Nope. I'm a CEO. What does get your job done faster though is hiring that really bright coder 12 timezones away with good English skills at local prices that are "sky high". Intelligence isn't limited to the USA and grabbing that talent before it fleas to a country with better conditions can pay off big time!
Well, this is likely to get me marked troll, but...
Somehow I'm doubting your Ivy League Education which landed you your position as a CEO.
Perhaps it's your spelling of "flees" as "fleas".
You strike me more as a somewhat less educated sock puppet, and/or a non-native English speaker who has not bothered learning English well enough to communicate at the level a CEO must communicate in order to be an effective show pony for the board of directors. Nice attempt at passing yourself off as a CEO in the US, though.
We have a hardcore interview on real world problem solving skills and experience (not Google or MS gotcha brain teasers)
Look, I agree with most of what you've said, but the idea that Google interviews with "brain teasers" is stupid, and I don't know where it originated. If an interviewer did this, they would be told that they were no longer on the interview rotation. The only way to get back on would be to re-take the interview training again, and explicitly contact the HR/recruitment department, and plead ignorance in their last interview.
Google engineering interviews ask questions which are real, solvable problems, and they generally test your ability to try to solve a problem at all, your ability to solve the problem correctly, and your ability to refine your solution to a more optimal algorithm. It's a check on whether or not you have problem solving skills, how you think about problems, and whether or not you can apply your training and experience, and in the limit, generalize between similar problems.
The difficulty weighting is generally tailored to the level you are being considered for being hired in at, and what you've claimed in your resume, and the opinions of the interviewers involved in any previous phone (or on site) interviews.
If you lie on your resume, you will end up screwed by your lies. If you don't have a good college level background in the subject matter, such that it's going to be possible for you to communicate at a high level about complex concepts with your peers, then you're screwed by your inability to do the job as a member of a team. If you aren't smart enough to even try to brute force a solution and show your thought process in doing so, you're screwed.
If you think you've been handed a "brain teaser" in a Google interview, then contact your recruiter, and ask for a substitute interview for the interviewer who gave you the question, or to at least consider the validity of the question when the interview write-ups go to the hiring committee. Realize that in doing this, if the committee thinks it's not a "brain teaser", and that you should have been able to solve the problems, the interviewer you report might end up peer-bonused for catching something that *should* have disqualified you that the other interviewers didn't, and the result could weigh heavily on your changes should you reapply in the future. So it's a two edged sword.
I personally interviewed a multitude of candidates for Google (and before that, Apple).
In its last quarter, Apple made about 50 billions and achieved an increase of around 25% of its earnings. Yet the value of its stock dropped because analysts expected more. What kind of message do you think this situation sends to executive? Focus on long-term growth?
I'm pretty sure that you don't follow Apple stock that closely; I was an Apple employee for 8 years, and here's how Apple works: they make reasonable projections, and the street gets pissed at them for not forecasting higher. The stock goes down for a couple weeks, then slowly goes up to the per-prjection value, then goes past it. When it's time for the earnings call, Apple exceeds their projection. The street gets pissed off because they didn't exceed it by "enough". The stock goes down for a few weeks, then slowly goes up to the pre-announcement value, then goes past it.
This is how it has historically always worked.
Now Apple is pretty much over (IMO) due to their loss of Steve Jobs as both umpire (bye, Scott F.!) and the arbiter of taste (Jon Ive, like you a lot, but of the 12 designs you make, Steve was more qualified to pick the 2 to pursue), and there's no one to ride herd on the rest (Tim C., you are a great supply chain guy, but when Steve told you to spend more on the displays to delight the customers, you should have kept that in mind picking the iPhone 5 pixel aspect ratio).
So yeah, it's going to go down over time from its $710 high, but that's not due to the analysts getting a clue about the claims made on Steve's departure from the company that there were more years worth of product in the pipeline than the 1.5 year insiders knew were actually there. It's going to be current_product++ all the way down: Steve did not have a protege to keep them from making bad long term business decisions after he was gone, and so now they are making them.
Burying them in an IVR so you don't have to deal with them has negative consequences:
(1) It ups your phone bill if it's a WATS line, generally ups it anyway for most commercial land-line plans, and ties up one of the channels you pay for on your trunk with angry person, rather than paying customers
(2) It doesn't solve the original negative social media issues
(3) It gets them to complain about not only your product (the loss-leader), but also about your support (your profit center)
It's pretty clear that you've never successfully used the business model the OP is trying to use in this case, since if you had, you would know the statistic that satisfied customers will tell 1 person for every 20 people an unsatisfied customer will tell.
You should probably go back and hit the marketing books before you consider trying to make a profit off this type of business model.
Given your typical slashdot story has ~100,000 readers that click through the story links, and ~400,000 who don't, for a page viewership of ~500,000 per story discussion, then any given story is likely being seen by ~305 mental health professionals.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
PS: I didn't include a vote up/down on the other diagnostic symptoms, due to lack of information in the posting, not due to their absence in the individual making the posting. I also gave them the benefit of the doubt by classing them APD rather than psychotic, which would no doubt skew the APD numbers higher, but since it's the less dire mental illness, I think that it's fair to say there's a problem, and now it's just due to lack of information that we don't know how bad of one.
If you don't effectively communicate that support costs prior to an issue arising, then they're going to call.
