As one reply noted, Sun is terminating a bunch of contractors as they
lay off employees. But lets assume that what the parent article says is
accurate. Sun is, in effect, doing what Microsoft tried to do before TechsUnite
successfully sued them. Sun is creating three levels in their work force.
At the bottom there is offshore outsourcing to India. The next level are
US contractors, who can be terminated at any time and, on a cash hourly basis
are probably not paid much more than Sun employees (e.g., $45 to $50 per hour).
Contractors have the virtue of being cheaper than Sun employees, since they
are paid the same hourly rate, but without benefits, and can be terminated
with minimal notice and severance.
The top level, if you want to call it that, since they can be laid off at any
time, are full time Sun employees.
I think that many of us recall a time when Sun was a very cool place to work.
We also had Sun, rather than, in my case, Dell workstations, on our desk.
Given the rather harsh realities of the computer industry, no one should
wonder why talented university students choose to go into law, finance or
business instead of computer science and engineering.
Of course National Review writers support gaming. Especially those
war games. Playing War games allows the National Review writers
to feel like real warriors and patriots. Then they write their
articles about supporting a war that they would never think of
serving in themselves. That's why they're called the 101st
Fighting Keyboardists by some and chickenhawks by others.
War: its on the computer or in the imaginary land of neo-con theory. No
blood, no fear, no death. Just democracy in the Middle East. While
some members of the old guard at the National Review, like William F. Buckley, Jr. have finally been forced
to admit that Iraq has been a disaster for American and its interests,
the Fighting Keyboardists soldier on in their brave battle. Thank God
that there are some true patriots left who are willing to risk carpal tunnel syndrome in the service of their country.
As you note, such a move is risky. Rather than angry pitchfork carrying crowds forcing
the Eurocrats in Brussels to stop their cruel treatment of the underdog of Redmond, what
could happen is that people would adopt other solutions, like Linux or the Mac.
Given my own love hate relationship with Linux, I don't see lots of non-technical users
jumping on the Penguin waggon in the near future. But a move by Microsoft to pull out of the European market would force
current Microsoft users to think of Microsoft as an unreliable supplier. This could
be the beginning of the end of Microsoft's monopoly. Even if this possible future is overblown, Microsoft
is a publicly traded company. Their stock holders might revolt before the European
users. Even Chairman Bill can be deposed if there are enough unhappy stock holders.
In the end it all sounds like a game of "chicken". The Eurocrats are threatening
Microsoft and Microsoft is threatening, at least implicitly, to take their jacks
and go home. We'll see which side blinks. My bet is that Microsoft will play hardball,
but will cut a deal.
You are absolutely correct, starting a "gig" that becomes successful does
indeed have more reward than working for Microsoft (now that stock options
are thin and Microsoft's stock price increase is tepid). But there is
the little caveat above: "becomes successful". In the last few years
consultants have either been out of work or struggling. Consulting pay is
down. Doing a product oriented startup also has risk, since most startup
companies fail. So the rewards that you foresee (and hopefully will acheive)
is coupled with risk. The only people who get big rewards these days without
taking a lot of risk are big company CEOs.
So why does anyone work for someone else? Less risk. If you have a family
to support, you may be unwilling to accept the level of risk required for
a higher reward. It all depends on were you are in life.
Your delemma in choosing between a so far mythical Google offering and
HavenCo might be resolved by looking at Haven's monthly prices. They
also charge a stiff price for the bandwidth to get your data to HavenCo.
File Backup Service: 20GB of backup server space on Havenco's high capacity backup server. Backup your important files or secure data in our secure facility. Access via SSH or SFTP only to provide encrypted data transfer. Send us a copy of your data and we will upload for you allowing you to synchronise your data on a nightly basis. Bandwidth to be purchased seperately for use with this service. Monthly: USD 500
At $500/month for 20 GB of storage, only people who want to take advantage
of the difficulty of serving a sapena to force access of data stored on
HavenCo servers are likely to take advantage of this. So if you're Enron
and you want to store the records of all of those offshore deals, this is
probably a bargain. Of course this still will not do you any good if they
throw your ass in jail until you come up with the data they want.
One reason that HavenCo is so expensive is that they are on an old
artillary platform anchored offshore on some reef. Power, Internet
connections, transport, food, water, are all very expensive. It seems
like a simpler solution would be to set up a data haven in a place like
Lichtenstein, Andorra or some Caribbean island. Even with the fees that
you'd pay to the local government to make a data haven worth their while,
it would be way cheaper than HavenCo. And more pleasant to live there too.
