Yea, because no applicant would find good code, mask it up a bit and pass it off as their own.
Last interview I did they gave me a real-world problem to solve, put me in a room with a virtual machine and a proctor, and let me go to town. Deliverables included not just a working tool to solve the specified problem, but also documentation for same and the ability to explain what/why... and while the VM had unfettered Internet access, I had/have to assume that even when the proctor wasn't there in person they had a VNC client sharing what I was doing from the outer host or such.
From our discussion afterward, I gather that that exercise filtered quite a few folks who otherwise might have slipped through but couldn't actually transform requirements to code in a timely manner.
Always check if they can think on the spot- I hate being in the room with a senior executive and the subject matter expert next to me can't come up with any alternative ideas to solve crisis X.
Taxes and government imposed fees apply, but no mandatory surcharges from Verizon.
"Government-imposed fees"? Hah. "Regulatory compliance fees" are nothing but Hollywood accounting -- taking a cost of doing business and passing it along to the customer under a different name so they can claim that their prices are lower than they genuinely are.
My customers don't pay a "utility cost fee" to keep my lights and air conditioning running -- it's part of the cost of providing the services they pay for. Sales taxes are one thing, but most of the things that cell phone companies try to pass to the customer as "compliance fees" are simply BS.
Cheating in a game can be fun in and of itself -- reverse-engineering the checksums used for saved games, finding offsets in a hex editor, tweaking the emulator you're playing your game in to allow editing of memory state and the like is something I consider legitimate entertainment.
...now, cheating in multiplayer games? Nothing legitimate about that whatsoever.
Yup. My guess is that you're not an idiot but that you're in the mood for trolling.
Turning a discussion on a technical point into a rant regarding the incompetence of the people who disagree with you? In the case where the position taken on said point is clearly incompatible with reality it's idiocy or trolling; parent argument mitigates towards the latter.
I mean, seriously -- binary hashes are only good for exact-match algorithms by their nature. If you're implementing a distance-search algorithm, the idea of using one is insane.
'Ya know, I think you're the lowest-UID person to hit my idiot filter.
Let's take a very simple case -- let's say you wanted to implement soundex but without storing the entirety of the data in the word being matched. Now, would you be using a conventional one-way hash in this algorithm, or doing something bespoke?
PHP does not inherently promote SQL injections. Stupid design patterns do.
...next to this...
It's up to you to filter your inputs.
*headdesk*.
Trying to filter your inputs is a losing battle. Not commingling code and data in the first place (and thereby avoiding the underlying problem -- that things intended to be data can be treated as code when reparsed) is the simple, simple win that avoids needing to fight that battle in the first place.
Incidentally, this is the same reason why using $foo rather than "$foo" in shell scripts is so evil -- things which would otherwise be data get parsed and processed (through not just string splitting but also glob expansion), leading to unforeseen results when abused.
I thought it was a Mach kernel and a BSD userland. How exactly that's quintessentially different from me installed Cygwin on my Windows machine and calling it a Unix machine is beyond me.
Mach is a microkernel, not a kernel -- that is, it's a lightweight component you build your actual kernel on top of. And that actual kernel provides POSIX interfaces.
He informed them that if they did not leave, they would be sprayed with OC and removed.
Did you watch the full video -- with the minutes leading up? Do so, please.
He did not inform them that they would be sprayed -- rather, he told them (from behind their backs) that he would "shoot"; officers had paintball guns where the guns contained a similar agent. It was only after the crowd had struck up a chant of "don't shoot the students" that he took out the spray can and made a show of preparing it -- but again, only behind the protesters' backs.
In any event -- your assertion that the use of pepper spray to remove non-violent protesters is legal is unfounded in California; a particularly infamous case in Humboldt County established a contrary precedent.
If it's blood money, that's their own collective decision (or, as the case may be, inability to decide) -- and when the rapidly growing Chinese middle class decides that they give a damn, I expect it to stop. In the interim, why should I as a customer feel the slightest bit of guilt?
(I'm likewise very happy to let them mine and sell their own natural resources below natural market price while we hold onto our own; if we wait until resources from China are no longer viable before restarting our own mining and drilling industries, we then at that time still have our resources at a point in time when they're scarcer and more valuable. That said, it seems they've finally realised the hole that they've been digging themselves into on this point).
It seems to me that a well edited summary of the story might give us an idea of what Spear Phishing is.. at least, why is it different than normal phishing?
Is it because it has a trojan? What? huh?
Spear phishing is different because it's highly targeted.
and most importantly, in most cases all you're really doing in "greenness" is trading point-source pollution for pollution that's conveniently out of sight.
