Of course it seems obvious to anybody ("delays hurt business? You mean if we don't have a product we won't have sales? You mean baseless hype irritates people? Well there goes our business model."). It's just especially noticeable in video games because they are notorious for delays (and have previously gotten away with them). For whatever reason it seems to me that movies and music generally come out on time, or are delayed well in advance.
I was skeptical about video games being a bigger industry now, but it's true that video game sale did surpass box office sales in 2003 (interestingly, the CNN article also discusses video game delays). It feels like it's the result of the industry advancing too quickly and not knowing the general timeline for releases, or what they can expect to accomplish.
Too often you hear about games trying to include/do too much or use technology that is too advanced. With music, for example, they know they're looking for 60 minutes (even 40 minutes these days?) of produced, committee-written whatever, a warm, silicone body to sing it and move it out the door. Gold album.
For my money, wired is a fun interesting source for gadgets and stuff, but it's too sensationalist technology. It feels to me like it treats tech still as some miracle or black-box that is to be possessed but not truly known. It is just like wired to treat this like some groundbreaking news when video games and technology are, at heart, just like any other industry. Not a flame or a troll, just my thoughts.
Yes, if anything like this were passed in America, I think it would still come across as entirely lax to the employers because they need things such as you SSN "for tax purposes", while gender, race, etc. (as if they weren't apparent) would be "demographic" etc. So some information would be protected, but the crucial information (i.e. identity theft information) would still be necessary.
Reminds me of the national anti-Spam initiative that actually loosened the constraints for many people.
It's what happens when the federal government steps in.
It does seem like a step in the right direction. It's mind-boggling to me how America, being as "enlightened" as it is, seems hesitant to respect privacy rights. In Europe employee monitoring laws are being tightened while in America this report says the trend is increasing. Even in California when a protective bill was passed it was vetoed by the (formed) Gov. Grey Davis. And I think that the argument is frivolous that if you have nothing to hide then it shouldn't be a problem. Then, surely, you wouldn't object to a full body search every morning coming into work?
It just demonstrates how strongly America loves its businesses and corporations (and subsequently, its money). These corporate/business-friendly policies that put so much pressure on American employees are just like outsourcing in that they alienate the apparently "not-worthwhile" American employee. While America may keep their corporations and their corporate revenue, they might lose a comparable amount in salaries and income taxes. Perhaps.
I like these progressive-non-Big-Brother (i.e. not China, Saudi Arabia, evidently) countries that respect the people and their lives rather than corporations.
You do raise a good point about govenment monitoring and the like. It does seem like small consolation to have your privacy rights from your employer, but still allow the government to monitor every aspect of your existence.
... the IP claims against MainSoft, who ported MS' code, so now a $699 license for all who run Windows, and -- Darl's convulsing with joy here -- if you run Linux and Windows, using MainSoft to integrate, well...
$699 + $699 + $699 = $2097 (plus the software costs from MS and MS).
This job's overrated, trust me. You have to get up at 5 in the morning because usually they shoot ridiculously early in the mornings (for lighting or something), and most of the time you're just sitting around doing nothing, and the pay isn't so good, and you have to work on some pretentious bitch's schedule.
And the women hardly ever talk to you, they just give you I'm-too-good-for-you looks and if they do talk to you, it's always those dreadful words: "Let me tell you about my day...". Shoot me!
It's true that virus writers are malevalent and don't have pure intentions when hacking their scripts and all, but in a general sense, where would our security be without virus writers?
If you consider computer security like the human immune system, then perhaps it may be seen that these people (while malicious) allow security to keep up with that hacks that can be done. If you kept a person in a bubble for twenty years and then promptly released him into the dirty, disease-ridden world he'd likely get sick and potentially die pretty quickly, as his body has no capacity to survive the world. However, with immunizations (i.e. intentional delivery of malicious agents in small doses, possibly on some schedule) and just general exposure to the germs in the world, most people have no problem surviving this world. Yes, MyDoom, and Trojans, and all the other viruses are more than nuisances and they cost people time, money, data, and other things, but these are in relatively small doses. If we had been in a bubble free of viruses for all this time, then whenever we're released into the "real world", anybody could take advantage of all these exploits (open sockets, DDoS, back doors, etc.) at once and perhaps bring the whole infrastructure down.
It's the fact that virus writers are always developing viruses and releasing them that allows us to fix these problems individually, on a manageable time-scale. If they wanted to do some damage, maybe they should withhold all their viruses and unleash them all at once to cripple everything so much more.
No, I understand, the Meta-Moderation system is very weak (and it seems that/. is afraid of hurting the karma of moderators so any negative impact is minimal).
How about a business/CS combination? From my understanding, banks and investment firms are dying to get technologically integrated (banks tend to be conservative and stodgy, and are frequently riddled with legacy infrastructure) and those with knowledge of finance/accounting/etc. and programming are very valuable to these companies.
