From talking to both recruiters at Google and people who interviewed there (some of which went to work there), I've come to believe part of what makes Googlers happy is making people take paycuts to come work there. Makes them feel more leet.
I'm really not trying to be a troll here, but I'm wondering: What was the rush? Sure, this needed to get done, but why the need to work extra-long hours to do it? What would have happened if it took an extra month or two? (I read the article linked to with the text 'engineers were praised' and was not enlightened)
Except that there really is no such thing as a free lunch.
Good media costs. It costs because you need to get people over to where the news happens so they can see what's going on; it costs because if you're using local people, you need to figure out how they get the news back to you. It costs because, well, running a large organization costs money.
You can basically either increase income or decrease expenses. You see companies decrease expenses by moving away from good journalism and relying more on talking heads, Crossfire-style anchor antagonism, and demagoguery (ref Fox). You can see companies increasing income by, say, charging either more for a charged item or starting to charge for things that are free. You also see companies using more ads on-line, but of course this is Slashdot, where we value our God-given right to surf ad-free (and I'm not arguing against it).
There aren't that many real sources of news, and a whole bunch of people referencing them. Here's a hint: Google News is *NOT* a source of news. As companies find that they can't be profitable (enough) with real journalism, they'll stop doing real journalism. What then? Do we rely on blogs? Feel free, but blogs aren't journalism any more than the op-ed part of the NYTimes is the NYTimes.
(Yes, yes, I know, I'm about to get flamed by a bunch of wankers who'll claim blogs are the only impartial source of news they need)
I think it's really important to differentiate "fire" -- hey, this guy is really bad for us and we need to get rid of him ASAP due to some actionable offense -- and "lay off" -- hey, we have a redundancy, or something.
When firing geeks (having had to do this once), I think you need to do so with extreme prejudice -- take away access while they're talking to HR, lock down, etc.
When laying off geeks, I prefer for the rules to be different. The person has done nothing wrong, we don't think they're an active threat and, until about five minutes ago, we trusted this person with our data -- because, presumably, we believed them to be honourable people. They've not stopped being honourable people because we've laid them off, and we shouldn't treat them as such.
Been laid off twice in my life:
First time was while I was responsible for a large group of geeks. We merged with another company and on the last day of the merger activities, I had the conversation with HR. New CIO had his own person and figured (accurately) we wouldn't get along. HR wanted to walk me out, I wanted to stay the evening because we were concluding a month of activity connecting the two companies. Ended up going up to the President of the company and saying "hey, I was responsible for this, I want to see this finished." He said "hey, no problem. Nothing personal." I stayed, we finished the connections, and then we went out and got stinking drunk.
Second time was at a financial services company which was, by far, the most paranoid, employee-hostile company I've ever worked in. Thankfully, the CIO was far more sane. When he was forced to let me go, and I packed my stuff, I offered him the opportunity to look through what I was taking to make sure nothing was inappropriately taken (they didn't watch me pack). he declined, for the "hey, we trusted you until ten minutes ago" reason above.
That's a horrible idea, and I wish slashdot would stop advocating these sorts of measures.
When was the last time you tried lifting a 6500, let alone walking with it under your coat? Only do this if you manage to drive out with a 6500 router AND Chambers' Porsche*.
*No, I don't know what he drives. Artistic license.
Gah, I should know better than to respond to trollers.
A) It's better to assume your code is open than to assume your code is closed; see "Security Through Obscurity;"
B) Code that is engineered from day 1 to assume it's open is less likely to have
/* * Here, we assume that nobody knows that you can * use 'feeb' as the alternate enable password */
Therefore, the fact that anyone can see the source code for Linux, Apache, and PHP isn't a big issue, but the fact that someone could see the source code for Cisco's IOS _could_ be a big issue -- because of their assumptions. It's quite possible of course that Cisco's coding standards say something like "assume a malicious hacker has access to this code," but it's also possible they _don't_.
In that sort of scenario, your phone still only undergoes 1G of acceleration, all the way down until right before it hits the floor. I think you'll find, if you test this, that most cellphones will survive the drop and the 1G acceleration absolutely fine with no damage.
Discussion of the rapid deceleration left to the student as an exercise.
They might not have done anything wrong, but back in my school (Berkeley), you couldn't conduct studies on people who hadn't signed up to do them. No unwilling participants.
You could argue that it's hard to do a phishing study with people who know what they signed up for, but that is fundamentally _your_ problem, not the participant's.
