Yeah, it kind of jars you out of the game when you face-plant into a barrier at 100Mph, then just back up. It should at least kick you out of the race.
Just about all discretionary spending -- new hires, capital (even to support development of new products that have already been approved and promised to customers), marketing, training, travel -- is turned on and off simultaneously by one manager who's watching daily sales figures.
This may be the work of a neurotic, but when sane people centralize all spending to one person, that usually means that the company is doomed.
Of course not every company is composed of ignorant PHBs and smart, hard-working underlings, but in my (limited experience) it's most often better for the business overall if you can give the execs something to keep them busy.:)
This, I can understand. It just looked like you were looking to change the stuff that the grunts used and using fancy report generators to justify it.
The only way to combat the muscle memory of secretaries, etc., is to give the higher-ups more real-time application reporting capabilities (how many widgets were sold today, etc). The higher-ups can never get enough reports, and they'll forgo anything to get them.
Are you trying to help this company or jst make money?
Most NORMAL people at that point would think that a simple phone call to the phone company could straighten this out, right? Wrong. It took two years of fighting, and three investigations, before the phone company would finally acknowledge that the bill wasn't mine and remove it from my credit report.
Nope, don't call the phone company about your credit report. Dispute the line with each credit agency, as the phone company will likely fail to respond within their alloted time, thus requiring that the line be removed.
After that, go and fight with the phone company. Of course, your experience is exactly what you should expect - they're the phone company, they don't have to care.
Most of course, are garbage dot-com resumes [callipygian.com] or from other unqualified individuals. It's nearly impossible for a good resume to break through the signal-to-noise ratio.
Hey! I'm one of those people you're throwing out! It so happens that I am very qualified for the stuff that I do (C++ development on Unix, Win32). Just because a lot of unqualified people worked at dot-coms doesn't mean that we are all idiots. Since you're looking for someone to blame, why not look at the VCs and underwriters who supplied millions to anyone who could spell internet and conspired to fleece investors?
The same holds true for the file formats. 10 years ago, a one page word processing document required 2 to 5K. Today wordprocessing documents regularly go to a couple of hundred K and a few "choice" documents can be over a meg.
My resume is about a page and it's about 30k. I can get 90 minutes of video on a CD. In the future, I doubt that movies will run much past 10G/hr, so where's this horrid bloat? What I see is media files expanding until most people don't care or can't tell the difference between one level and the next, then stopping. I expect that we'll find more ways to use space, but the current stuff will only grow so far.
Figure a 72G 10K rpm SCSI disk at $500 times 20 + 4 spares = 12000 for the disks. Then figure that a raid controller runs $500 - $2000 and add a large hot plug chassis and you're looking at $15k. However, You now have hardware supported RAID at up to 400MB/s sustained and all of those drives are covered by a 5 year warranty. The 4 spares are just insurance against a supply problem down the road. Of course, you need to buy you disks from different lots (5 per dealer perhaps) to minimize the effects of a bad lot. Yeah, SCSI is expensive, but you get better reliability.
Wrong. Apparently nobody here has ever coded on a system with only 1-2 megs of RAM available. I'm done explaining it, but read the thread or go read a book on what is and isn't possible with malloc() and not blitting zero to your memory segment.
We're not talking about an embedded system or an old win3.1 box. We are talking about a protected-memory multitasking machine where malloc != OS allocation. I understand all about how malloc doesn't zero bytes, but the OS allocator (that gives memory to a process) had damn well better.
I would advise you to stop this thread, because we are talking about standards here. calloc() sets memory to zero. malloc() does not. This does not depend upon what C library you are using, this is the standard.
We're talking about OS allocation routines, not malloc()
The fact of the matter is malloc() is not expected to zero the memory, where as calloc() is. malloc(0) can return a null pointer or a pointer to zero bytes. These are the things that malloc() is designed and understood to do. You can argue what happens behind the scenes all you want, but as for the actual function call, it is not expected to zero the memory.
The fact of the matter is that you are missing a very large point: The OS is handing leftover data from one app to another. This is all sorts of bad for any number of security issues. I don't want to depend on every app that runs on my machine to do the right thing and zero memory that is being written out to disk or the wire.
The major cost of piracy isn't "lost" sales, but the fact that it forces them to lower their prices in order to compete with the pirate market.
