, which are also voluntary.
Of course they were. If you're running around in the hills and someone shoots at you, you kill them. Warning shots are for threats that you'd rather not kill.
No, mattel won a contract for building the grips (and hand guards?). They stamped their logo on it and, since the original m16 was such shit (it's still temperamental), it got called things like Barbie combat rifle.
you buy m-16s, sniper rifles, and pistols because of the specialized applications - I don't buy the one size fits all thing - a pistol is about 2 lbs, and a sniper rifle is good out to a kilometer or so - I doubt anything can fill both roles. Regardless, soldiers want reliability - I wouldn't trust a single complicated device to save my bacon
I can think of at least 2 places, where the military might like to have a multi purpose gun, Iraq and Afghanistan, just toggle it to 'stun' and fire away without worries that it wasn't the right guy, if you need lethal force because they're firing back at you, then you can switch the setting while hiding behind a building.
I doubt the locals will grok the whole non-lethal thing - they'd be totally justified in trying to kill some asshole who's shooting at them. Hell, if a cop just started shooting at me, I'd assume he was trying to kill me and shoot back.
Well you can, but it requires a large range for misses and something like a Steyr Scout.
Amazon does more than patent something stupid like oneclick (and yes, I worked there for a few years). They sell lots of books, dvds, and random crap like the badonkadonk for decent prices.
Bezos isn't a patent troll - Amazon actually produces value.
Or that they can make some precedent to go after the big fish with. If I were bezos' legal counsel, I might suggest funding the defense of one of these guys.
If you're doing a connected grid-offset system, then you don't need batteries.
All right. How about this: mandatory death sentence - Texas style, not California - for anyone convicted of drunk driving.
DUI level drunk driving or .15 swerve all over the road drunk driving?
Technical people would do well to plan some showy but innocuous sabotage to drive the point home.
"Sure, the odds are 1000:1 against that I'll be hit by a bus, but there are a lot of ways disaster can strike, and they add up. You willing to ignore 5:1 odds? How about 10:1, or 15:1?"
You don't get it, do you? If you leave and management doesn't like you, any fuckups will be your fault. Doesn't matter who causes them. If I were in jail being prosecuted, I sure as hell wouldn't give my ex-boss the ability to fuck up further and then tell the prosecuter about it. At least, I'd get a lawyer to manage that interaction.