It might be their school has no such prohibition on nonconsentual study participation, but it's pretty clear that if it does (and I think most schools do), they did, in fact, do something pretty fundamentally wrong.
Because maybe you _didn't_ buy them the games, but they borrowed them from friends, or bought them with their own money; or maybe the games are for you, not for the little tykes;
B) Why, when I was a kid and they tried to do this to me, I hax0red the PC to let me do it anyway! Any average kid will be able to do this in about 5 minutes!
I call bullshit, and would like to see cite. "A person I know did it" is an anecdote. An anecdote is not the singular form of evidence. Sure, some kids will be able to get around this; some kids won't bother and will do something else. It's not like you're betting your life on their inability to hax0r the system.
C) Parents should just pay attention to their kids!
Right. Because the correct answer is for the parent to always watch over the kid's shoulder. That'll help the kid develop well.
Look, I'm not an advocate of this tool, and I wouldn't use it with my kids -- I grew up in a household where my dad's firearms were easily accessible to me with no lock in the way. Instead of hiding them from me, my dad taught me how to use them safely and said "whenever you'd like to shoot them, I'll go with you." Not quite the same thing with porn, but that's because I didn't ask. But some parents would like to do what they can to make it so their kids don't have access to these sorts of games, and while this isn't a panacea (hey Bobby, can I come over and play UberViolence? Thanks!), it can be helpful.
You're on crack. AOP is not specific to Java -- I've seen it done with Python -- see this article for example.
AOP can be used for great evil, but it can also be used for great good. When I first read up on it, my first reaction was "wow! This must be how God programs!":)
There is technology like that -- we researched it at my last company, where one of the goals of the marketers was "we want to be able to send this PDF to people, but we don't want them sending it to other people, because it's got value."
We got somewhat close with an email vendor that let you do that -- basically, you'd send it to something like @ourname.vendor.com, and it'd get sent to the user, but they'd strip out content and put it on their website, and all you'd get would be this HTMLized, JavaScripted monstrocity that would get stuff directly from their website for you to view. If everything went OK, you wouldn't necessarily know this is even happening until, say, you tried to forward it, or it expired. Of course, if your client was set to not fetch external images, or you were using a CLI MUA (I use mutt, you insensitive clod!), or a variety of other things, it'd fail, occasionally spectacularly.
I just finished watching it. Some of the acting was indeed a bit wince-enducing, but I frankly found it more palatable than, say, Jake Lloyd in ep 1 or the romance scenes in ep 2. Space CGI was really nice, music was spot-on, and the lightsaber fights weren't great, but didn't suck either. The only complaint I'd really raise was that it was really dark in some scenes, but overall? Nice.
If MS is, in fact, the evil corporation that you claim they are and "they put business interest first," then they had no reason _not_ to put a popup blocker in IE. Their customers are not the pernicious websites -- they don't depend on those sites for use of IE, and it's hardly the case that the websites would react to them putting popup blockers by stopping their use (where it's applicable) of MS products.
Pure business interests mean that they serve their source of income; in this case, they didn't choose to somehow cater to the popup ad folks -- they don't -- they just chose to not focus on delivering a customer desired feature for whatever reason (likely simple stupidity and assumption of superiority).
My Nokia 7610 -- Cingular-branded -- *CAME* with a USB cable. With Nokia's free software, and this cable, when I connect my phone I can browse over to the (included) RS-MMC card. What's that? A 'Sounds' folder? An 'Images' folder? I can drag either MIDIs (that I may have made myself or downloaded somewhere) or MP3s to my phone.
Oh, and Bluetooth? Serial profile works just fine, thank you.
If Cingular's crippled this phone in any real way, I've yet to find it.
Slashdot Mirror
Erm.
...
Just for the record: I think you meant "annals of history." "Anals of history" is
different.
From talking to both recruiters at Google and people who interviewed there (some of which went to work there), I've come to believe part of what makes Googlers happy is making people take paycuts to come work there. Makes them feel more leet.
I'm really not trying to be a troll here, but I'm wondering: What was the rush? Sure, this needed to get done, but why the need to work extra-long hours to do it? What would have happened if it took an extra month or two? (I read the article linked to with the text 'engineers were praised' and was not enlightened)
That's nothing! A shuttle may actually successfully land this year!
Except that there really is no such thing as a free lunch.