Being stuck on a rusting artillary platform has got to get old fast.
I Am No An Astrophysicist either, or any kind of physicist, for that matter, but...
At the center of the galaxy there is a black hole (in theory) that is
large enough that the tidal forces would not rip you to your component
particles as you approach the event horizon. So lets say that you decide
that you have nothing left to live for in this universe and decide to
journey to another something by traveling into this massive black
hole.
By definition when you reach the event horizon, you will be traveling at
the speed of light. As you approach the event horizion, the time dilation
factor gets approaches infinity, until, at the event horizion it become
infinite. So as you cross the event horizion, time has come to an
end in the universe you left.
So relative to our universe, "stuff" that falls into a black hole never
actually reaches the event horizon. The object just sticks there, as
time dilation takes effect. This was, by the way, something that Fredric
Pohl used his science fiction novel Gateway. The main character
keep thinking of his lover, who is falling toward a black hole and who
will fall throughout time.
As you approach the event horizon your mass also increases infinitely, as
does your kenetic energy.
In short, an object that crosses the event horizon does not seem to make
any sense. Things with mass simply do not travel at the speed of light.
So in crossing the event horizon it seems like you've crossed into an
undefined area. So this film seems misleading from the point of view
of relatively theory. They are trying to simulate something which is
outside of definition, because of all of these infinite terms.
But as I noted, IANAAstrophysicist, so perhaps I've gotten it all wrong.
I read the New York Times article too, so I would appreciate it if someone
pointed out any errors in what I've outlined above.
At least at Lawrence Livermore (LLNL) summer interns do not need
and are not given security clearances. My understanding is that
they do a basic background check, which includes criminal record.
My friend's daughter applied in December and was accepted a few
months later.
I work at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab. From what I have seen, the summer
internship program at The Lab is excellent. There are internships in variety of
areas, including computer science, materials science and physics. In many cases
there are interesting projects to work on and there is an opportunity to present
your work at the end of the internship period. The daughter of a friend was an
intern at The Lab last summer in materials science. They gave her access to the
microfabrication facility for her project.
The requirements for the various summer internship programs vary depending
on the department. In most cases you need to have third year academic
standing and a related major. You will need to get letters of recommendation
from some of your professors in many cases. I believe that there is also a US citizenship
requirement, since The Lab does classified work.
Applications start early. For many departments, the application window for the summer
closes December 31, the year before. For example, some departments closed applications
for this summer on December 31, 2005. Some departments allow later application. Again,
check the llnl.gov web page.
Note that I'm not writing here in any "official" capacity. Just as someone who
works at The Lab and has learned about the internship program.
This intergalatic explosion is evidence of Xenu, the evil overlord who
imprisoned the Thetans on Earth. Yes, oh doubters of L. Ron Hubbard,
now you can see that The Great One was right all along. What astronomers
are seeing now are the remnants of the war that took place long ago, before
the great spaceships came to earth using their wonderous intergalatic star drives. Before the Thetans were sent here.
I'd write more, but it's time to take my pills. The voice of L. Ron in my
head is
making it difficult to concentrate.
I read the New York Times report on the ACM study this morning.
All I could think of was that old joke about catching your
significant other in bed with someone else. "Really", they tell
you, "it's not what it looks like. Who are you going to believe,
me or your lying eyes".
My resume is published on
my web page. So one way I judge hiring is by recruiter calls (obviously
this lacks something in the scientific rigor catagory). The other way
I judge this issue is by press reports, which I've collected in an
annotated bibliography that is at the end of my web page An
Economics Question. Many of these press accounts describe the experiences
of other engineers in today's job market. There are a few conclusions that I draw from the
current engineering employment environment:
There are still interesting jobs that pay decently out there. However, pay
and stock options are definitely not what they were, even in 1992, much
less 1999.
Job instability is way up. The days when you could get another engineering
job relatively easily if you had a good background are over. This greatly
increases the risk of working for a start-up, since you could experience
many months of unemployment if the start-up fails and you're out of a job.
The problem here is that most start-ups do not compensate you for this
increased risk. They pretty much give you the same pay and stock options
that you got a decade ago. But in this new environment you stand the risk
of losing your savings or even your house because of a long period of
unemployment.