If you put in a pay wall for support, you are going to get calls which go on your WATS line costs, still piss people off, but at least not have to spend more than it takes for them to bitch out the sales person when they press "1".
The other poster who guessed OpenERP as the product is either right, or you've made the same bait-and-switch decision they did about the support, where you advertise the number in the accompanying documentation / site / help screen / splash screen, and then use that as your upsell technique.
If you've done what Cygnus used to do, or what Crossover Office currently does, and intentionally not fix bgs in the free version of the product, then I probably don't like you very much on general principles, but even a bait-and-switch is pretty slimy, even if unintentional.
If you don't know that you are doing something wrong while cheating I will call you a sociopath.
Why is the word "sociopath" always abused by Internet psychologists? You are not qualified to deem people as sociopaths, and especially not for this reason alone. Have you ever considered that they simply have a different set of morals than yourself? There is no absolute "wrong" here.
I can tell you that living with a strong moral compass is actually easier than living without.
What is a "strong moral compass"? Your personal opinions are oozing from that phrase.
It's probably being abused because they don't realize as of the DSM-II, it has been called Antisocial Personality disorder.
The DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, More) describes Antisocial Personality Disorder as follows:
There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
o failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
In 23 state, it is illegal, regardless of consent between the married persons: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/is-adultery-illegal-map... so that's one of the 3 needed for a diagnosis. NB: in Michigan, you can get life in prison; in all 50 states, if you are military, it's a courts martial offense.
o deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
You posted as an AC; that a use of an alias. So that's 2 of the 3 needed for a diagnosis.
o Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
o Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
o Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
o Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honour financial obligations;
o Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
o The individual is at least age 18 years....and we have 3.
I'd say bfadreas has a case for a technical call on this one, even without the "(or more)" being present, if you live in one of those 23 states, or engaged in the behaviour while a member, active or reserve, of any branch of the armed forces.
Realize that people with APD generally are incapable of recognizing it in themselves.
However, if you are an untreated Schizophrenic or in the midst of a Manic Episode, APD is not the preferred diagnosis.
In related news,Twitter asks FBI to identify them, and then explain why, if they know the identities, and these people are truly terrorist, why they haven't done something about them instead of just trying to shut down their computer accounts.
I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that a lot of things could have happened that caused smaller films to have lower box office revenues this year other than megaupload shutting down.
So basically, you are arguing that there is no correlation between a piracy site being there or not an box office revenues?
The GGP claimed an "Android runtime". They used the licensed trademark to claim it. So did the article.
To address your point on it being 2.3: no mobile phone vendor who wants to sell the next handset, and no mobile carrier who wants to "let" you opt into a new 24 month contract 18 months into your current 2 year contract is going to be stupid enough to update the version of the OS to the latest version when they can instead use it as part of the hook to get you to buy into the newer handset/contract.
The one exception to this is going to be Google branded phones, in exchange for the branding agreement, and even that's not going to work out so well in the long run, when capabilities go up further, and apps start using up available CPU and RAM in the newer devices. This is especially true after the 700 band auction, since Google lost out on the spectrum bid to become a carrier in their own right.
Google wants to avoid fragmentation, and a version of the OS only capable of running version 2.3 applications isn't going to make them happy to have it called Android.
You don't buy Nintendo if playing First Person Shooter is your type of games.
That's like buying a hatchback when you like to transport lumber.
You have that backwards. First person shooters are the AMC Gremlin of games. They take a lot more to get you where you are going, and they always feel as if the engine is underpowered because they are dragging around a lot of unnecessary weight. First person shooters are what effectively killed off video game arcades. The places you can find arcades still eking out a living, the the Santa Cruz Boardwalk, all have almost nothing but vintage pre-first person shooter games.
It's pretty easy to teach points by running with external software that looks for a location deviation of.001 on an axis, and then moves the robot in that direction repeatedly until there's no long a deviation vs. where the servo thinks it should be on that axis.
I never got around to more than a test program to validate the idea for the Google Touchbot, but it's quite common practice in the industry to do that sort of thing with Toshiba CA-100 and similar robot controllers. All the code (in Python) that I wrote for doing everything that a teaching pendant could do for one of these systems is fully published, and it's about 30 lines of Python to do this sort of teaching using a keyboard to put it in the mode and to record the points. About the only innovation here is voice commands, which is not all that innovative, since you have to physically be at the robot anyway in order to exert the force against one or more of the servos.
Frankly, in the end, just using the keyboard was faster, which is why I never more than prototyped it, but since the robot I was programming was intended to test touch sensors, the feedback from a known good sample of the sensor being tested to ensure that it was getting the right input for the test was more important, and hand positioning was not as accurate as keyboard based positioning when you wanted a specific amount of capacitive coupling from the "finger(s)".
I'll be sure to tell Rob Pike and Vint Cerf. You know, the next time I have lunch with him at Google with the Greyglers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9M0RPNr9qg and be sure to remind Sergey Brin and Larry Page that they have one year until they're over the hill like Steve Jobs was and Steve Wozniak is currently. Oh, and like Elon Musk is over the hill by a year.
Alternately, I'm going to just dismiss the author of the article as an idiot who has a terrible idea of what constitutes "relevance" based on a particular development model which I don't have a hell of a lot of faith in being able to actually deliver working product.