Reminds me of the (contraversial) Levi's campaign where they put a pair of jeans in some display in the New York Subways with the intent of having the jeans stolen.
Though it's not illegal if the band allows the music to be copied, it is encouraging "illegal" activity in an effort to appear edgy or some such thing.
Yes, most curriculums have some option (or even mandate) to learn some low-level language, but obviously there are issues with both starting at a high-level language and a low-level one. I've heard that MIT (verify this?) learns on LISP (or at least they used to) which is precisely that sort of middle ground. It has some capacity for decent OOP, though it can be limited and convoluted, but it also flows in a similar manner as lower-level languages. Obviously it doesn't have quite the memory management and address control as assembly, but....
I think it's good, but it'll also likely turn many off of computer science. It is significant and beneficial to know the goal when programming (and Assembly is much closer to the "goal" of Machine code than Java) which helps in optimization and just the mindset of programming. But I've taken it and it's damn hard to learn, and damn complicated. At least for me it was.
Right. Google does call into question its legitimacy as a search engine by taking ads and such, but that's what makes it free (that and other sites license google). You'd probably question the value of a thesaurus if they had "sponsored synonyms" in their listings, or dictionaries took money to include certain definitions that acted as advertisements. So the advertising certainly would degrade google's utility as a reference (though it still is a useful reference). As a marketing tool, as a virtual mall, or something along those lines, it's prominent, and becoming increasingly so. That's fine, but google has to accept these consequences.
What concerns me is whether google's becoming a virtual monopoly or acting too strongly to shift the market (as the article states). As we've seen, google wields a lot of power. It's become dictatorial in its control of the internet market. Companies (and devious tactics) exist to doctor a website's PageRank, and AdWords does work, but at google's fee. It's like google owns the only bridge to online success and they must almost certainly pay a toll to google to cross.
But isn't this precisely a form of security through obscurity? And is it really going to work? Adding another layer of a similar sort of security (where you have to know a password of sorts) is just delaying invasion and likely (slightly, at least) burdening legitimate traffic.
It's like adding a second metal detector at the airport. If you make it past the first metal detector, then you'll probably make it past the second metal detector also (it'll just take longer), and you slow down all the legitimate non-terrorists in the process.
It does make it harder, which is good, but superficially so (I think).
I agree. It seems like it's going to be a damn hard project. But I guess it depends on how they want to approach it. If they want to document the major events (i.e. Linus had an idea) then it might not be so daunting, but then it might not be so interesting either. If they want to go into any depth, it seems like it'd be impossible because so many people have had their hands on Linux, and there are so many different versions and branches and everything.
Sounds something like documenting the history of the English language. The "big picture" stuff might not be very interesting, but then it'd be impossible to document when every word was first used, and by whom.
I guess, obviously, the logical plan is sketch out major events then flush out the details.
On the 4rd of February 2004, this page (or rather the page that was here) was swamped by requests and the server subsequentially failed. The reason was traced to Slashdot(see image below) posting an article about a webpage about Google posting an image about fractals, which when clicked accessed our web page. The link went directly to a page about google (or rather the page that was here).
[Image used without permission from Slashdot]
In order to get this server functional again, the page that was here has been moved somewhere else. It shouldn't be too hard to find it if you really want to, do a Google search for "Using google fractal" or if you would like to complain more about google try googlewatch.
Please note that this is not a criticism of Slashdot or nerd but rather an interesting dimension to the power they wield. They have hundreds (thousands?) of members worldwide that distribute their traffic load. If even a small percentage of that traffic is directed to a single server.....what chance does it have?
Questions: Should Slashdot ask permission before potentially sending huge traffic loads to a single page/server? Should they regulate traffic to individual sites/pages by allowing accesses by karma? Why do so few of them have girlfriends?
Happy slashdotting!
Slashdot nerdeth
and Google geeketh away
Blessed is the dork?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, file this under "duh".
Of course it seems obvious to anybody ("delays hurt business? You mean if we don't have a product we won't have sales? You mean baseless hype irritates people? Well there goes our business model."). It's just especially noticeable in video games because they are notorious for delays (and have previously gotten away with them). For whatever reason it seems to me that movies and music generally come out on time, or are delayed well in advance.
I was skeptical about video games being a bigger industry now, but it's true that video game sale did surpass box office sales in 2003 (interestingly, the CNN article also discusses video game delays). It feels like it's the result of the industry advancing too quickly and not knowing the general timeline for releases, or what they can expect to accomplish.
Too often you hear about games trying to include/do too much or use technology that is too advanced. With music, for example, they know they're looking for 60 minutes (even 40 minutes these days?) of produced, committee-written whatever, a warm, silicone body to sing it and move it out the door. Gold album.
