The scary thing is that many of the large corporate CEOs are harping, "we don't have enough qualified engineers and need many more H1-Bs."
With Infosys and others doing these shady dealings, we've known for decades that this is not true. So the CEO is either in a bubble, or is covering it up.
Simplest rule for H1-B hires, because that's what the focus is. H1-Bs were designed to bring in engineers due to an inability to find someone with the talent that they seek. In other words, they are supposed to be hard to find, and thus, supposedly topnotch. (We all know that this is not the case. It's a scheme that no one wants to enforce.)
Simple rule that will never get passed, but should: Said engineer will get either the 95% percentile of an engineer with that many years of experience at your company, or the 95% percentile of engineers in your industry, which ever one is higher.
That will bring the H1-B hires down to a near trickle as we all know, it's really about spending less on engineers.
We have a winner. Now proving it is harder, which is Infosys' game.
And even after it is very close to be proven, the company will take a penalty and absolve themselves with a "no-fault" settlement. SOP for these types of companies.
There's N channels for each radio technology: 1XRTT, 3G, EVDO-RevA and RevB, LTE, etc. The phone gets informed by the carrier which channel it is on, and depending on the channel, it will bring up the antenna more, or less often, to receive things like SMS, PTT, that should come in a timely manner. There are many strategies to keep the traffic channel up, or to trip and dip into the network less frequently.
You also do not have any control of which traffic channel you will be on, as that's pushed down to you depending on congestion, and signal strength, etc.
They work the exact same way, so I suspect they are dipping into the traffic channel less often (as well as getting fewer updates from the network) for T-Mobile than for VzW.
It's got more storage. Whoopie. It's NOT the same quality as a surface or any real computer.
We all know that, but it's not the same but it was really done just to incite anger.
Let it go and just ignore the crazies like the original author.
After a while, the Logitech mice go bad and out comes the dreaded double click problem. It's as if they _want_ those mice to be broken on purpose after a certain amount of time.
Fix the damn mice please!
and terrorists getting their hands on them? Imagine zealots who are looking for the end of the world to occur in their lifetimes. It would be catastrophic.
Even though salting makes it "much more work", your algorithm could be not CPU(GPU) intensive enough. That's the largest flaw in most systems, and that includes, like the author of MD5crypt stated, too computationally simple to break.
So on one simple box, even when salted, we're talking about 2 days time to crack MD5crypt to brute force and 8 character password (probably less with better hardware). Without the salt of course, I suspect that all 6.5M accounts were cracked that day (especially if they can scale it to say 50 ordinary boxes).
Use Blowfish or Twofish, and it would take years to even do brute force as each calculation takes in the tenths of seconds (given 12 rounds or greater).
If that happened, 3M would have been out of business ages ago. It's about inventing and innovating. Good ideas, and execution of good ideas is what it is all about. One of these days, search will become much more of a commodity. Google will have to extend its search to utilize it more ways that people want to continually improve its product.
But still, change will occur, and Google has to be ready for it. This is one big reason why Google is trying to do so many things. Google would want to invent the YouTubes, the KeyHoles, etc. but in the end, purchased them. They sure would have saved a ton of money not acquiring those companies, and by building all the things that are there.
The guys who do one thing extremely well are the ones who want to sell off their company to the highest bidder after a few years. It's that simple.
and have seen the solar panels. They're not the usual solar panels that are just sheets of photovoltaic cells. The set up basically can be done anywhere, with a flat roof, with reflective mirrors, etc. The power, to actually make the mirrors move is very small, with 2 total motors to rotate the mirrors.
The entire building is supposedly off the grid, and the price is relatively low to actually produce. I won't reveal how bloody cheap it is, but it is really is insanely cheap to produce. I thought it was a great idea, but to be honest, unless it's hidden away (like on the roof), it is quite ugly to look at.
Ummm, seriously, you look at the people around you, and how many of them don't have social problems?
On top of that, do you remember how incredibly boring it was to basically go through the exact same thing over and over again for a year just so other people in the class would catch up? Imagine doing that for 5 or more years.
Some people here claim that the child is being 'rushed through school', but has it ever occured to the people out there that perhaps the kid wanted to not be bored in school, waiting for what seemed like an eternity for the other kids to grasp the same things you did a long time ago?
Perhaps the child wants to be creative and grow in his own speed and way, and for that, the child should grow. To keep the child from advancing faster than others is a detriment to that child, if that is what interests the child.
I've personally had college courses with 10-14 year olds in attendance, and to be quite honest, they are not ill adjusted, and to be honest, I personally would have loved to go to college at a younger age than to be bored to death fro so many years, going through things I've learned at the library, by myself, years ago. (Yes, I went to the library after school because it was one of the few places that I could actually learn at my own pace.)