I'm pretty sure that Scott (keybuk) would agree that one of the major deficiencies for udev, in terms of getting this up and running as fast as possible, is that there is no disctinction between "necessary" and "sufficient".
Basically, you want to signal some conditions after an operation has completed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you want to block operations which depend on the incomplete operation from proceeding, at least partially.
A good example for this in the Chrome OS arena is that the firmware for the 3G modem should be loaded before you want to use the network, but that doing so shouldn't block other operations from being started while the load is in progress.
Currently, about 1.2 seconds of the Chrome OS boot time are spent in unnecessary stall barriers for lack of being able to specify the firmware load as a necessary requirement that's not sufficient to get something working. Because of this 1:N cardinality on the final step, the intermediate steps end up serialized by udev, resulting in unnecessary delay in the boot process.
Arguably, about 400mS of this is due to user space code being unable to start up before the resources, such as networking, that it requires for functionality, not arriving before it starts, but I'd argue that that's a user space bug, on the order of sendmail needing to be able to look up via DNS the canonical name of the IP address on the network interface it's listening on in order to present the correct greeting to someone connecting to the SMTP port. This was actually first an issue for an employer in 1997, and at the time I wrote it up as "cached data considered harmful", but it's really an issue of needing to use resources before they are available so that you can have the information available when you need it.
But delaying firmware loading until device open is not the answer either: it slows down the device open, and again, you end up with a stall, you've just moved the deck chairs around, and not achieved any latency benefit.
You really want to load the firmwar as soon as you can, and only stall the open if you need to because the load is incomplete. But at the same time, being able to load the firmware doesn't mean that everything else should wait while the load is taking place. On either side of this divide is where both the older udev (and thus udev-ng as it has been envisioned) and the current udev fall flat.
Note that the FreeBSD/NetBSD startup have this same issue, where there is no distinction between necessary/sufficient, with the ability of soft dependencies to be satisfied in parallel -- which is the true solution to the problem.
I'm not sure what the real answer would look like, if it were completely implemented, but to my mind,neither udev approach answers the quandry in a satisfying enough way.
In this context, it means "for people working at Google". As I said, it's a settable option for corporate managed accounts, which I guess from your posting you have. The setting is for the account administrator, not for the account users. Policy gets set by the owner of the domain, not by the users within the domain.
Nobody keeps lots of mail there for longer than six months.
In fact, people do. However, corporate email accounts at Google auto-delete email after 180 days because of the 1986 act. There was much grumbling when this came about, and there are exceptions for people with an email "litigation hold", but for everyone else, it's part of normal operation that it's deleted.
I believe that this is a settable option for corporate managed accounts (i.e. hosted domain email for commercial companies which pay Google to manage their companies mail).
I know that most other public corporations, such as Penton Media, have similar 6 month deletion policies. IBM's policy when I worked there (circa 2001) was 1 year, and switched to 6 months while I was employed by them.
Apple had a two year policy because it was difficult to establish separate policy for the US vs. Europe for compliance with Directive 2006/24/EC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive and Apple conservatively classed itself as an ISP. I don't know what their current policy is, given that the U.S. equivalent H.R.1076/S.436 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFETY never made it into law.
Why does this sound like a stock image supplier trying to find machine-modified infringing images using a web crawler so that they can bludgeon the people publishing the modified images, who have not paid a license fee, with a copyright infringement lawsuit?
I'm just saying, a good answer to the OP's question is going to mean the ability to use the answer in this fashion.
I don't understand how namedropping Hexxeh is adding to this conversation.
He was an intern at Google in the US at the time I talked to him about getting the calls. In the US, inbound calls cost him minutes.
I cited him not as a name-drop, but as a concrete example, since everyone on/. tends to pull made-up anecdotes out of their rears. This anecdote is capable of being independently fact-checked, but in order for it to be so, it had to be someone you could contact, and who had a reputation for honesty.
... but there's some hoops to jump through to get them to stop bugging you about it.
Not according to my British friends, there's not. They just keep bugging you. One of my friends (generally known in the Crome OS and Raspberry Pi communities as "Hexxeh") finally just gave in and paid the fee, even though he only ever uses the thing as a monitor. I told him he was nuts, but the lack of a BBC weenie calling him on his cell phone weekly apparently causes the license to pay for itself in reduced cell minutes.
I suspect if the UK ever got a working "do not call list", then the BBC would do the same thing the US companies and "free cruise!" scammers in the US have done, and just offshore the robo-calls.
So how is tweeting about semi-pro sports... news for nerds?
(Yes, I am aware that this is a university game, but any game where the sponsors control the media exposure in order to profit is at least semi-pro in nature to me, since being "Pro" is all about whether you get income from it)
Prepare for the natural gas prices to go up as soon as they hit the export tariff at the Texas border. Most California electricity is generated by natural gas piped in from Texas and other red states, with the second largest portion coming from nuclear, with hydro at a far third.
Texas already has a net-positive economy, without going into the money it could make, were it not for the interstate commerce clause.
A few years back, a couple of companies, including a holding company whose only purpose was to play market games at the California border, were able to extract usurous rates for the natural gas sold to California, and the governor (who we removed from office, partially over this) signed long term contracts that still have California paying those rates. One of the companies involved was this little company no one has probably heard of: Enron.
So yeah, that little money pump works, and don't expect that that switch would not be thrown, should the Lone Star Republic secede (check their constitution for who they are liable to, based on their joining the union in the first place).