Not at all. Pirate merchandise is either easily recognized as such or indistinguishable from the real thing. The second category accounts for most of the problems, and what it does is divert sales to whoever is running the operation. It doesn't compete, because there's no way for a customer to tell the two apart.
Now, kids trading music online - that doesn't even register.
Re:Seek solace in My love
on
Half Mast
·
· Score: 1
This is probably more difficult than you think. If we asume that the checksum will be MD5's, you would need MD5's for every version of office in every language, compressed with every major compression utility. Right there you have a few thousand MD5 sums. On top of that, a one byte change will cause the MD5's to not "hit".
So download a couple files and check the contents. That cuts the number of versions considerably.
If you mean the paper published by David Levine and Michele Boldrin, then you're being ridiculous. Firstly, it's JUST a theory, an untested, undemonstrated, and not even a widely agreed upon one (in fact, most economists roundly reject it).
While the theory may well be crap, there is plenty of empirical evidence that strong IP protection, especially of the nonsensical variety seen nowadays, strangles innovation. Instead, any new idea is already coopted by existing patent laws, thus the only people who can take advantage of them are those who have no incentive to do so - the incumbents.
I expect that you will argue that this would not be a problem, if only we had competent examiners who were properly motivated to reject false patents. My response to that would be that such a thing is impossible in the current environment - trying to rationalize the patent process in this way would be viewed by the corporations that benefit from the current state as an assault on their position and quickly killed.
It is relevant because the idea that strong IP necessarily reduces innovation is clearly false.
A position contradicted by a recent slashdot article. The article in question is far more eloquent than I am, so I will just mention that most of the innovation in this country happened in spite of strong IP. Strong IP protection protects the established power structure - not a recipe for innovation.
Why is it that China and India produce so little of note, whether you're talking about scientific research or technical/product innovation, despite having tons of educated people and little to no concept of IP.
Well, China is a brutal dictatorship where you can be disappeared for thinking differently, and India, while probably better in this respect, still defines social standing in part by whether you get enough to eat. Never mind that India is fairly protectionist with its trade policies.
Why is it that the USSR did so little when no one could "lock ideas up" for themselves?
Well, the soviets practiced the same sort of groupthink that the chinese do - they chose scientific theories based on the political position of the scientist who proposed them instead of proven results, they centralized their entire economy, so any sort of innovation was difficult to impossible, and, yes, there was no incentive for innovation. It didn't matter that IP wasn't there - if you had a patent on some process, how were you to benefit when the state owned everything and they'd just take it anyways?
d) This country produces far more than any country despite the fact that we arguably "share our toys" less than most countries, even more than countries with much larger populations (even technically educated ones)....
How is this even relevant? Anyway, which countries did you have in mind?
I think you missed the point. Sarcasm doesn't seem to travel well over the net. What the previous poster was trying to say was "For those of you who don't believe that Saddam is any threat to us, you can't deny that he is tyrant and a threat to his *own people*. Stop being so selfish and start giving a rat's ass about the rest of the world. Any world without megalomaniacal tyrants like Saddam is a better place, for everyone." At least that's what I took the poster to mean.
So, we are so compassionate that we will sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and plunge their country and, probably the entire region, into chaos for years, all for the sake of bring Democracy to the savages? Get real. We don't have a credible plan for setting up a democracy. The Iraqi expats we've been grooming for the job haven't set foot in Iraq for 15 years (that's why they're still alive), and they speak better english that farsi. Nobody in Iraq trusts them and they'll likely last less than a year before some autocrat offs them. Face it: Saddam is a nasty little cur, but the alternatives are worse.
Everything costs you money. You need to hire people to support the stuff, whatever you buy. Just because you're saving $150/seat on the OS license doesn't mean you're done. Anyway, a lot of proprietary software is being ported to Linux. That stuff sure as hell won't be free. What it comes down to is which platform lets you do you work best. Cost is somewhat secondary if your work generates revenue.
Slashdot Mirror
cars don't break in gt3..
Yeah, it kind of jars you out of the game when you face-plant into a barrier at 100Mph, then just back up. It should at least kick you out of the race.
Just about all discretionary spending -- new hires, capital (even to support development of new products that have already been approved and promised to customers), marketing, training, travel -- is turned on and off simultaneously by one manager who's watching daily sales figures.