That's not really a fair charge.
There are advantages to big, central power stations -- scrubbing and capture technologies which aren't economically (or, in some cases technically) feasible to install on millions of tiny little mobile engines can be installed, monitored, maintained, and kept up-to-date in a small number of well-maintained plants far more feasibly.
Clojure is a modern LISP -- I have a former employer using it for real-time analytics work (where its transactional memory model made it easy to scale to very, very parallel machines -- the older version of the software written with traditional lock-based concurrency fell down at a fraction of the production load we needed to handle with most CPU cores sitting around waiting for locks.
The biggest thing that interests me, though -- programming in a LISP lends itself to what Rich Hickey calls "hammock-driven development" -- thinking deeply for a long time and then writing very few lines, as opposed to throwing a few Kloc of code at the wall and seeing what sticks. Properly used, modern LISPs are tremendously flexible and tremendously compact -- most of the code I write day-to-day is Python or Ruby, but a LISP's expressiveness is vastly greater than either of these newer languages, and I'm tremendously excited to see folks working on making LISPs practical again.
I think the source of the expression is with subject and object reversed. It is the question that begs to be asked. This is not exactly the same as "raises the question", as it is much stronger.
This is not consistent with historical meaning. Please see either or both of the following links, which go into substantial detail:
Many modern English speakers use "begging the question" to mean the same as "raises the question".
However, as English has no phrase fully equivalent to "begging the question" (in its canonical form -- requiring a premise with no foundation stronger than conclusion it is used to draw), while we already have "raising the question" for the other usage, the language would be the poorer if we stood aside and let this pass into acceptance.
I'm using a term with a meaning established through a history of use (though non-embedded gift economies do exist... but only in small, tribal communities). Any alternate meaning you might assume through unfamiliarity is your own problem.
You keep throwing around that "zero-sum" word, as if it indicates a difference between "gift" and "capitalist" economies. But of course, as the stimulus made abundantly clear, current dollars are not zero-sum either.
For governments they're not. For you and me they are. Gift economies work well for physical goods only on a small scale, and it's this scale where dollars are very much zero-sum.
Btw: those restrictions are pretty fucking harsh restrictions. Either of those restrictions, even if they're pretty mild, would make actual use of that system for any sizeable entity completely impossible.
Exclusive use, absolutely. Complementary use, not so much.
If your goal is to caricature working solutions into thin parodies of themselves, of course you can find holes in those strawmen. Understanding of complex systems -- and human behavior is certainly such a topic -- is not going to happen within a few paragraphs of text. When I speak of a gift economy, I speak of something that I've seen working in practice over more than a decade, and with items (and effort) of substantial economic value passed around. Claims that one cannot work in practice (given appropriate conditions -- which may include either restriction to non-zero-sum goods or a cap on number of individuals involved) are thus faulty on their face.
As for individuals with no repute being unable to "get their foot in the door" -- acquiring repute is as simple as displaying respect, kindness, utility and selflessness to those who already play. Moreover, repute is not zero-sum in nature -- giving repute to a person who turns out to be deserving is an act which gains one *more* repute, rather than losing it -- making the comparison to conventional currency questionable in nature. Thus, the first issue you posit -- that deserving individuals cannot inject themselves -- does not occur.
As for individuals with high repute having increased influence... well, if these are individuals who got there by demonstrating selflessness to others, where exactly is the problem?
Except that it really does work in practice. Not when you're playing a zero-sum game and let random griefers in, sure, but (1) software development isn't a zero-sum game, and (2) in a gift economy for zero-sum items [say, physical goods], your reputation is the most valuable thing you have; a random stranger who isn't introduced by someone with a good one (thus putting some part of their own reputation on the line by way of the introduction) needs to earn respect before they can play. That's not to say that someone won't take a chance on a stranger -- just like you might give a microloan to someone you don't know in the hopes that they prove themselves a good risk and pay it back -- but it's known and understood to be a risk, just as in the fiscal alternative. And, by taking that risk wisely, one enhances one's own repute... just as how selecting deserving parties for financial microloans can be a profitable business.
Gift economies have a currency. That currency is repute -- and it makes them quite resilient in practice against the scenario you describe.
Well it's first to file so you can't do it anymore.
Nope. Prior invention is still a defense, and prior publication will still invalidate a patent. The only change here is that if you aren't the first to file, you can't get a patent yourself -- but you can certainly still invalidate the patent of the person who was first to file if you published your technique earlier (or keep using the technique you discovered in-house but didn't publish, as long as you can prove you were using it before their supposed date of invention); you just can't then turn around and get a patent yourself.