1) You seem to know nothing about Java and JVM security. It is immaterial what language you are using on the server-side, Java is no more or less secure than any other.
I only gave it as an example of a potential attack surface; it depends on how the scripting engine based on the back end works, and if it's injectable. I've seen code snippets for Java code handed back to the back end, with the code handed back being in the front end web page. An attack on that, even for a serialized object, is as simple as writing a transcoding proxy to substitute your serialized objects for the intended serialized objects, thereby compromising the back end JVM. I'd also point out that a shop running Java back ends is much more likely to also run Java front ends, and depend on the security model. This is certainly true for e.g. the Cisco VPN client that is so impossible to pry out of corporate hands because of the additional licensing costs for the Cisco servers in order to move to newer technologies.
2) What difference does it make what the market share of a piece of software is. It is either SECURE or NOT SECURE. If it is not secure then it doesn't matter if one person uses it or 3 million, it is still not secure.
It matters because the number of successful attacks should be more or less linearly proportional to market share. You would expect software with a larger market share to be more heavily targeted than software with a smaller market share, and therefore, everything else being equal, you would expect the number of exploits to fit the same curve. But all things aren't equal, and generally that inequality boils down to relative code quality/attack surface. Yes, you could question the value of N in a 1:N linear relationship (my suggested calculation used N=1), but it should be clear that the relationship between available targets and attacks on particular targets would have a naturally linear economic saddle, unless you were targeting a particular entity, rather than a particular technology. Since selling exploits is the typical business model for the exploit developer, unless we are talking about a government agency or vendetta sponsored hack, economics run the show.
Take all the recommendations you get here...and then:
(1) Get the number of CERT advisories for each of them (2) Get the percentage market share of each one of them (3) Calculate (#2 * 100) / #1 (4) Whoever is left with the largest number, pick that one
For example, the calculation above for bbPress, which is a WordPress plugin, would also need to take into account the number of WordPress only CERT advisories, plus those for any plugins besides bbPress you felt it necessary to use, and the resulting number would let you write off using bbPress. Likewise, anything that used Java as an implementation detail would probably get written off due to the number of security holes which have been found in Java. Anything with an SQL back end would have to take into account SQL injections for the other components you intended to use, and so forth.
Ideally, you would probably put your forums on an isolated machine, rather than hosting everything on one machine, which would drastically reduce the attack surface -- and this would become pretty crystal clear to you after you performed the calculation exercise.
Your venue chose the answer; the options are obvious.
I apologise for the roughness/profanity in my previous post. But I just want you to understand - your post basically turns the onus on the customer rather than the company to provide what is missing (i.e. the ability to program the remote without requiring access to Logitech). It's belittling because it defuses any complains anyone can have with, well, anything.
It's not so much "customer" as "consumer", given your point of view. The choices are pretty simple:
1) Don't buy the product (customer level choice) 2) Return the product (customer level choice)
After this, you quit being a customer and start being a consumer, and your options change:
3) Petition the company to provide additional software (consumer level option) 4) Accept the terms and conditions, and sign in, giving them you information (consumer level choice) 5) Lie as best you can while still getting the login working (educated consumer level choice)
And finally the engineering options:
6) Hack the application to avoid the login (engineering level choice - leading to an arms race) 7) Reverse engineer and publish the information (engineering level choice - the nuclear option)
Of these, choices 4 & 5 are the ones which most resemble your "I'd rather go back to Windows" option.
Members of the Open Source community, or more technically, the engineering community -- which is to say, Slashdot, where this commentary was published -- are most likely to fall into category 6 & 7. The place the story on which the slashdot commentary is based are most likely to fall into categories 1-5.
Your complaint about being told about option 7 in a posting on slashdot isn't really a valid complaint. It'd possibly be valid if I had posted my comment on the Ars Technica site, although it also being a technical site, it's probably more aimed at preventing customer purchase/advocating customer boycott of the product - categories 1 & 2.
Ask the question on Slashdot, get a slashdot answer.
And to be crystal clear: I've done this level of reverse engineering before, commercially, for pay, and I was not talking about option 6, I was talking about option 7: writing a from scratch native windows driver and control application for the thing using raw USB packet information decodes.
Viewed strictly as an engineering problem, this is solvable with the hardware in hand and about $10,000 worth of my effort, which I figure is about two weeks worth of work total. Add another $5,000 if you also want a Linux driver and command line control program (getting it accepted into the Linux tree is your problem, I won't deal with that political mess), and another $10,000 for a Mac OS X driver and System Settings item.
This is not an offer to do the work for that price, I personally prefer people exercise options 1 & 2, and let Razer use their in-house talent and the source code they already have to solve the problem, or lose sales to punish them for not documenting their hardware interfaces, and for not putting in the effort to separate the online synchronization from the settings in a local replica data store. And if they can't hire software engineers to solve that problem, I'm perfectly happy letting them go down the same drain as the Diamond Viper video cards, which also failed to separate the data (mode line PAL input values) from the code (INT 10 BIOS implementation) because they had hardware engineers doing a software engineers job.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. I'm a CEO. What does get your job done faster though is hiring that really bright coder 12 timezones away with good English skills at local prices that are "sky high". Intelligence isn't limited to the USA and grabbing that talent before it fleas to a country with better conditions can pay off big time!