This may be the work of a neurotic, but when sane people centralize all spending to one person, that usually means that the company is doomed.
Of course not every company is composed of ignorant PHBs and smart, hard-working underlings, but in my (limited experience) it's most often better for the business overall if you can give the execs something to keep them busy. :)
This, I can understand. It just looked like you were looking to change the stuff that the grunts used and using fancy report generators to justify it.
The only way to combat the muscle memory of secretaries, etc., is to give the higher-ups more real-time application reporting capabilities (how many widgets were sold today, etc). The higher-ups can never get enough reports, and they'll forgo anything to get them.
Are you trying to help this company or jst make money?
Here's a larger bit of consolation: you probably have no way to actually use it all anyway.
So, how many interviews are you looking at?
Most NORMAL people at that point would think that a simple phone call to the phone company could straighten this out, right? Wrong. It took two years of fighting, and three investigations, before the phone company would finally acknowledge that the bill wasn't mine and remove it from my credit report.
Nope, don't call the phone company about your credit report. Dispute the line with each credit agency, as the phone company will likely fail to respond within their alloted time, thus requiring that the line be removed.
After that, go and fight with the phone company. Of course, your experience is exactly what you should expect - they're the phone company, they don't have to care.
Most of course, are garbage dot-com resumes [callipygian.com] or from other unqualified individuals. It's nearly impossible for a good resume to break through the signal-to-noise ratio.
Hey! I'm one of those people you're throwing out! It so happens that I am very qualified for the stuff that I do (C++ development on Unix, Win32). Just because a lot of unqualified people worked at dot-coms doesn't mean that we are all idiots. Since you're looking for someone to blame, why not look at the VCs and underwriters who supplied millions to anyone who could spell internet and conspired to fleece investors?
Anyone know how to fix a laptop keyboard?
replace it. You can probably find the part on Ebay.
The same holds true for the file formats. 10 years ago, a one page word processing document required 2 to 5K. Today wordprocessing documents regularly go to a couple of hundred K and a few "choice" documents can be over a meg.
My resume is about a page and it's about 30k. I can get 90 minutes of video on a CD. In the future, I doubt that movies will run much past 10G/hr, so where's this horrid bloat? What I see is media files expanding until most people don't care or can't tell the difference between one level and the next, then stopping. I expect that we'll find more ways to use space, but the current stuff will only grow so far.
Of course, the 8500 8 port is $500 and I can't find any hot-plug cages for SATA.
I wonder how much this would cost scsi wise.
Figure a 72G 10K rpm SCSI disk at $500 times 20 + 4 spares = 12000 for the disks. Then figure that a raid controller runs $500 - $2000 and add a large hot plug chassis and you're looking at $15k. However, You now have hardware supported RAID at up to 400MB/s sustained and all of those drives are covered by a 5 year warranty. The 4 spares are just insurance against a supply problem down the road. Of course, you need to buy you disks from different lots (5 per dealer perhaps) to minimize the effects of a bad lot. Yeah, SCSI is expensive, but you get better reliability.
Do you have any clue how memory management works at any level in the operating system?
No, but he sure do like his malloc(3), don't he?
Wrong. Apparently nobody here has ever coded on a system with only 1-2 megs of RAM available. I'm done explaining it, but read the thread or go read a book on what is and isn't possible with malloc() and not blitting zero to your memory segment.
We're not talking about an embedded system or an old win3.1 box. We are talking about a protected-memory multitasking machine where malloc != OS allocation. I understand all about how malloc doesn't zero bytes, but the OS allocator (that gives memory to a process) had damn well better.
I would advise you to stop this thread, because we are talking about standards here. calloc() sets memory to zero. malloc() does not. This does not depend upon what C library you are using, this is the standard.
We're talking about OS allocation routines, not malloc()
The fact of the matter is malloc() is not expected to zero the memory, where as calloc() is. malloc(0) can return a null pointer or a pointer to zero bytes. These are the things that malloc() is designed and understood to do. You can argue what happens behind the scenes all you want, but as for the actual function call, it is not expected to zero the memory.
The fact of the matter is that you are missing a very large point: The OS is handing leftover data from one app to another. This is all sorts of bad for any number of security issues. I don't want to depend on every app that runs on my machine to do the right thing and zero memory that is being written out to disk or the wire.