Seriously, I wish the people who got so bent out of shape over this thing learned WTF it was. It doesn't fix our patent system's problems, but it's really not the scary awful thing you're making it out to be -- to the contrary, it's an improvement: First-to-file only means fewer patents total.
Slashdot Mirror
Last interview I did they gave me a real-world problem to solve, put me in a room with a virtual machine and a proctor, and let me go to town. Deliverables included not just a working tool to solve the specified problem, but also documentation for same and the ability to explain what/why... and while the VM had unfettered Internet access, I had/have to assume that even when the proctor wasn't there in person they had a VNC client sharing what I was doing from the outer host or such.
From our discussion afterward, I gather that that exercise filtered quite a few folks who otherwise might have slipped through but couldn't actually transform requirements to code in a timely manner.
Yup, that's important too.
"Government-imposed fees"? Hah. "Regulatory compliance fees" are nothing but Hollywood accounting -- taking a cost of doing business and passing it along to the customer under a different name so they can claim that their prices are lower than they genuinely are.
My customers don't pay a "utility cost fee" to keep my lights and air conditioning running -- it's part of the cost of providing the services they pay for. Sales taxes are one thing, but most of the things that cell phone companies try to pass to the customer as "compliance fees" are simply BS.
Cheating in a game can be fun in and of itself -- reverse-engineering the checksums used for saved games, finding offsets in a hex editor, tweaking the emulator you're playing your game in to allow editing of memory state and the like is something I consider legitimate entertainment.
...now, cheating in multiplayer games? Nothing legitimate about that whatsoever.
"Out in a couple of months"? Maybe not.
For Texas, at least, it would have to be a year and a day to be eligible for parole; a year bare is actually the harsher sentence.
Yup. My guess is that you're not an idiot but that you're in the mood for trolling.
Turning a discussion on a technical point into a rant regarding the incompetence of the people who disagree with you? In the case where the position taken on said point is clearly incompatible with reality it's idiocy or trolling; parent argument mitigates towards the latter.
I mean, seriously -- binary hashes are only good for exact-match algorithms by their nature. If you're implementing a distance-search algorithm, the idea of using one is insane.
'Ya know, I think you're the lowest-UID person to hit my idiot filter.
Let's take a very simple case -- let's say you wanted to implement soundex but without storing the entirety of the data in the word being matched. Now, would you be using a conventional one-way hash in this algorithm, or doing something bespoke?
Oh, the irony of seeing this...
*headdesk*.
Trying to filter your inputs is a losing battle. Not commingling code and data in the first place (and thereby avoiding the underlying problem -- that things intended to be data can be treated as code when reparsed) is the simple, simple win that avoids needing to fight that battle in the first place.
Incidentally, this is the same reason why using $foo rather than "$foo" in shell scripts is so evil -- things which would otherwise be data get parsed and processed (through not just string splitting but also glob expansion), leading to unforeseen results when abused.
Mach is a microkernel, not a kernel -- that is, it's a lightweight component you build your actual kernel on top of. And that actual kernel provides POSIX interfaces.
Any clearer?
Did you watch the full video -- with the minutes leading up? Do so, please.
He did not inform them that they would be sprayed -- rather, he told them (from behind their backs) that he would "shoot"; officers had paintball guns where the guns contained a similar agent. It was only after the crowd had struck up a chant of "don't shoot the students" that he took out the spray can and made a show of preparing it -- but again, only behind the protesters' backs.
In any event -- your assertion that the use of pepper spray to remove non-violent protesters is legal is unfounded in California; a particularly infamous case in Humboldt County established a contrary precedent.
Risking your own life for your freedoms is noble. Risking others' lives for your own personal benefit, without their knowing consent?
Not so much.
And it's the Chinese who choose to sell.
If it's blood money, that's their own collective decision (or, as the case may be, inability to decide) -- and when the rapidly growing Chinese middle class decides that they give a damn, I expect it to stop. In the interim, why should I as a customer feel the slightest bit of guilt?
(I'm likewise very happy to let them mine and sell their own natural resources below natural market price while we hold onto our own; if we wait until resources from China are no longer viable before restarting our own mining and drilling industries, we then at that time still have our resources at a point in time when they're scarcer and more valuable. That said, it seems they've finally realised the hole that they've been digging themselves into on this point).
Spear phishing is different because it's highly targeted.
Happy to help.
You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Even today's "dirty" central power plants are still vastly more efficient than the what's found in your car or mine.
That's not really a fair charge.