Well, this is likely to get me marked troll, but ...
Somehow I'm doubting your Ivy League Education which landed you your position as a CEO.
Perhaps it's your spelling of "flees" as "fleas".
You strike me more as a somewhat less educated sock puppet, and/or a non-native English speaker who has not bothered learning English well enough to communicate at the level a CEO must communicate in order to be an effective show pony for the board of directors. Nice attempt at passing yourself off as a CEO in the US, though.
We have a hardcore interview on real world problem solving skills and experience (not Google or MS gotcha brain teasers)
Look, I agree with most of what you've said, but the idea that Google interviews with "brain teasers" is stupid, and I don't know where it originated. If an interviewer did this, they would be told that they were no longer on the interview rotation. The only way to get back on would be to re-take the interview training again, and explicitly contact the HR/recruitment department, and plead ignorance in their last interview.
Google engineering interviews ask questions which are real, solvable problems, and they generally test your ability to try to solve a problem at all, your ability to solve the problem correctly, and your ability to refine your solution to a more optimal algorithm. It's a check on whether or not you have problem solving skills, how you think about problems, and whether or not you can apply your training and experience, and in the limit, generalize between similar problems.
The difficulty weighting is generally tailored to the level you are being considered for being hired in at, and what you've claimed in your resume, and the opinions of the interviewers involved in any previous phone (or on site) interviews.
If you lie on your resume, you will end up screwed by your lies. If you don't have a good college level background in the subject matter, such that it's going to be possible for you to communicate at a high level about complex concepts with your peers, then you're screwed by your inability to do the job as a member of a team. If you aren't smart enough to even try to brute force a solution and show your thought process in doing so, you're screwed.
If you think you've been handed a "brain teaser" in a Google interview, then contact your recruiter, and ask for a substitute interview for the interviewer who gave you the question, or to at least consider the validity of the question when the interview write-ups go to the hiring committee. Realize that in doing this, if the committee thinks it's not a "brain teaser", and that you should have been able to solve the problems, the interviewer you report might end up peer-bonused for catching something that *should* have disqualified you that the other interviewers didn't, and the result could weigh heavily on your changes should you reapply in the future. So it's a two edged sword.
I personally interviewed a multitude of candidates for Google (and before that, Apple).
Google does NOT use "brain teasers", period.
In its last quarter, Apple made about 50 billions and achieved an increase of around 25% of its earnings. Yet the value of its stock dropped because analysts expected more. What kind of message do you think this situation sends to executive? Focus on long-term growth?
I'm pretty sure that you don't follow Apple stock that closely; I was an Apple employee for 8 years, and here's how Apple works: they make reasonable projections, and the street gets pissed at them for not forecasting higher. The stock goes down for a couple weeks, then slowly goes up to the per-prjection value, then goes past it. When it's time for the earnings call, Apple exceeds their projection. The street gets pissed off because they didn't exceed it by "enough". The stock goes down for a few weeks, then slowly goes up to the pre-announcement value, then goes past it.
This is how it has historically always worked.
Now Apple is pretty much over (IMO) due to their loss of Steve Jobs as both umpire (bye, Scott F.!) and the arbiter of taste (Jon Ive, like you a lot, but of the 12 designs you make, Steve was more qualified to pick the 2 to pursue), and there's no one to ride herd on the rest (Tim C., you are a great supply chain guy, but when Steve told you to spend more on the displays to delight the customers, you should have kept that in mind picking the iPhone 5 pixel aspect ratio).
So yeah, it's going to go down over time from its $710 high, but that's not due to the analysts getting a clue about the claims made on Steve's departure from the company that there were more years worth of product in the pipeline than the 1.5 year insiders knew were actually there. It's going to be current_product++ all the way down: Steve did not have a protege to keep them from making bad long term business decisions after he was gone, and so now they are making them.
Burying them in an IVR so you don't have to deal with them has negative consequences:
(1) It ups your phone bill if it's a WATS line, generally ups it anyway for most commercial land-line plans, and ties up one of the channels you pay for on your trunk with angry person, rather than paying customers
(2) It doesn't solve the original negative social media issues
(3) It gets them to complain about not only your product (the loss-leader), but also about your support (your profit center)
It's pretty clear that you've never successfully used the business model the OP is trying to use in this case, since if you had, you would know the statistic that satisfied customers will tell 1 person for every 20 people an unsatisfied customer will tell.
You should probably go back and hit the marketing books before you consider trying to make a profit off this type of business model.
http://www.petris.org/Docs/OccupationalTransformation.pdf
Given your typical slashdot story has ~100,000 readers that click through the story links, and ~400,000 who don't, for a page viewership of ~500,000 per story discussion, then any given story is likely being seen by ~305 mental health professionals.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
PS: I didn't include a vote up/down on the other diagnostic symptoms, due to lack of information in the posting, not due to their absence in the individual making the posting. I also gave them the benefit of the doubt by classing them APD rather than psychotic, which would no doubt skew the APD numbers higher, but since it's the less dire mental illness, I think that it's fair to say there's a problem, and now it's just due to lack of information that we don't know how bad of one.
or press "1" to be transferred to Sales
This. You have failed to communicate: your fault.
If you don't effectively communicate that support costs prior to an issue arising, then they're going to call.