Job security is also way down. There remains a big pool of engineers
looking for work and employers definitely have the attitude that they
can always hire another engineer, so you're a disposable, interchangable
commodity. With many software development jobs
there is always the threat that your project will be "offshored"
or that when you complete it, maintenance will be offshored and
you'll be out of work.
While hiring is at best tepid in the United States and Europe, hiring is
booming in India. Employment demand for Indian engineers who graduate
from schools with education comparable to schools in the US or Europe has entirely
outstripped demand. The good news is that this is forcing salaries in
India up. But my lying eyes tell me that what is fueling the demand
in the Indian job market are "first world" jobs that are being outsourced.
With the ACM report working engineers are faced with that question of "who
are you going to believe, the ACM or your lying eyes". My lying eyes tell
me that the story told by the ACM does not reflect the employment experience
of the ACM membership.
If I can rephrase the skepticism expressed in the parent post: most publicly available information posted on web sites will not yield any startling analysis that can't simply be gained by reading annual and quarterly reports.
There was some comment in response to the parent post that the data mining company was licensing data. This also sounds suspicious. There is an SEC regulation called FD (for Fair Disclosure). This regulation states that you cannot preferentially provide investor information to someone. FD was put in place to stop companies from selective discloser to their pet stock market analysts who always write good things about the company, while freezing out those who write anything critical. FD says that if you provide material information about the company, you have to make it available to everyone.
The only way to comply with FD while providing confidential information would be to provide the information with the understanding that it will be aggregated and that companies will not be identified. For example, oil industry companies could provide information
on reserves, which could be aggregated and reported as an industry figure.
Even in this case, the aggregated information would have to be available without prejudice (e.g., anyone could by it).
There has even been some concern about violating Regulation FD if companies allow analysts to travel around and talk to their sales outlets or customer
base. The result of this would be material non-public information that
could be used by the analyst and was obtained through the cooperation of the company.
This does not mean that you cannot derive advantage from information. For
example, if you have a market model that finds predictive features from
data that is either publicly available or that anyone can buy, then you can
leverage this information.
Current events and the points you raise bring home the fact that
a republic is a fragile thing. The survival and health of a republic
rests with it's citizens. If the citizens accept dictatorial acts like
torture and summary execution, the republic will not survive.
I think that many of your points are interesting and in some cases true. But
the statement that Microsoft has no ambitions outside PCs and Consoles
ignores the history of Microsoft's iniatives like MSN. Although many of
Microsoft's initiatives have not born fruit, they strong desire to expand in
many areas outside of PCs and Consoles.
Before continuing I should note that I was one of those who (incorrectly)
predicted Amazon.Com's demise. Amazon was (is?) carrying $2 billion in
junk bond debt. I could not see how they could ever crawl out of that
hole. Clearly I was wrong. Looking at Amazon now I see four things:
A direct retailer of books, electronics and other products.
A software company that sells its software and infrastructure to support
other vendors retailing.
An internet infrastructure company that can sell time on its computer
network "farms" and bandwidth pipes.
A huge "bricks and mortar" distribution chain for books and other products.
This distribution chain can also be "rented" in part to support other
vendors.
When you compare Amazon and Google, you can see how weak Google really is.
While Amazon is very much a software company, Google is rapidly becoming
nothing more than an advertising/media company. However, the problem that
Google has is that their business model is easily subject to attack by competitors. While
Amazon has a difficult to replicate business because of the cost of it's
infrastructure (software, internet and bricks and mortar distribution) Google
pretty much has one thing: it's search engine. The search engine is under attack by
Amazon (with their A9 search engine) and Microsoft, among others. The only
real defense Google has is slightly better results and force of habbit (I
use Google because I'm used to using Google). Right now Google has a big
pool of cash from the stock market. But they remain vulnerable to competitors
and they have no other revinue stream to fall back on.
Google seems to be attempting to take their pool of cash and diversify
deeper into media and advertising. Presumably the objective is to give
them a revinue stream like Amazon's, that cannot be easily attacked. But this
evolution takes Google farther from being the leading edge technology software company that many
Googlistas still seem to think they are.
Having been very wrong about Amazon, I fear making any predictions about Google's
future. But it is tempting to say that they are following an Internet model
where everything happens faster. In their case the rise to bloated egos
beleiving their own press ("we're all brilliant") to business decline as their revinue growth stagnates
and their attempt at expansion gets mired in the difficulty of expanding into
advertising and media.