Good media costs. It costs because you need to get people over to where the news happens so they can see what's going on; it costs because if you're using local people, you need to figure out how they get the news back to you. It costs because, well, running a large organization costs money.
You can basically either increase income or decrease expenses. You see companies decrease expenses by moving away from good journalism and relying more on talking heads, Crossfire-style anchor antagonism, and demagoguery (ref Fox). You can see companies increasing income by, say, charging either more for a charged item or starting to charge for things that are free. You also see companies using more ads on-line, but of course this is Slashdot, where we value our God-given right to surf ad-free (and I'm not arguing against it).
There aren't that many real sources of news, and a whole bunch of people referencing them. Here's a hint: Google News is *NOT* a source of news. As companies find that they can't be profitable (enough) with real journalism, they'll stop doing real journalism. What then? Do we rely on blogs? Feel free, but blogs aren't journalism any more than the op-ed part of the NYTimes is the NYTimes.
(Yes, yes, I know, I'm about to get flamed by a bunch of wankers who'll claim blogs are the only impartial source of news they need)
I think it's really important to differentiate "fire" -- hey, this guy is really bad for us and we need to get rid of him ASAP due to some actionable offense -- and "lay off" -- hey, we have a redundancy, or something.
When firing geeks (having had to do this once), I think you need to do so with extreme prejudice -- take away access while they're talking to HR, lock down, etc.
When laying off geeks, I prefer for the rules to be different. The person has done nothing wrong, we don't think they're an active threat and, until about five minutes ago, we trusted this person with our data -- because, presumably, we believed them to be honourable people. They've not stopped being honourable people because we've laid them off, and we shouldn't treat them as such.
Been laid off twice in my life:
First time was while I was responsible for a large group of geeks. We merged with another company and on the last day of the merger activities, I had the conversation with HR. New CIO had his own person and figured (accurately) we wouldn't get along. HR wanted to walk me out, I wanted to stay the evening because we were concluding a month of activity connecting the two companies. Ended up going up to the President of the company and saying "hey, I was responsible for this, I want to see this finished." He said "hey, no problem. Nothing personal." I stayed, we finished the connections, and then we went out and got stinking drunk.
Second time was at a financial services company which was, by far, the most paranoid, employee-hostile company I've ever worked in. Thankfully, the CIO was far more sane. When he was forced to let me go, and I packed my stuff, I offered him the opportunity to look through what I was taking to make sure nothing was inappropriately taken (they didn't watch me pack). he declined, for the "hey, we trusted you until ten minutes ago" reason above.
Yeah, but it doesn't have as much space as the Nomad, and it doesn't have wireless! That's just lame!
Oh, wait, I guess you can get the Airport card as an option...
They had _one_ employee who did this, who they found and helped prosecute. They've got thousands of employees. It happens.
... deluded.
And while Google's not an ISP, if you think the only personal information about you that could be stolen from Google is your email, you're
That's a horrible idea, and I wish slashdot would stop advocating these sorts of measures.
When was the last time you tried lifting a 6500, let alone walking with it under your coat? Only do this if you manage to drive out with a 6500 router AND Chambers' Porsche*.
*No, I don't know what he drives. Artistic license.
Gah, I should know better than to respond to trollers.
A) It's better to assume your code is open than to assume your code is closed; see "Security Through Obscurity;"
B) Code that is engineered from day 1 to assume it's open is less likely to have
/*
* Here, we assume that nobody knows that you can
* use 'feeb' as the alternate enable password
*/
Therefore, the fact that anyone can see the source code for Linux, Apache, and PHP isn't a big issue, but the fact that someone could see the source code for Cisco's IOS _could_ be a big issue -- because of their assumptions. It's quite possible of course that Cisco's coding standards say something like "assume a malicious hacker has access to this code," but it's also possible they _don't_.
In that sort of scenario, your phone still only undergoes 1G of acceleration, all the way down until right before it hits the floor. I think you'll find, if you test this, that most cellphones will survive the drop and the 1G acceleration absolutely fine with no damage.
Discussion of the rapid deceleration left to the student as an exercise.
They might not have done anything wrong, but back in my school (Berkeley), you couldn't conduct studies on people who hadn't signed up to do them. No unwilling participants.
You could argue that it's hard to do a phishing study with people who know what they signed up for, but that is fundamentally _your_ problem, not the participant's.
It might be their school has no such prohibition on nonconsentual study participation, but it's pretty clear that if it does (and I think most schools do), they did, in fact, do something pretty fundamentally wrong.