So to that, I say, bravo to their parents, and the prodigy. I hope he does well, and that it truely is something that he wants to persue.
The article really does describe what hiring managers look for because it is what they did themselves. Time and time again, I look back at what I learned in college, and when I've hired engineers. It's EXACTLY what I look for when hiring.
The only thing I don't completely agree is the whole C argument. C is fine, but its just another language. For you to really understand what a programming language does, take a compiler course. Now you will know what the computer does to your language, and what the assembly looks like. Who cares if its C, C++, Java, C#, Scheme, LISP, ADA, or FORTRAN if you know that semantically, they all eventually get down to the same low level assembly, and theoretically, are equally as powerful? Languages are different though, as the constructs on top of them make it more useful in certain applications than others (so let's not get into a non-theoretical argument of how powerful a language is).
The other suggestion that I'd recommend is to take an operating systems course where you actually write a scheduler, memory manager, etc. That foundation will allow you understand the fundamentals of an operating system and help you extrapolate out to what modern operating systems do, and how the affect your systems as a whole.
Also, it is possible, and probable that you could get a software engineering job without many of the things that Joel espouses, but to be honest, the best overall engineers (business decisions as well as technical), do most of what Joel writes about in his article.
That's all it seems to turn out to be. In my experience programming in both the Windows world, and the UNIX world, I've come to a number of conclusion.
1: UNIX programmers generally just say, "It's a Windows machine. It sucks." Few and far between are there are UNIX gurus who will give kudos to anything Windows has done.
2: Although UNIX programmers say that documentation is poor, and Windows doesn't do layering well at all, the documentation for developers in Windows is by far superior to that of UNIX. There are paid tech writers who comb through the documentation, and update them on a continual basis. Outdated documentation is not as prevelent as others.
3: UNIX has some great things, but each flavor of UNIX has their weakness.
4: Windows has big security issues that would take forever to solve. If you need a server, write it in Java, and you could still run the thing on Windows. Just make sure you don't have any other ports open for anything else.
5: Windows development tools are by far easier, and better to use. It's much more integrated, and the feature sets are amazing. (MSVC and its ilk.)
6: Some people freak about Hungarian notation, but it's just a damn notation. There are other notations that people use. Example: The letter 'f' for "field" in classes. Pick your damn naming convention, because it's just a damn naming convention so that at least the code is slightly more standardized across engineers.
7: The better engineers flat out just look for what is more cost effective, and extensible in the future. Realistically, there are things that Windows does better, and there are things that UNIX does better. The software running on each OS have their own qualities.
Anyway, I'm of the view that Windows has amazing software for small business solutions that can come up very quickly. UNIX is great for getting vendor independence, and hedging your bets so you don't get screwed on royalty costs.
1) Anyone who says they have fiber to the curb, and use DSL really has fiber, and not truely DSL. Fiber, assuming it's well managed, will always beat both normal DSL, via copper, and HFC cable.
2) On a theoretical level, cable scales better than DSL. With cable, each television channel use to get 30MBits/second downstream and your cable modem itself, would have a 10 MBit/second maximum downstream. You need to scale, add a television channel to the list. To reduce contention, break your segment length down (the most costly of the bunch because you have to go out in the field to make this change). The wavelength division multiplexing for HFC going downstream still still not at the theoretical maximum. Specifications were at 100Mbits/second/channel a year ago and can still improve. So in the longrun, cable's theoretical downstream, and performance will blow away DSL. A well managed cable modem provider will win the download war.
3) Encryption is done via DOCSIS 1.1 compliant modems.
4) ALL ISPS HAVE DIFFERING QUALITY OF SERVICE, IN DIFFERING AREAS. So, one Comcast customer in one area, could have a totally different experience as another. One DSL customer in one location could have a totally different experience elsewhere.
If we know for sure that the code is GPL'ed and they are stealing the source code to build their components, if we inform the customer that the component they are using is illegally created, the company would balk at using them.
Why? Because now that company knows that the OS is illegal, the company might be held liable for knowingly using the illegal component.
Anyone here a true lawyer to verify if this mechanism would work?
Slashdot Mirror
The one that takes us most for a loop is delusion. Delusion is both for self preservation as well as prevent us from seeing the truth behind it all.
Much more powerful than aggression, but still needed in one form or another.
Pay for the tech worker is 90th percentile of industry standard or 90th percentile at the company, which ever is higher.
Quick, simple, and will truly take into account the company's "needs".