The major cost of piracy isn't "lost" sales, but the fact that it forces them to lower their prices in order to compete with the pirate market.
Not at all. Pirate merchandise is either easily recognized as such or indistinguishable from the real thing. The second category accounts for most of the problems, and what it does is divert sales to whoever is running the operation. It doesn't compete, because there's no way for a customer to tell the two apart.
Now, kids trading music online - that doesn't even register.
Sounds like Tricky. Shouldn't you attribute it?
what's a mullet?
Business up front, party in the back.
This is probably more difficult than you think. If we asume that the checksum will be MD5's, you would need MD5's for every version of office in every language, compressed with every major compression utility. Right there you have a few thousand MD5 sums. On top of that, a one byte change will cause the MD5's to not "hit".
So download a couple files and check the contents. That cuts the number of versions considerably.
If you mean the paper published by David Levine and Michele Boldrin, then you're being ridiculous. Firstly, it's JUST a theory, an untested, undemonstrated, and not even a widely agreed upon one (in fact, most economists roundly reject it).
While the theory may well be crap, there is plenty of empirical evidence that strong IP protection, especially of the nonsensical variety seen nowadays, strangles innovation. Instead, any new idea is already coopted by existing patent laws, thus the only people who can take advantage of them are those who have no incentive to do so - the incumbents.
I expect that you will argue that this would not be a problem, if only we had competent examiners who were properly motivated to reject false patents. My response to that would be that such a thing is impossible in the current environment - trying to rationalize the patent process in this way would be viewed by the corporations that benefit from the current state as an assault on their position and quickly killed.
Right now I can't get DSL but I can get T-1 service for $400/month.
Where might this be?
It is relevant because the idea that strong IP necessarily reduces innovation is clearly false.
A position contradicted by a recent slashdot article. The article in question is far more eloquent than I am, so I will just mention that most of the innovation in this country happened in spite of strong IP. Strong IP protection protects the established power structure - not a recipe for innovation.
Why is it that China and India produce so little of note, whether you're talking about scientific research or technical/product innovation, despite having tons of educated people and little to no concept of IP.
Well, China is a brutal dictatorship where you can be disappeared for thinking differently, and India, while probably better in this respect, still defines social standing in part by whether you get enough to eat. Never mind that India is fairly protectionist with its trade policies.
Why is it that the USSR did so little when no one could "lock ideas up" for themselves?
Well, the soviets practiced the same sort of groupthink that the chinese do - they chose scientific theories based on the political position of the scientist who proposed them instead of proven results, they centralized their entire economy, so any sort of innovation was difficult to impossible, and, yes, there was no incentive for innovation. It didn't matter that IP wasn't there - if you had a patent on some process, how were you to benefit when the state owned everything and they'd just take it anyways?
d) This country produces far more than any country despite the fact that we arguably "share our toys" less than most countries, even more than countries with much larger populations (even technically educated ones)....
How is this even relevant? Anyway, which countries did you have in mind?
I think you missed the point. Sarcasm doesn't seem to travel well over the net. What the previous poster was trying to say was "For those of you who don't believe that Saddam is any threat to us, you can't deny that he is tyrant and a threat to his *own people*. Stop being so selfish and start giving a rat's ass about the rest of the world. Any world without megalomaniacal tyrants like Saddam is a better place, for everyone." At least that's what I took the poster to mean.
So, we are so compassionate that we will sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and plunge their country and, probably the entire region, into chaos for years, all for the sake of bring Democracy to the savages? Get real. We don't have a credible plan for setting up a democracy. The Iraqi expats we've been grooming for the job haven't set foot in Iraq for 15 years (that's why they're still alive), and they speak better english that farsi. Nobody in Iraq trusts them and they'll likely last less than a year before some autocrat offs them. Face it: Saddam is a nasty little cur, but the alternatives are worse.
Windows costs me money.
Linux doesn't.
Everything costs you money. You need to hire people to support the stuff, whatever you buy. Just because you're saving $150/seat on the OS license doesn't mean you're done. Anyway, a lot of proprietary software is being ported to Linux. That stuff sure as hell won't be free. What it comes down to is which platform lets you do you work best. Cost is somewhat secondary if your work generates revenue.