1600 SAT? Isn't that sort of dumb, since that's only about 67% on the test? :)
Of course, for 802.11b to work between passing spaceships, they'd need to be within 100m of each other.
....
I'm not sure that at those speeds (remember, we're talking _relative_ speeds here) I want two space ships to be within 100m of each other.
Of course, they could be using those Pringles cans for extending their range
A) Why not just not buy them the games?
Because maybe you _didn't_ buy them the games, but they borrowed them from friends, or bought them with their own money; or maybe the games are for you, not for the little tykes;
B) Why, when I was a kid and they tried to do this to me, I hax0red the PC to let me do it anyway! Any average kid will be able to do this in about 5 minutes!
I call bullshit, and would like to see cite. "A person I know did it" is an anecdote. An anecdote is not the singular form of evidence. Sure, some kids will be able to get around this; some kids won't bother and will do something else. It's not like you're betting your life on their inability to hax0r the system.
C) Parents should just pay attention to their kids!
Right. Because the correct answer is for the parent to always watch over the kid's shoulder. That'll help the kid develop well.
Look, I'm not an advocate of this tool, and I wouldn't use it with my kids -- I grew up in a household where my dad's firearms were easily accessible to me with no lock in the way. Instead of hiding them from me, my dad taught me how to use them safely and said "whenever you'd like to shoot them, I'll go with you." Not quite the same thing with porn, but that's because I didn't ask. But some parents would like to do what they can to make it so their kids don't have access to these sorts of games, and while this isn't a panacea (hey Bobby, can I come over and play UberViolence? Thanks!), it can be helpful.
It's an alternative to a select antenna.
You're on crack. AOP is not specific to Java -- I've seen it done with Python -- see this article for example. AOP can be used for great evil, but it can also be used for great good. When I first read up on it, my first reaction was "wow! This must be how God programs!" :)
1950 puppy /fs2/home/USER/mail> du -sk . .
4501311
There is technology like that -- we researched it at my last company, where one of the goals of the marketers was "we want to be able to send this PDF to people, but we don't want them sending it to other people, because it's got value."
We got somewhat close with an email vendor that let you do that -- basically, you'd send it to something like @ourname.vendor.com, and it'd get sent to the user, but they'd strip out content and put it on their website, and all you'd get would be this HTMLized, JavaScripted monstrocity that would get stuff directly from their website for you to view. If everything went OK, you wouldn't necessarily know this is even happening until, say, you tried to forward it, or it expired. Of course, if your client was set to not fetch external images, or you were using a CLI MUA (I use mutt, you insensitive clod!), or a variety of other things, it'd fail, occasionally spectacularly.
I just finished watching it. Some of the acting was indeed a bit wince-enducing, but I frankly found it more palatable than, say, Jake Lloyd in ep 1 or the romance scenes in ep 2. Space CGI was really nice, music was spot-on, and the lightsaber fights weren't great, but didn't suck either. The only complaint I'd really raise was that it was really dark in some scenes, but overall? Nice.
Not to mention we need the Germans to make some good Champagne.
I think beer might be more appropriate. And marzipan.
Volari, oh oh, cantari, oh oh oh oh
Let's fly way up to the clouds, away from the maddening crowds....
You're being silly.
If MS is, in fact, the evil corporation that you claim they are and "they put business interest first," then they had no reason _not_ to put a popup blocker in IE. Their customers are not the pernicious websites -- they don't depend on those sites for use of IE, and it's hardly the case that the websites would react to them putting popup blockers by stopping their use (where it's applicable) of MS products.
Pure business interests mean that they serve their source of income; in this case, they didn't choose to somehow cater to the popup ad folks -- they don't -- they just chose to not focus on delivering a customer desired feature for whatever reason (likely simple stupidity and assumption of superiority).
There's a difference.
Erm. Are you sure?
My Nokia 7610 -- Cingular-branded -- *CAME* with a USB cable. With Nokia's free software, and this cable, when I connect my phone I can browse over to the (included) RS-MMC card. What's that? A 'Sounds' folder? An 'Images' folder? I can drag either MIDIs (that I may have made myself or downloaded somewhere) or MP3s to my phone.
Oh, and Bluetooth? Serial profile works just fine, thank you.
If Cingular's crippled this phone in any real way, I've yet to find it.
Of course IP exists, don't be silly. We use it every day to connect to the net. It's what TCP is built on!