I would add to the points made in the parent post that Google now
seems to have fallen in love with their own "brilliance". It is
tempting to predict that their swollen heads will cause Google
to topple over.
I remember Jaron Lanier from the 1990s when he gained some fame from
his pronouncements about virtual reality. Perhaps I'm ignorant of
his real accomplishments, but Lanier, like Paris Hilton, seems to be
famous as a result of self promotion, rather than anything he has
achieved. In the world of pundits it appears that it is quite possible
to create yourself from thin air (or perhaps hot air). Unless I'm simply
ignorant of Lanier's accomplishments, why should we listen to anything he
has to say?
Security has a cost
on
Insider Threat
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
One of the wisest comments I've heard on security was: security is the tax that
the rest of us pay because some people are immoral.
Security has a definite cost. Casinos are probably the extreme example. They
tend to hire people paid an hourly wage who handle large amounts of money.
Perhaps they have little choice but to watch them all them time. The people
who are working at the casino are generally willing to put up with a
total surveilance work environment because the jobs pay better than most
relatively unskilled jobs.
I have not read the book that was reviewed, but the reviewer seems to sugget
that something like this kind of total surveilance environment is desirable.
The problem is that such an environment exacts a cost from the majority of
honest and moral people in the hope that it will deter or catch those who
are dishonest. A heavily restricted surveilance environment is likely to
drive anyway many people who have other job options. As espionage scandels
have shown, there is never any
guarantee that any set of counter measures will assure that someone
does not betray trust.
There has to always be a balance between risk and the cost of the
security measures. Security "professional" like the reviewer seem
to forget this. After all, it is not their problem when people quit
for a more pleasant environment or when the organization cannot attract
highly qualified people who can choose to work elsewhere.
Odd that a number of book sellers on abebooks.com also list a 1963
edition. As I noted, it appears that there was a 1963 edition which
was updated in 1973.
From the Amazon listing for the hardcover of The Deltoid Pumpkin Seen by McPhee:
Hardcover: 192 pages
Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (July 9, 1963)
Language: English
ISBN: 0374137811
The same date is shown on the listing on ABE Books. I believe that
McPhee may have issued an updated version in 1973. I seem to recall that there was material about the
what the inventors felt was the promise of fuel efficient transport in the time of the "oil crisis".
My point was that this idea has been around for thirty years.
The idea of hybrid lighter than air lifting and an aerodynamic hull has
been around for a while. In his 1963 book The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed
essayist and journalist John McPhee covers the story the the Aereon,
which was an early avitar of the dynalifter. There was a brief resurgence
of interest in this aircraft design during the oil crisis in the 1970s.
It now seems to be back once again now that oil has risen in price.
One of the things that those pushing this design may not be mentioning is
that increasinly helium is both scarse and a strategic resource. Helium is
actually "mined" from underground domes where it has been trapped (I assume
formed from radioactive decay). If fleets of airships were helilum based, the
price of helium would seen rise to the point where the airships were no longer
cost effective. The alternative is hydrogen, but as the Hindenburg demonstrated,
hydrogen has its own problems. These issues could be the reason that after over
three decades this idea has not caught on.
I find it interesting that Google is rapidly becoming a marketing company rather
than a technology company. As an increasing number of sites offer search that is
at least almost as good, Google is concentrating more on marketing and defense of
its position. The justification for the AOL deal (which cost Google $1 billion)
was to avoid having AOL go to Microsoft. Now there is some kind of deal with
Opera, again based again on marketing, without any obvious technology edge.
This raises the question of wither Google. There's the search engine and
Google Maps, but not much else that I've found compelling. If their innovation
starts to flag, will they try to follow the path of Coca-Cola (marketing, sugar,
caffine and not much else).
This could be a big change for Google's corporate culture. They appear to think
of themselves a a software company that hires "really bright" software engineers.
Apparently the idea is that these really bright people are going to be the ones
who deliver Google's future innovation. This flys in the face of what seems to
increasingly be the "facts on the ground", where Google is increasingly driven
by marketing deals.
No cell phones and no personally owned UBS thumbdrives or laptops is pretty
much standard in any classified environment. It's not just the FBI.
You can, however, use a government owned USB drive or laptop.