Good thing not all nuclear waste is uranium. Lots of heavy water to store for some time as well with a density of?
The scary thing is that many of the large corporate CEOs are harping, "we don't have enough qualified engineers and need many more H1-Bs."
With Infosys and others doing these shady dealings, we've known for decades that this is not true. So the CEO is either in a bubble, or is covering it up.
Simplest rule for H1-B hires, because that's what the focus is. H1-Bs were designed to bring in engineers due to an inability to find someone with the talent that they seek. In other words, they are supposed to be hard to find, and thus, supposedly topnotch. (We all know that this is not the case. It's a scheme that no one wants to enforce.)
Simple rule that will never get passed, but should:
Said engineer will get either the 95% percentile of an engineer with that many years of experience at your company, or the 95% percentile of engineers in your industry, which ever one is higher.
That will bring the H1-B hires down to a near trickle as we all know, it's really about spending less on engineers.
Yes, they know this (but claim that they do not). H1-B is seriously the mechanism that companies use to bring down the cost of engineers.
Getting the regulators to try and crack down on it seems nearly impossible.
We have a winner. Now proving it is harder, which is Infosys' game.
And even after it is very close to be proven, the company will take a penalty and absolve themselves with a "no-fault" settlement. SOP for these types of companies.
VzW are sticklers about those as well, in terms of fast dormancy and idle timers.
I suspect it could be more in line with congestion and RAN hopping and reduced tower output to help deal with congestion.
There's N channels for each radio technology: 1XRTT, 3G, EVDO-RevA and RevB, LTE, etc.
The phone gets informed by the carrier which channel it is on, and depending on the channel, it will bring up the antenna more, or less often, to receive things like SMS, PTT, that should come in a timely manner. There are many strategies to keep the traffic channel up, or to trip and dip into the network less frequently.
You also do not have any control of which traffic channel you will be on, as that's pushed down to you depending on congestion, and signal strength, etc.
They work the exact same way, so I suspect they are dipping into the traffic channel less often (as well as getting fewer updates from the network) for T-Mobile than for VzW.
It's got more storage. Whoopie. It's NOT the same quality as a surface or any real computer. We all know that, but it's not the same but it was really done just to incite anger. Let it go and just ignore the crazies like the original author.
After a while, the Logitech mice go bad and out comes the dreaded double click problem. It's as if they _want_ those mice to be broken on purpose after a certain amount of time. Fix the damn mice please!
and terrorists getting their hands on them? Imagine zealots who are looking for the end of the world to occur in their lifetimes. It would be catastrophic.
Even though salting makes it "much more work", your algorithm could be not CPU(GPU) intensive enough. That's the largest flaw in most systems, and that includes, like the author of MD5crypt stated, too computationally simple to break. So on one simple box, even when salted, we're talking about 2 days time to crack MD5crypt to brute force and 8 character password (probably less with better hardware). Without the salt of course, I suspect that all 6.5M accounts were cracked that day (especially if they can scale it to say 50 ordinary boxes). Use Blowfish or Twofish, and it would take years to even do brute force as each calculation takes in the tenths of seconds (given 12 rounds or greater).
If that happened, 3M would have been out of business ages ago. It's about inventing and innovating. Good ideas, and execution of good ideas is what it is all about. One of these days, search will become much more of a commodity. Google will have to extend its search to utilize it more ways that people want to continually improve its product. But still, change will occur, and Google has to be ready for it. This is one big reason why Google is trying to do so many things. Google would want to invent the YouTubes, the KeyHoles, etc. but in the end, purchased them. They sure would have saved a ton of money not acquiring those companies, and by building all the things that are there. The guys who do one thing extremely well are the ones who want to sell off their company to the highest bidder after a few years. It's that simple.
and have seen the solar panels. They're not the usual solar panels that are just sheets of photovoltaic cells. The set up basically can be done anywhere, with a flat roof, with reflective mirrors, etc. The power, to actually make the mirrors move is very small, with 2 total motors to rotate the mirrors.
The entire building is supposedly off the grid, and the price is relatively low to actually produce. I won't reveal how bloody cheap it is, but it is really is insanely cheap to produce. I thought it was a great idea, but to be honest, unless it's hidden away (like on the roof), it is quite ugly to look at.
