The differences between applying for a temporary working visa for Canada and one for the US are like night and day. I'd say the important question for someone applying for a Canadian visa is "which forms do I fill out?", while the question for someone considering a US visa is "is it possible?" followed by "is the time and expense worth it?"
get a J-1 'exchange' visa, which you will need unless you're Canadian
Unless things have changed very recently, Canadians also need a J-1 visa unless you are a professional covered by NAFTA. If you qualify under NAFTA, you're probably not looking for an internship.
I second IAESTE. I've used their internships and they are very well organized, with arranged visas, housing and social programs. Another option I've used in the US is the SWAP (Student Work Abroad Program) which makes it possible to get a US visa, although I've heard that it recently became a LOT harder.
I wonder how hard it would be to develop a meatspace version of ROBOTS.TXT... there are several ways this might work that I can think of right now...
1. An opt-in online system where you log in and say "google can show the picture of my house". A bit tricky to maintain though... how do you stop me logging in to google and approving a picture of your house?
2. An opt-out online system.
3. A symbol that you print out, laminate, and affix to your house. Is the resolution that appears on streetview the same as what google actually took or do they downscale it from a much higher resolution? If the latter then there should be no problem identifying the symbol. It could work as an opt-in or an opt-out system.
4. Some combination of the above that changes the resolution that your house appears in (eg from completely blurred to maximum resolution).
Something a bit unrelated that I just thought of... I wonder if google ever considered using garbage collection vehicles to take the pictures. They go basically everywhere in metro areas, and in Australia at least, an increasing number of rural areas. You could just stick a (google provided) bright yellow sticker on your garbage bin if you didn't want/did want (depending on the opt-out/in approach taken) to participate, and an optical sensor on the truck would register your want. The only disadvantage would be that the picture would be always taken on garbage collection day when you have your rubbish bins out, cluttering the view:)
There is a "meatspace" opt-out equivalent. It's called a "No Trespassing" sign and Google ignores it anyway . Why would you expect them to respect any other indication?
It says one should *inform* his/her national authorities. Nowhere does it say to wait for permission. In fact, step 4 requires open and wide dissemination of the discovery.
Although I am lead to believe that a certain national authority has pro-actively avoided being informed of certain information in the past. However, no one really takes them seriously.
That is exactly how it should work. Copyright is (or was) a monopoly granted for X years as incentive to have more works available to the public. This is exactly why trade secrets aren't granted patent protection. And nor should works that will never enter the public domain be granted copyright protection.
I find it a little disappointing that they couldn't fix bug #6971. That's a vast quantity of games that are unplayable because they won't warp the mouse from one side of the screen to another when it hits the edge. They won't even mark it as a high severity bug, even though it meets the qualifications (makes many applications unusable), it's one of the most duplicated bugs, and it's one of the most highly voted bugs.
I wish there were a card you could hand out to people that says basically
"Dear Script Pimp,
You're a moron. Your idea sucks. Your story is cliched. Your characters are one-dimensional. Your plot is derivative and predictable. The scale is laughably grand and would cost a fortune to produce. The fact that your script formatting is wrong and that you include things like director's notes in the script indicate that you're an amateur. You didn't even respect me enough to run it through a spell-checker. Even your mother was humoring you if she said she liked it. You have no talent. I hate you. You're not worth the celluloid it would take to strangle you. Get away from me."
"And I could tell all that from your one-sentence pitch."
That's true mainly in computer science, mathematics, physics, etc. I see little LaTeX being used in the life and social sciences. Unfortunately, the de facto standard for those really is microsoft word documents.
Probably because Word is fine for text, but sucks for equations, which is where LaTex excels (and are not used much in life and social sciences).
Agreed 100 percent. If you write it in C, you can make it run faster with lower resources, but you will spend a lot more time creating, debugging and maintaining it.