I believe that the difficulty of joining the FBI has to do with their "lifestyle"
background check. At least for FBI agents, you cannot ever have used
illegal drugs. So one party in high school or college where you "inhaled", as
President Clinton said, and you can't work for them. Many police forces ask a
similar question. But in the FBI's case, as I understand it, this is followed
up by a polygraph.
Even if you've been a good boy or girl your entire life, a certain number of
innocent people fail the polygraph just because they're nervious. Especially
when it comes to the "lifestyle" questions.
Since 2000 the computer industry has changed in many ways. In a tight job
market interviewers can get away with grueling interviews. These interviews
are not pleasant for anyone, but may be particularly unpleasant for women, who
face hours of being grilled by interviewers who are likely to be entirely male.
At one time the "Microsoft Interview" was largely confined to Microsoft. This
style of interview can be characterized by hours of being asked to solve
technical problems, frequently by writing code on a white board.
While one or two interviewers asking this sort of question might be justified, five hours or more
of this style of interview resembles hazing more than anything else. The
"Microsoft Interview" is no longer limited to Microsoft. A number of
companies, including nVidia and Google use this style of interview. In fact,
as far as I can tell, this style of interview is becoming accepted practice.
This interview style is justified by those who use it by the claim that
it recognizes "people who are really smart". In practice this interview style
only works if the company has a vast sea of candidates to draw from. Without
such huge numbers entering the maw of this process, no one would ever be hired.
Frequently you can't even get an interview without a solid background of accomplishment.
Then on top of this, you must survive the interview process.
An interview process of this kind rewards people who think rapidly on their
feet and don't suffer from "stage freight". I've known women who are more than
up to this kind of interview, but I have to wonder if these obnoxious interviews
are yet another barrier
to women in engineering.
It is a dangerous business naming names. There have been a number of people
sued over the years, along with the organziations that provided the veil
for their anonymity. By, for example, naming Mr. Griggs, you are providing
only one side of a story, without giving him an opportunity to reply. Since
this could harm his ability to get new business, this might be grounds for legal
action. Of course, as we say on slashdot: IANAL (I am not a lawyer) nor do I
play one on television. So what do I know.
Given recent history and experiences posted on Slashdot, it appears that
actual physical demonstrations of security holes may open you up to getting
fired and even charged with a crime. There have been a number of well
meaning admin types who have demonstrated security problems only to find
themselves in trouble. Among other things, an active demonstration might
embarass The Powers That Be. If you write a memo describing the problem
The Powers That Be can either address the issue behind the scenes or just
ignore the memo. On your end, you can look for another job if you feel that
the environment is one that you're uncomfortable with.
Just for the record... In the case of my employer, computer security
is very strong, so I'm not writing from personal experience.
Slashdot Mirror
As one reply noted, Sun is terminating a bunch of contractors as they lay off employees. But lets assume that what the parent article says is accurate. Sun is, in effect, doing what Microsoft tried to do before TechsUnite successfully sued them. Sun is creating three levels in their work force. At the bottom there is offshore outsourcing to India. The next level are US contractors, who can be terminated at any time and, on a cash hourly basis are probably not paid much more than Sun employees (e.g., $45 to $50 per hour). Contractors have the virtue of being cheaper than Sun employees, since they are paid the same hourly rate, but without benefits, and can be terminated with minimal notice and severance. The top level, if you want to call it that, since they can be laid off at any time, are full time Sun employees.
I think that many of us recall a time when Sun was a very cool place to work. We also had Sun, rather than, in my case, Dell workstations, on our desk. Given the rather harsh realities of the computer industry, no one should wonder why talented university students choose to go into law, finance or business instead of computer science and engineering.
Of course National Review writers support gaming. Especially those war games. Playing War games allows the National Review writers to feel like real warriors and patriots. Then they write their articles about supporting a war that they would never think of serving in themselves. That's why they're called the 101st Fighting Keyboardists by some and chickenhawks by others. War: its on the computer or in the imaginary land of neo-con theory. No blood, no fear, no death. Just democracy in the Middle East. While some members of the old guard at the National Review, like William F. Buckley, Jr. have finally been forced to admit that Iraq has been a disaster for American and its interests, the Fighting Keyboardists soldier on in their brave battle. Thank God that there are some true patriots left who are willing to risk carpal tunnel syndrome in the service of their country.
As you note, such a move is risky. Rather than angry pitchfork carrying crowds forcing the Eurocrats in Brussels to stop their cruel treatment of the underdog of Redmond, what could happen is that people would adopt other solutions, like Linux or the Mac.