Ummm, seriously, you look at the people around you, and how many of them don't have social problems? On top of that, do you remember how incredibly boring it was to basically go through the exact same thing over and over again for a year just so other people in the class would catch up? Imagine doing that for 5 or more years. Some people here claim that the child is being 'rushed through school', but has it ever occured to the people out there that perhaps the kid wanted to not be bored in school, waiting for what seemed like an eternity for the other kids to grasp the same things you did a long time ago? Perhaps the child wants to be creative and grow in his own speed and way, and for that, the child should grow. To keep the child from advancing faster than others is a detriment to that child, if that is what interests the child. I've personally had college courses with 10-14 year olds in attendance, and to be quite honest, they are not ill adjusted, and to be honest, I personally would have loved to go to college at a younger age than to be bored to death fro so many years, going through things I've learned at the library, by myself, years ago. (Yes, I went to the library after school because it was one of the few places that I could actually learn at my own pace.) So to that, I say, bravo to their parents, and the prodigy. I hope he does well, and that it truely is something that he wants to persue.
The article really does describe what hiring managers look for because it is what they did themselves. Time and time again, I look back at what I learned in college, and when I've hired engineers. It's EXACTLY what I look for when hiring. The only thing I don't completely agree is the whole C argument. C is fine, but its just another language. For you to really understand what a programming language does, take a compiler course. Now you will know what the computer does to your language, and what the assembly looks like. Who cares if its C, C++, Java, C#, Scheme, LISP, ADA, or FORTRAN if you know that semantically, they all eventually get down to the same low level assembly, and theoretically, are equally as powerful? Languages are different though, as the constructs on top of them make it more useful in certain applications than others (so let's not get into a non-theoretical argument of how powerful a language is). The other suggestion that I'd recommend is to take an operating systems course where you actually write a scheduler, memory manager, etc. That foundation will allow you understand the fundamentals of an operating system and help you extrapolate out to what modern operating systems do, and how the affect your systems as a whole. Also, it is possible, and probable that you could get a software engineering job without many of the things that Joel espouses, but to be honest, the best overall engineers (business decisions as well as technical), do most of what Joel writes about in his article.
That's all it seems to turn out to be. In my experience programming in both the Windows world, and the UNIX world, I've come to a number of conclusion. 1: UNIX programmers generally just say, "It's a Windows machine. It sucks." Few and far between are there are UNIX gurus who will give kudos to anything Windows has done. 2: Although UNIX programmers say that documentation is poor, and Windows doesn't do layering well at all, the documentation for developers in Windows is by far superior to that of UNIX. There are paid tech writers who comb through the documentation, and update them on a continual basis. Outdated documentation is not as prevelent as others. 3: UNIX has some great things, but each flavor of UNIX has their weakness. 4: Windows has big security issues that would take forever to solve. If you need a server, write it in Java, and you could still run the thing on Windows. Just make sure you don't have any other ports open for anything else. 5: Windows development tools are by far easier, and better to use. It's much more integrated, and the feature sets are amazing. (MSVC and its ilk.) 6: Some people freak about Hungarian notation, but it's just a damn notation. There are other notations that people use. Example: The letter 'f' for "field" in classes. Pick your damn naming convention, because it's just a damn naming convention so that at least the code is slightly more standardized across engineers. 7: The better engineers flat out just look for what is more cost effective, and extensible in the future. Realistically, there are things that Windows does better, and there are things that UNIX does better. The software running on each OS have their own qualities. Anyway, I'm of the view that Windows has amazing software for small business solutions that can come up very quickly. UNIX is great for getting vendor independence, and hedging your bets so you don't get screwed on royalty costs.
1) Anyone who says they have fiber to the curb, and use DSL really has fiber, and not truely DSL. Fiber, assuming it's well managed, will always beat both normal DSL, via copper, and HFC cable.
2) On a theoretical level, cable scales better than DSL. With cable, each television channel use to get 30MBits/second downstream and your cable modem itself, would have a 10 MBit/second maximum downstream. You need to scale, add a television channel to the list. To reduce contention, break your segment length down (the most costly of the bunch because you have to go out in the field to make this change). The wavelength division multiplexing for HFC going downstream still still not at the theoretical maximum. Specifications were at 100Mbits/second/channel a year ago and can still improve. So in the longrun, cable's theoretical downstream, and performance will blow away DSL. A well managed cable modem provider will win the download war.
3) Encryption is done via DOCSIS 1.1 compliant modems.
4) ALL ISPS HAVE DIFFERING QUALITY OF SERVICE, IN DIFFERING AREAS. So, one Comcast customer in one area, could have a totally different experience as another. One DSL customer in one location could have a totally different experience elsewhere.
If we know for sure that the code is GPL'ed and they are stealing the source code to build their components, if we inform the customer that the component they are using is illegally created, the company would balk at using them. Why? Because now that company knows that the OS is illegal, the company might be held liable for knowingly using the illegal component. Anyone here a true lawyer to verify if this mechanism would work?