Most software simply doesn't need to be that fast. The performance sensitive pieces of code are in database queries (C code), or disk operations (C code), or math operations (C code). Modern garbage collectors also are proven, they're fast, they're reliable. It doesn't make sense for the majority of classes of software, from a cost vs. gain perspective, to use C for the job.
You're forgetting embedded applications. I don't have any data to back this up, but I'd imagine there are currently more total instructions being executed every day on embedded processors than Pentium and up CPUs. And embedded programmers *care* about resources.
This may be off-topic, though, as there seems to be a bigger and bigger divide between embedded and non-embedded software and hardware every year.
But if there's a toxic gas in the mine, would you save ten of your fellow miners or one canary? Not to say that one shouldn't be concerned for the canary, but one must remember there was exactly one reason to bring canaries down the mine: to save *miners*.
The DDT ban was great for the birds and us where cancer is a bigger concern than malaria, but there are probably ten times more people directly effected by malaria, many of whom could have been saved by judicious use.
Some of us really ARE Engineers. Raise your hand if you ever had a solo project where you had to design/implement the server code, the client code, the servers machines themselves, the client machines themselves, the database it all ran on, and the protocols in which they all interacted. After all, which, since it is your baby, you get all of the bug reports and feature requests, the work to go with it, and all of the testing your brain can handle. I can't actually see any of you, but I would be a rotten banana that I am not the only one with my hand up.
I don't think you understand what the difference between an engineer and a technician/craftsman is. Are you taking legal responsibility for your bugs? Do your bugs affect public safety?
Yeah, I used to work for a plant that essentially had two customers: GE and Siemens/Westinghouse. They both had almost equivalent items we produced and both paid essentially the same. But the difference in dealing with their employees was enormous. The SW staff was easy going and pleasant to deal with, but most of the GE guys were twitchy, argumentative and sullen. They'd fly across the country for a plant tour and none of our staff would volunteer for a night of company paid "business entertainment" with them.
I interviewed for a job with GE when I finished by degree and one of their managers was giving me one of those psychological interviews. He asked me to describe a situation where my work had been sabotaged by a co-worker. Luckily, this hadn't happened to me and I said so. He wouldn't let it drop, "There MUST have been a time when someone tried to undercut your work!". It got to the point where he was yelling at me over the phone to give an example. I didn't take that job.
It might be good for the stockholders, but I'd certainly never work at a place that pressures their workers like GE does.
I'm not sure they actually are blocking the term anymore. When I tried to search for the term "abortion" in the subject field at the website http://db.jhuccp.org/ics-wpd/popweb/basic.html , I got 13 hits. Perhaps they quickly realized how wrong this censorship was?
Or maybe they wanted to kill two birds with one stone, intentionally using the Streisand effect to promote their database and point out the government's policies on funding and birth control.
So who writes these 'automated tools' and who checks those?
Most likely they use those tools to check themselves, pretty much as you compile (most of) a compiler with itself, debug a debugger, and so on.
Yeah, but then you become vulnerable to a checker that (by malevolent design) overlooks a security fault in both itself and other programs. Something like Ken Thompson's "Reflections on Trusting Trust" in which the compiler inserts a backdoor into the login program, but also inserts the same code whenever it compiles a compiler.
The problem is that since there are lots of better single layer encryption packages, there is no reason to use TrueCrypt unless you are going to use the hidden volume function. Therefore, if you use TrueCrypt it is assumed that there are two passwords that must be recovered. God help the suspected user who *doesn't* use the hidden volume feature.
It would be OK if TrueCrypt allowed an unlimited number of hidden volumes such that the interrogator would never know if there was one more password to coerce out of you.
The problem with truecrypt is that, if they can compel you to give up your first password and the means of unencrypting the data (i.e that you used TrueCrypt), they can easily find out that TrueCrypt supports hidden volumes. They will then use the same method to compel you to give up the second password. Unfortunately, if you don't have a second volume, there is no way to prove it to them, so they will continue to "compel" you until you're no longer any use to them.
I suppose they will do the same thing as the textile loomers did after the industrial revolution in the 1800s.