If you put in a pay wall for support, you are going to get calls which go on your WATS line costs, still piss people off, but at least not have to spend more than it takes for them to bitch out the sales person when they press "1".
The other poster who guessed OpenERP as the product is either right, or you've made the same bait-and-switch decision they did about the support, where you advertise the number in the accompanying documentation / site / help screen / splash screen, and then use that as your upsell technique.
If you've done what Cygnus used to do, or what Crossover Office currently does, and intentionally not fix bgs in the free version of the product, then I probably don't like you very much on general principles, but even a bait-and-switch is pretty slimy, even if unintentional.
If you don't know that you are doing something wrong while cheating I will call you a sociopath.
Why is the word "sociopath" always abused by Internet psychologists? You are not qualified to deem people as sociopaths, and especially not for this reason alone. Have you ever considered that they simply have a different set of morals than yourself? There is no absolute "wrong" here.
I can tell you that living with a strong moral compass is actually easier than living without.
What is a "strong moral compass"? Your personal opinions are oozing from that phrase.
It's probably being abused because they don't realize as of the DSM-II, it has been called Antisocial Personality disorder.
The DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, More) describes Antisocial Personality Disorder as follows:
There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
o failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
In 23 state, it is illegal, regardless of consent between the married persons: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/is-adultery-illegal-map ... so that's one of the 3 needed for a diagnosis. NB: in Michigan, you can get life in prison; in all 50 states, if you are military, it's a courts martial offense.
o deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
You posted as an AC; that a use of an alias. So that's 2 of the 3 needed for a diagnosis.
o Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
o Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
o Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
o Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honour financial obligations;
o Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
o The individual is at least age 18 years. ...and we have 3.
I'd say bfadreas has a case for a technical call on this one, even without the "(or more)" being present, if you live in one of those 23 states, or engaged in the behaviour while a member, active or reserve, of any branch of the armed forces.
Realize that people with APD generally are incapable of recognizing it in themselves.
However, if you are an untreated Schizophrenic or in the midst of a Manic Episode, APD is not the preferred diagnosis.
In related news,Twitter asks FBI to identify them, and then explain why, if they know the identities, and these people are truly terrorist, why they haven't done something about them instead of just trying to shut down their computer accounts.
I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that a lot of things could have happened that caused smaller films to have lower box office revenues this year other than megaupload shutting down.
So basically, you are arguing that there is no correlation between a piracy site being there or not an box office revenues?
The GGP claimed an "Android runtime". They used the licensed trademark to claim it. So did the article.
To address your point on it being 2.3: no mobile phone vendor who wants to sell the next handset, and no mobile carrier who wants to "let" you opt into a new 24 month contract 18 months into your current 2 year contract is going to be stupid enough to update the version of the OS to the latest version when they can instead use it as part of the hook to get you to buy into the newer handset/contract.
The one exception to this is going to be Google branded phones, in exchange for the branding agreement, and even that's not going to work out so well in the long run, when capabilities go up further, and apps start using up available CPU and RAM in the newer devices. This is especially true after the 700 band auction, since Google lost out on the spectrum bid to become a carrier in their own right.
The recent licensing change might disagree...
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/11/15/2218230/google-targets-android-fragmentation-with-updated-terms-for-sdk
Google wants to avoid fragmentation, and a version of the OS only capable of running version 2.3 applications isn't going to make them happy to have it called Android.
You don't buy Nintendo if playing First Person Shooter is your type of games.
That's like buying a hatchback when you like to transport lumber.
You have that backwards. First person shooters are the AMC Gremlin of games. They take a lot more to get you where you are going, and they always feel as if the engine is underpowered because they are dragging around a lot of unnecessary weight. First person shooters are what effectively killed off video game arcades. The places you can find arcades still eking out a living, the the Santa Cruz Boardwalk, all have almost nothing but vintage pre-first person shooter games.
Yeah, Common practice.
It's pretty easy to teach points by running with external software that looks for a location deviation of .001 on an axis, and then moves the robot in that direction repeatedly until there's no long a deviation vs. where the servo thinks it should be on that axis.
I never got around to more than a test program to validate the idea for the Google Touchbot, but it's quite common practice in the industry to do that sort of thing with Toshiba CA-100 and similar robot controllers. All the code (in Python) that I wrote for doing everything that a teaching pendant could do for one of these systems is fully published, and it's about 30 lines of Python to do this sort of teaching using a keyboard to put it in the mode and to record the points. About the only innovation here is voice commands, which is not all that innovative, since you have to physically be at the robot anyway in order to exert the force against one or more of the servos.
Frankly, in the end, just using the keyboard was faster, which is why I never more than prototyped it, but since the robot I was programming was intended to test touch sensors, the feedback from a known good sample of the sensor being tested to ensure that it was getting the right input for the test was more important, and hand positioning was not as accurate as keyboard based positioning when you wanted a specific amount of capacitive coupling from the "finger(s)".
I'll be sure to tell Rob Pike and Vint Cerf. You know, the next time I have lunch with him at Google with the Greyglers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9M0RPNr9qg and be sure to remind Sergey Brin and Larry Page that they have one year until they're over the hill like Steve Jobs was and Steve Wozniak is currently. Oh, and like Elon Musk is over the hill by a year.
Alternately, I'm going to just dismiss the author of the article as an idiot who has a terrible idea of what constitutes "relevance" based on a particular development model which I don't have a hell of a lot of faith in being able to actually deliver working product.