There are advantages to big, central power stations -- scrubbing and capture technologies which aren't economically (or, in some cases technically) feasible to install on millions of tiny little mobile engines can be installed, monitored, maintained, and kept up-to-date in a small number of well-maintained plants far more feasibly.
Clojure is a modern LISP -- I have a former employer using it for real-time analytics work (where its transactional memory model made it easy to scale to very, very parallel machines -- the older version of the software written with traditional lock-based concurrency fell down at a fraction of the production load we needed to handle with most CPU cores sitting around waiting for locks.
The biggest thing that interests me, though -- programming in a LISP lends itself to what Rich Hickey calls "hammock-driven development" -- thinking deeply for a long time and then writing very few lines, as opposed to throwing a few Kloc of code at the wall and seeing what sticks. Properly used, modern LISPs are tremendously flexible and tremendously compact -- most of the code I write day-to-day is Python or Ruby, but a LISP's expressiveness is vastly greater than either of these newer languages, and I'm tremendously excited to see folks working on making LISPs practical again.
Dictatorships? The Pacific Islanders' practice of sharing food? The Papa New Guinea islanders' kula exchange? Native American potlatch? Seriously?
I've been wasting my time responding to a troll. This conversation is over.
This is not consistent with historical meaning. Please see either or both of the following links, which go into substantial detail:
However, as English has no phrase fully equivalent to "begging the question" (in its canonical form -- requiring a premise with no foundation stronger than conclusion it is used to draw), while we already have "raising the question" for the other usage, the language would be the poorer if we stood aside and let this pass into acceptance.
To "beg" a question is to "beggar" a question -- that is, make it worthless by implying an answer.
Perhaps you mean it "raises" the question?
I'm using a term with a meaning established through a history of use (though non-embedded gift economies do exist... but only in small, tribal communities). Any alternate meaning you might assume through unfamiliarity is your own problem.
If you're good enough that what you do that your ideas are getting made into products, I'd be surprised if your kids are going hungry.
Not having their college funds paid for? Sure, but that's a different story.
For governments they're not. For you and me they are. Gift economies work well for physical goods only on a small scale, and it's this scale where dollars are very much zero-sum.
Exclusive use, absolutely. Complementary use, not so much.
If your goal is to caricature working solutions into thin parodies of themselves, of course you can find holes in those strawmen. Understanding of complex systems -- and human behavior is certainly such a topic -- is not going to happen within a few paragraphs of text. When I speak of a gift economy, I speak of something that I've seen working in practice over more than a decade, and with items (and effort) of substantial economic value passed around. Claims that one cannot work in practice (given appropriate conditions -- which may include either restriction to non-zero-sum goods or a cap on number of individuals involved) are thus faulty on their face.
As for individuals with no repute being unable to "get their foot in the door" -- acquiring repute is as simple as displaying respect, kindness, utility and selflessness to those who already play. Moreover, repute is not zero-sum in nature -- giving repute to a person who turns out to be deserving is an act which gains one *more* repute, rather than losing it -- making the comparison to conventional currency questionable in nature. Thus, the first issue you posit -- that deserving individuals cannot inject themselves -- does not occur.
As for individuals with high repute having increased influence... well, if these are individuals who got there by demonstrating selflessness to others, where exactly is the problem?
Except that it really does work in practice. Not when you're playing a zero-sum game and let random griefers in, sure, but (1) software development isn't a zero-sum game, and (2) in a gift economy for zero-sum items [say, physical goods], your reputation is the most valuable thing you have; a random stranger who isn't introduced by someone with a good one (thus putting some part of their own reputation on the line by way of the introduction) needs to earn respect before they can play. That's not to say that someone won't take a chance on a stranger -- just like you might give a microloan to someone you don't know in the hopes that they prove themselves a good risk and pay it back -- but it's known and understood to be a risk, just as in the fiscal alternative. And, by taking that risk wisely, one enhances one's own repute... just as how selecting deserving parties for financial microloans can be a profitable business.
Gift economies have a currency. That currency is repute -- and it makes them quite resilient in practice against the scenario you describe.
Nope. Prior invention is still a defense, and prior publication will still invalidate a patent. The only change here is that if you aren't the first to file, you can't get a patent yourself -- but you can certainly still invalidate the patent of the person who was first to file if you published your technique earlier (or keep using the technique you discovered in-house but didn't publish, as long as you can prove you were using it before their supposed date of invention); you just can't then turn around and get a patent yourself.
Seriously, I wish the people who got so bent out of shape over this thing learned WTF it was. It doesn't fix our patent system's problems, but it's really not the scary awful thing you're making it out to be -- to the contrary, it's an improvement: First-to-file only means fewer patents total.