Given my own love hate relationship with Linux, I don't see lots of non-technical users jumping on the Penguin waggon in the near future. But a move by Microsoft to pull out of the European market would force current Microsoft users to think of Microsoft as an unreliable supplier. This could be the beginning of the end of Microsoft's monopoly. Even if this possible future is overblown, Microsoft is a publicly traded company. Their stock holders might revolt before the European users. Even Chairman Bill can be deposed if there are enough unhappy stock holders.
In the end it all sounds like a game of "chicken". The Eurocrats are threatening Microsoft and Microsoft is threatening, at least implicitly, to take their jacks and go home. We'll see which side blinks. My bet is that Microsoft will play hardball, but will cut a deal.
You are absolutely correct, starting a "gig" that becomes successful does indeed have more reward than working for Microsoft (now that stock options are thin and Microsoft's stock price increase is tepid). But there is the little caveat above: "becomes successful". In the last few years consultants have either been out of work or struggling. Consulting pay is down. Doing a product oriented startup also has risk, since most startup companies fail. So the rewards that you foresee (and hopefully will acheive) is coupled with risk. The only people who get big rewards these days without taking a lot of risk are big company CEOs.
So why does anyone work for someone else? Less risk. If you have a family to support, you may be unwilling to accept the level of risk required for a higher reward. It all depends on were you are in life.
Your delemma in choosing between a so far mythical Google offering and HavenCo might be resolved by looking at Haven's monthly prices. They also charge a stiff price for the bandwidth to get your data to HavenCo.
At $500/month for 20 GB of storage, only people who want to take advantage of the difficulty of serving a sapena to force access of data stored on HavenCo servers are likely to take advantage of this. So if you're Enron and you want to store the records of all of those offshore deals, this is probably a bargain. Of course this still will not do you any good if they throw your ass in jail until you come up with the data they want.
One reason that HavenCo is so expensive is that they are on an old artillary platform anchored offshore on some reef. Power, Internet connections, transport, food, water, are all very expensive. It seems like a simpler solution would be to set up a data haven in a place like Lichtenstein, Andorra or some Caribbean island. Even with the fees that you'd pay to the local government to make a data haven worth their while, it would be way cheaper than HavenCo. And more pleasant to live there too. Being stuck on a rusting artillary platform has got to get old fast.
I Am No An Astrophysicist either, or any kind of physicist, for that matter, but...
At the center of the galaxy there is a black hole (in theory) that is large enough that the tidal forces would not rip you to your component particles as you approach the event horizon. So lets say that you decide that you have nothing left to live for in this universe and decide to journey to another something by traveling into this massive black hole.
By definition when you reach the event horizon, you will be traveling at the speed of light. As you approach the event horizion, the time dilation factor gets approaches infinity, until, at the event horizion it become infinite. So as you cross the event horizion, time has come to an end in the universe you left.
So relative to our universe, "stuff" that falls into a black hole never actually reaches the event horizon. The object just sticks there, as time dilation takes effect. This was, by the way, something that Fredric Pohl used his science fiction novel Gateway. The main character keep thinking of his lover, who is falling toward a black hole and who will fall throughout time.
As you approach the event horizon your mass also increases infinitely, as does your kenetic energy.
In short, an object that crosses the event horizon does not seem to make any sense. Things with mass simply do not travel at the speed of light. So in crossing the event horizon it seems like you've crossed into an undefined area. So this film seems misleading from the point of view of relatively theory. They are trying to simulate something which is outside of definition, because of all of these infinite terms.
But as I noted, IANAAstrophysicist, so perhaps I've gotten it all wrong. I read the New York Times article too, so I would appreciate it if someone pointed out any errors in what I've outlined above.
At least at Lawrence Livermore (LLNL) summer interns do not need and are not given security clearances. My understanding is that they do a basic background check, which includes criminal record. My friend's daughter applied in December and was accepted a few months later.
I work at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab. From what I have seen, the summer internship program at The Lab is excellent. There are internships in variety of areas, including computer science, materials science and physics. In many cases there are interesting projects to work on and there is an opportunity to present your work at the end of the internship period. The daughter of a friend was an intern at The Lab last summer in materials science. They gave her access to the microfabrication facility for her project.
The requirements for the various summer internship programs vary depending on the department. In most cases you need to have third year academic standing and a related major. You will need to get letters of recommendation from some of your professors in many cases. I believe that there is also a US citizenship requirement, since The Lab does classified work.