For my money, wired is a fun interesting source for gadgets and stuff, but it's too sensationalist technology. It feels to me like it treats tech still as some miracle or black-box that is to be possessed but not truly known. It is just like wired to treat this like some groundbreaking news when video games and technology are, at heart, just like any other industry. Not a flame or a troll, just my thoughts.
Yes, if anything like this were passed in America, I think it would still come across as entirely lax to the employers because they need things such as you SSN "for tax purposes", while gender, race, etc. (as if they weren't apparent) would be "demographic" etc. So some information would be protected, but the crucial information (i.e. identity theft information) would still be necessary.
Reminds me of the national anti-Spam initiative that actually loosened the constraints for many people.
It's what happens when the federal government steps in.
It happens all the time.
Dukael: Hello?
Prerecorded Voice: Has your love life been slow recently? If so I have a great new product that can endow you one or two more inches.
Dukael: Keep talking...
It does seem like a step in the right direction. It's mind-boggling to me how America, being as "enlightened" as it is, seems hesitant to respect privacy rights. In Europe employee monitoring laws are being tightened while in America this report says the trend is increasing. Even in California when a protective bill was passed it was vetoed by the (formed) Gov. Grey Davis. And I think that the argument is frivolous that if you have nothing to hide then it shouldn't be a problem. Then, surely, you wouldn't object to a full body search every morning coming into work?
It just demonstrates how strongly America loves its businesses and corporations (and subsequently, its money). These corporate/business-friendly policies that put so much pressure on American employees are just like outsourcing in that they alienate the apparently "not-worthwhile" American employee. While America may keep their corporations and their corporate revenue, they might lose a comparable amount in salaries and income taxes. Perhaps.
I like these progressive-non-Big-Brother (i.e. not China, Saudi Arabia, evidently) countries that respect the people and their lives rather than corporations.
You do raise a good point about govenment monitoring and the like. It does seem like small consolation to have your privacy rights from your employer, but still allow the government to monitor every aspect of your existence.
Still, this is a good thing.
... the IP claims against MainSoft, who ported MS' code, so now a $699 license for all who run Windows, and -- Darl's convulsing with joy here -- if you run Linux and Windows, using MainSoft to integrate, well ...
$699 + $699 + $699 = $2097 (plus the software costs from MS and MS).
Just get used to seeing:
[]: HahAHahA, j00 Ju$+ 9o+ fux*x0r3d!
and
: **!!! (* *) H3aD$h0+ (x x) !!!**
appear on your screen 1/2 second after you die.
Forget the Oscars, Peter Jackson must be sighing relief that he got a Nebula "Premilinary Nomination".
Lau Kofoed Kierstein may be sitting on the floor with a few six-year-old boys, playing with action figures.
Isn't Jacko being indicted for having this "job"?
But they left out bikini team oiler.
...". Shoot me!
This job's overrated, trust me. You have to get up at 5 in the morning because usually they shoot ridiculously early in the mornings (for lighting or something), and most of the time you're just sitting around doing nothing, and the pay isn't so good, and you have to work on some pretentious bitch's schedule.
And the women hardly ever talk to you, they just give you I'm-too-good-for-you looks and if they do talk to you, it's always those dreadful words: "Let me tell you about my day
It's true that virus writers are malevalent and don't have pure intentions when hacking their scripts and all, but in a general sense, where would our security be without virus writers?
If you consider computer security like the human immune system, then perhaps it may be seen that these people (while malicious) allow security to keep up with that hacks that can be done. If you kept a person in a bubble for twenty years and then promptly released him into the dirty, disease-ridden world he'd likely get sick and potentially die pretty quickly, as his body has no capacity to survive the world. However, with immunizations (i.e. intentional delivery of malicious agents in small doses, possibly on some schedule) and just general exposure to the germs in the world, most people have no problem surviving this world. Yes, MyDoom, and Trojans, and all the other viruses are more than nuisances and they cost people time, money, data, and other things, but these are in relatively small doses. If we had been in a bubble free of viruses for all this time, then whenever we're released into the "real world", anybody could take advantage of all these exploits (open sockets, DDoS, back doors, etc.) at once and perhaps bring the whole infrastructure down.
It's the fact that virus writers are always developing viruses and releasing them that allows us to fix these problems individually, on a manageable time-scale. If they wanted to do some damage, maybe they should withhold all their viruses and unleash them all at once to cripple everything so much more.
How about just because?
/. is afraid of hurting the karma of moderators so any negative impact is minimal).
No, I understand, the Meta-Moderation system is very weak (and it seems that
As an alum, I can tell you that any Fontbonne reference is humorous.
How about a business/CS combination? From my understanding, banks and investment firms are dying to get technologically integrated (banks tend to be conservative and stodgy, and are frequently riddled with legacy infrastructure) and those with knowledge of finance/accounting/etc. and programming are very valuable to these companies.