Actually, the problem is dependency type.
I'm pretty sure that Scott (keybuk) would agree that one of the major deficiencies for udev, in terms of getting this up and running as fast as possible, is that there is no disctinction between "necessary" and "sufficient".
Basically, you want to signal some conditions after an operation has completed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you want to block operations which depend on the incomplete operation from proceeding, at least partially.
A good example for this in the Chrome OS arena is that the firmware for the 3G modem should be loaded before you want to use the network, but that doing so shouldn't block other operations from being started while the load is in progress.
Currently, about 1.2 seconds of the Chrome OS boot time are spent in unnecessary stall barriers for lack of being able to specify the firmware load as a necessary requirement that's not sufficient to get something working. Because of this 1:N cardinality on the final step, the intermediate steps end up serialized by udev, resulting in unnecessary delay in the boot process.
Arguably, about 400mS of this is due to user space code being unable to start up before the resources, such as networking, that it requires for functionality, not arriving before it starts, but I'd argue that that's a user space bug, on the order of sendmail needing to be able to look up via DNS the canonical name of the IP address on the network interface it's listening on in order to present the correct greeting to someone connecting to the SMTP port. This was actually first an issue for an employer in 1997, and at the time I wrote it up as "cached data considered harmful", but it's really an issue of needing to use resources before they are available so that you can have the information available when you need it.
But delaying firmware loading until device open is not the answer either: it slows down the device open, and again, you end up with a stall, you've just moved the deck chairs around, and not achieved any latency benefit.
You really want to load the firmwar as soon as you can, and only stall the open if you need to because the load is incomplete. But at the same time, being able to load the firmware doesn't mean that everything else should wait while the load is taking place. On either side of this divide is where both the older udev (and thus udev-ng as it has been envisioned) and the current udev fall flat.
Note that the FreeBSD/NetBSD startup have this same issue, where there is no distinction between necessary/sufficient, with the ability of soft dependencies to be satisfied in parallel -- which is the true solution to the problem.
I'm not sure what the real answer would look like, if it were completely implemented, but to my mind,neither udev approach answers the quandry in a satisfying enough way.
You mis understand "corporate" in this context.
In this context, it means "for people working at Google". As I said, it's a settable option for corporate managed accounts, which I guess from your posting you have. The setting is for the account administrator, not for the account users. Policy gets set by the owner of the domain, not by the users within the domain.
Nobody keeps lots of mail there for longer than six months.
In fact, people do. However, corporate email accounts at Google auto-delete email after 180 days because of the 1986 act. There was much grumbling when this came about, and there are exceptions for people with an email "litigation hold", but for everyone else, it's part of normal operation that it's deleted.
I believe that this is a settable option for corporate managed accounts (i.e. hosted domain email for commercial companies which pay Google to manage their companies mail).
I know that most other public corporations, such as Penton Media, have similar 6 month deletion policies. IBM's policy when I worked there (circa 2001) was 1 year, and switched to 6 months while I was employed by them.
Apple had a two year policy because it was difficult to establish separate policy for the US vs. Europe for compliance with Directive 2006/24/EC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive and Apple conservatively classed itself as an ISP. I don't know what their current policy is, given that the U.S. equivalent H.R.1076/S.436 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFETY never made it into law.
Why does this sound like a stock image supplier trying to find machine-modified infringing images using a web crawler so that they can bludgeon the people publishing the modified images, who have not paid a license fee, with a copyright infringement lawsuit?
I'm just saying, a good answer to the OP's question is going to mean the ability to use the answer in this fashion.
I don't understand how namedropping Hexxeh is adding to this conversation.
He was an intern at Google in the US at the time I talked to him about getting the calls. In the US, inbound calls cost him minutes.
I cited him not as a name-drop, but as a concrete example, since everyone on /. tends to pull made-up anecdotes out of their rears. This anecdote is capable of being independently fact-checked, but in order for it to be so, it had to be someone you could contact, and who had a reputation for honesty.
... but there's some hoops to jump through to get them to stop bugging you about it.
Not according to my British friends, there's not. They just keep bugging you. One of my friends (generally known in the Crome OS and Raspberry Pi communities as "Hexxeh") finally just gave in and paid the fee, even though he only ever uses the thing as a monitor. I told him he was nuts, but the lack of a BBC weenie calling him on his cell phone weekly apparently causes the license to pay for itself in reduced cell minutes.
I suspect if the UK ever got a working "do not call list", then the BBC would do the same thing the US companies and "free cruise!" scammers in the US have done, and just offshore the robo-calls.
So how is tweeting about semi-pro sports ... news for nerds?
(Yes, I am aware that this is a university game, but any game where the sponsors control the media exposure in order to profit is at least semi-pro in nature to me, since being "Pro" is all about whether you get income from it)
Prepare for the natural gas prices to go up as soon as they hit the export tariff at the Texas border. Most California electricity is generated by natural gas piped in from Texas and other red states, with the second largest portion coming from nuclear, with hydro at a far third.
Texas already has a net-positive economy, without going into the money it could make, were it not for the interstate commerce clause.
A few years back, a couple of companies, including a holding company whose only purpose was to play market games at the California border, were able to extract usurous rates for the natural gas sold to California, and the governor (who we removed from office, partially over this) signed long term contracts that still have California paying those rates. One of the companies involved was this little company no one has probably heard of: Enron.