Yeah, setting inanimate looms on fire was nothing. I can't wait to see a robot full of gasoline fighting off angry gas station attendants with torches!
Slashdot Mirror
And of that 55%, more than half *still* don't disapprove.
And *I* have to concentrate of finishing this one: 50K Racewalker
The differences between applying for a temporary working visa for Canada and one for the US are like night and day. I'd say the important question for someone applying for a Canadian visa is "which forms do I fill out?", while the question for someone considering a US visa is "is it possible?" followed by "is the time and expense worth it?"
Unless things have changed very recently, Canadians also need a J-1 visa unless you are a professional covered by NAFTA. If you qualify under NAFTA, you're probably not looking for an internship.
I second IAESTE. I've used their internships and they are very well organized, with arranged visas, housing and social programs. Another option I've used in the US is the SWAP (Student Work Abroad Program) which makes it possible to get a US visa, although I've heard that it recently became a LOT harder.
There is a "meatspace" opt-out equivalent. It's called a "No Trespassing" sign and Google ignores it anyway . Why would you expect them to respect any other indication?
Although I am lead to believe that a certain national authority has pro-actively avoided being informed of certain information in the past. However, no one really takes them seriously.
That is exactly how it should work. Copyright is (or was) a monopoly granted for X years as incentive to have more works available to the public. This is exactly why trade secrets aren't granted patent protection. And nor should works that will never enter the public domain be granted copyright protection.
Wow. No wonder Windows seems slow, if it's continually checking whether any specific buggy code is running *and then fixing the bugs in the code*.
This may be off-topic, though, as there seems to be a bigger and bigger divide between embedded and non-embedded software and hardware every year.
But if there's a toxic gas in the mine, would you save ten of your fellow miners or one canary? Not to say that one shouldn't be concerned for the canary, but one must remember there was exactly one reason to bring canaries down the mine: to save *miners*.
The DDT ban was great for the birds and us where cancer is a bigger concern than malaria, but there are probably ten times more people directly effected by malaria, many of whom could have been saved by judicious use.
The difference is that that the FBI doesn't lose customers/funding when they mess things up.
Yeah, I used to work for a plant that essentially had two customers: GE and Siemens/Westinghouse. They both had almost equivalent items we produced and both paid essentially the same. But the difference in dealing with their employees was enormous. The SW staff was easy going and pleasant to deal with, but most of the GE guys were twitchy, argumentative and sullen. They'd fly across the country for a plant tour and none of our staff would volunteer for a night of company paid "business entertainment" with them.
I interviewed for a job with GE when I finished by degree and one of their managers was giving me one of those psychological interviews. He asked me to describe a situation where my work had been sabotaged by a co-worker. Luckily, this hadn't happened to me and I said so. He wouldn't let it drop, "There MUST have been a time when someone tried to undercut your work!". It got to the point where he was yelling at me over the phone to give an example. I didn't take that job.
It might be good for the stockholders, but I'd certainly never work at a place that pressures their workers like GE does.
I thought they were throttling all encrypted traffic, which would include your ssh session.
I don't think terrorists are the only ones interested in the privacy of their "climate controlled secure facility in Canada."
The problem is that since there are lots of better single layer encryption packages, there is no reason to use TrueCrypt unless you are going to use the hidden volume function. Therefore, if you use TrueCrypt it is assumed that there are two passwords that must be recovered. God help the suspected user who *doesn't* use the hidden volume feature.
It would be OK if TrueCrypt allowed an unlimited number of hidden volumes such that the interrogator would never know if there was one more password to coerce out of you.
This isn't about the TSA, it's about Customs.
The problem with truecrypt is that, if they can compel you to give up your first password and the means of unencrypting the data (i.e that you used TrueCrypt), they can easily find out that TrueCrypt supports hidden volumes. They will then use the same method to compel you to give up the second password. Unfortunately, if you don't have a second volume, there is no way to prove it to them, so they will continue to "compel" you until you're no longer any use to them.