Hopefully I'll land something decent.
Reminds me of the (contraversial) Levi's campaign where they put a pair of jeans in some display in the New York Subways with the intent of having the jeans stolen.
Though it's not illegal if the band allows the music to be copied, it is encouraging "illegal" activity in an effort to appear edgy or some such thing.
Yes, most curriculums have some option (or even mandate) to learn some low-level language, but obviously there are issues with both starting at a high-level language and a low-level one. I've heard that MIT (verify this?) learns on LISP (or at least they used to) which is precisely that sort of middle ground. It has some capacity for decent OOP, though it can be limited and convoluted, but it also flows in a similar manner as lower-level languages. Obviously it doesn't have quite the memory management and address control as assembly, but ....
I think it's good, but it'll also likely turn many off of computer science. It is significant and beneficial to know the goal when programming (and Assembly is much closer to the "goal" of Machine code than Java) which helps in optimization and just the mindset of programming. But I've taken it and it's damn hard to learn, and damn complicated. At least for me it was.
2) Job practicality
.CODE .WHILE TRUE
mv eax, Profit!!!
.ENDW
ret
What?!?!?
1)
start: invoke LearnAssembly,null
2) invoke _???, null
3}
Sorry, my assembly's a little rusty.
Looks like Microsoft beat you to it.
Right. Google does call into question its legitimacy as a search engine by taking ads and such, but that's what makes it free (that and other sites license google). You'd probably question the value of a thesaurus if they had "sponsored synonyms" in their listings, or dictionaries took money to include certain definitions that acted as advertisements. So the advertising certainly would degrade google's utility as a reference (though it still is a useful reference). As a marketing tool, as a virtual mall, or something along those lines, it's prominent, and becoming increasingly so. That's fine, but google has to accept these consequences.
What concerns me is whether google's becoming a virtual monopoly or acting too strongly to shift the market (as the article states). As we've seen, google wields a lot of power. It's become dictatorial in its control of the internet market. Companies (and devious tactics) exist to doctor a website's PageRank, and AdWords does work, but at google's fee. It's like google owns the only bridge to online success and they must almost certainly pay a toll to google to cross.
But isn't this precisely a form of security through obscurity? And is it really going to work? Adding another layer of a similar sort of security (where you have to know a password of sorts) is just delaying invasion and likely (slightly, at least) burdening legitimate traffic.
It's like adding a second metal detector at the airport. If you make it past the first metal detector, then you'll probably make it past the second metal detector also (it'll just take longer), and you slow down all the legitimate non-terrorists in the process.
It does make it harder, which is good, but superficially so (I think).
Hilarious.
I hope it happens. Since they've already updated the page to complain about slashdot also (check the page again), it seems almost a lock.
I love it. Maybe we could ask him to check his logs/bandwidth/accesses to see if slashdot or google won.
I agree. It seems like it's going to be a damn hard project. But I guess it depends on how they want to approach it. If they want to document the major events (i.e. Linus had an idea) then it might not be so daunting, but then it might not be so interesting either. If they want to go into any depth, it seems like it'd be impossible because so many people have had their hands on Linux, and there are so many different versions and branches and everything.
Sounds something like documenting the history of the English language. The "big picture" stuff might not be very interesting, but then it'd be impossible to document when every word was first used, and by whom.
I guess, obviously, the logical plan is sketch out major events then flush out the details.
Now if only booble had an excuse to link to them ...
Trying to give Google a taste of their own medicine?
Google reports their servers have been brought down by something they call the "astronomy.swin.edu.au" effect.
Here's the full text from the website tomorrow:
Browsing Slashdot?
Looking for the page complaining about Google?
On the 4rd of February 2004, this page (or rather the page that was here) was swamped by requests and the server subsequentially failed. The reason was traced to Slashdot(see image below) posting an article about a webpage about Google posting an image about fractals, which when clicked accessed our web page. The link went directly to a page about google (or rather the page that was here).
[Image used without permission from Slashdot]
In order to get this server functional again, the page that was here has been moved somewhere else. It shouldn't be too hard to find it if you really want to, do a Google search for "Using google fractal" or if you would like to complain more about google try googlewatch.
Please note that this is not a criticism of Slashdot or nerd but rather an interesting dimension to the power they wield. They have hundreds (thousands?) of members worldwide that distribute their traffic load. If even a small percentage of that traffic is directed to a single server.....what chance does it have?
Questions: Should Slashdot ask permission before potentially sending huge traffic loads to a single page/server? Should they regulate traffic to individual sites/pages by allowing accesses by karma? Why do so few of them have girlfriends?
Happy slashdotting!
Slashdot nerdeth
and Google geeketh away
Blessed is the dork?