So yeah, that little money pump works, and don't expect that that switch would not be thrown, should the Lone Star Republic secede (check their constitution for who they are liable to, based on their joining the union in the first place).
1) You seem to know nothing about Java and JVM security. It is immaterial what language you are using on the server-side, Java is no more or less secure than any other.
I only gave it as an example of a potential attack surface; it depends on how the scripting engine based on the back end works, and if it's injectable. I've seen code snippets for Java code handed back to the back end, with the code handed back being in the front end web page. An attack on that, even for a serialized object, is as simple as writing a transcoding proxy to substitute your serialized objects for the intended serialized objects, thereby compromising the back end JVM. I'd also point out that a shop running Java back ends is much more likely to also run Java front ends, and depend on the security model. This is certainly true for e.g. the Cisco VPN client that is so impossible to pry out of corporate hands because of the additional licensing costs for the Cisco servers in order to move to newer technologies.
2) What difference does it make what the market share of a piece of software is. It is either SECURE or NOT SECURE. If it is not secure then it doesn't matter if one person uses it or 3 million, it is still not secure.
It matters because the number of successful attacks should be more or less linearly proportional to market share. You would expect software with a larger market share to be more heavily targeted than software with a smaller market share, and therefore, everything else being equal, you would expect the number of exploits to fit the same curve. But all things aren't equal, and generally that inequality boils down to relative code quality/attack surface. Yes, you could question the value of N in a 1:N linear relationship (my suggested calculation used N=1), but it should be clear that the relationship between available targets and attacks on particular targets would have a naturally linear economic saddle, unless you were targeting a particular entity, rather than a particular technology. Since selling exploits is the typical business model for the exploit developer, unless we are talking about a government agency or vendetta sponsored hack, economics run the show.
Take all the recommendations you get here ...and then:
(1) Get the number of CERT advisories for each of them
(2) Get the percentage market share of each one of them
(3) Calculate (#2 * 100) / #1
(4) Whoever is left with the largest number, pick that one
For example, the calculation above for bbPress, which is a WordPress plugin, would also need to take into account the number of WordPress only CERT advisories, plus those for any plugins besides bbPress you felt it necessary to use, and the resulting number would let you write off using bbPress. Likewise, anything that used Java as an implementation detail would probably get written off due to the number of security holes which have been found in Java. Anything with an SQL back end would have to take into account SQL injections for the other components you intended to use, and so forth.
Ideally, you would probably put your forums on an isolated machine, rather than hosting everything on one machine, which would drastically reduce the attack surface -- and this would become pretty crystal clear to you after you performed the calculation exercise.
Your venue chose the answer; the options are obvious.
I apologise for the roughness/profanity in my previous post. But I just want you to understand - your post basically turns the onus on the customer rather than the company to provide what is missing (i.e. the ability to program the remote without requiring access to Logitech). It's belittling because it defuses any complains anyone can have with, well, anything.
It's not so much "customer" as "consumer", given your point of view. The choices are pretty simple:
1) Don't buy the product (customer level choice)
2) Return the product (customer level choice)
After this, you quit being a customer and start being a consumer, and your options change:
3) Petition the company to provide additional software (consumer level option)
4) Accept the terms and conditions, and sign in, giving them you information (consumer level choice)
5) Lie as best you can while still getting the login working (educated consumer level choice)
And finally the engineering options:
6) Hack the application to avoid the login (engineering level choice - leading to an arms race)
7) Reverse engineer and publish the information (engineering level choice - the nuclear option)
Of these, choices 4 & 5 are the ones which most resemble your "I'd rather go back to Windows" option.
Members of the Open Source community, or more technically, the engineering community -- which is to say, Slashdot, where this commentary was published -- are most likely to fall into category 6 & 7. The place the story on which the slashdot commentary is based are most likely to fall into categories 1-5.
Your complaint about being told about option 7 in a posting on slashdot isn't really a valid complaint. It'd possibly be valid if I had posted my comment on the Ars Technica site, although it also being a technical site, it's probably more aimed at preventing customer purchase/advocating customer boycott of the product - categories 1 & 2.
Ask the question on Slashdot, get a slashdot answer.
And to be crystal clear: I've done this level of reverse engineering before, commercially, for pay, and I was not talking about option 6, I was talking about option 7: writing a from scratch native windows driver and control application for the thing using raw USB packet information decodes.
Viewed strictly as an engineering problem, this is solvable with the hardware in hand and about $10,000 worth of my effort, which I figure is about two weeks worth of work total. Add another $5,000 if you also want a Linux driver and command line control program (getting it accepted into the Linux tree is your problem, I won't deal with that political mess), and another $10,000 for a Mac OS X driver and System Settings item.
This is not an offer to do the work for that price, I personally prefer people exercise options 1 & 2, and let Razer use their in-house talent and the source code they already have to solve the problem, or lose sales to punish them for not documenting their hardware interfaces, and for not putting in the effort to separate the online synchronization from the settings in a local replica data store. And if they can't hire software engineers to solve that problem, I'm perfectly happy letting them go down the same drain as the Diamond Viper video cards, which also failed to separate the data (mode line PAL input values) from the code (INT 10 BIOS implementation) because they had hardware engineers doing a software engineers job.