Applications start early. For many departments, the application window for the summer closes December 31, the year before. For example, some departments closed applications for this summer on December 31, 2005. Some departments allow later application. Again, check the llnl.gov web page.
Note that I'm not writing here in any "official" capacity. Just as someone who works at The Lab and has learned about the internship program.
This intergalatic explosion is evidence of Xenu, the evil overlord who imprisoned the Thetans on Earth. Yes, oh doubters of L. Ron Hubbard, now you can see that The Great One was right all along. What astronomers are seeing now are the remnants of the war that took place long ago, before the great spaceships came to earth using their wonderous intergalatic star drives. Before the Thetans were sent here.
I'd write more, but it's time to take my pills. The voice of L. Ron in my head is making it difficult to concentrate.
I read the New York Times report on the ACM study this morning. All I could think of was that old joke about catching your significant other in bed with someone else. "Really", they tell you, "it's not what it looks like. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes".
My resume is published on my web page. So one way I judge hiring is by recruiter calls (obviously this lacks something in the scientific rigor catagory). The other way I judge this issue is by press reports, which I've collected in an annotated bibliography that is at the end of my web page An Economics Question. Many of these press accounts describe the experiences of other engineers in today's job market. There are a few conclusions that I draw from the current engineering employment environment:
There are still interesting jobs that pay decently out there. However, pay and stock options are definitely not what they were, even in 1992, much less 1999.
Job instability is way up. The days when you could get another engineering job relatively easily if you had a good background are over. This greatly increases the risk of working for a start-up, since you could experience many months of unemployment if the start-up fails and you're out of a job. The problem here is that most start-ups do not compensate you for this increased risk. They pretty much give you the same pay and stock options that you got a decade ago. But in this new environment you stand the risk of losing your savings or even your house because of a long period of unemployment.
Job security is also way down. There remains a big pool of engineers looking for work and employers definitely have the attitude that they can always hire another engineer, so you're a disposable, interchangable commodity. With many software development jobs there is always the threat that your project will be "offshored" or that when you complete it, maintenance will be offshored and you'll be out of work.
While hiring is at best tepid in the United States and Europe, hiring is booming in India. Employment demand for Indian engineers who graduate from schools with education comparable to schools in the US or Europe has entirely outstripped demand. The good news is that this is forcing salaries in India up. But my lying eyes tell me that what is fueling the demand in the Indian job market are "first world" jobs that are being outsourced.
With the ACM report working engineers are faced with that question of "who are you going to believe, the ACM or your lying eyes". My lying eyes tell me that the story told by the ACM does not reflect the employment experience of the ACM membership.
If I can rephrase the skepticism expressed in the parent post: most publicly available information posted on web sites will not yield any startling analysis that can't simply be gained by reading annual and quarterly reports.
There was some comment in response to the parent post that the data mining company was licensing data. This also sounds suspicious. There is an SEC regulation called FD (for Fair Disclosure). This regulation states that you cannot preferentially provide investor information to someone. FD was put in place to stop companies from selective discloser to their pet stock market analysts who always write good things about the company, while freezing out those who write anything critical. FD says that if you provide material information about the company, you have to make it available to everyone. The only way to comply with FD while providing confidential information would be to provide the information with the understanding that it will be aggregated and that companies will not be identified. For example, oil industry companies could provide information on reserves, which could be aggregated and reported as an industry figure. Even in this case, the aggregated information would have to be available without prejudice (e.g., anyone could by it).
There has even been some concern about violating Regulation FD if companies allow analysts to travel around and talk to their sales outlets or customer base. The result of this would be material non-public information that could be used by the analyst and was obtained through the cooperation of the company.
This does not mean that you cannot derive advantage from information. For example, if you have a market model that finds predictive features from data that is either publicly available or that anyone can buy, then you can leverage this information.
Great post. Thanks for writing it.
Current events and the points you raise bring home the fact that a republic is a fragile thing. The survival and health of a republic rests with it's citizens. If the citizens accept dictatorial acts like torture and summary execution, the republic will not survive.
I think that many of your points are interesting and in some cases true. But the statement that Microsoft has no ambitions outside PCs and Consoles ignores the history of Microsoft's iniatives like MSN. Although many of Microsoft's initiatives have not born fruit, they strong desire to expand in many areas outside of PCs and Consoles.
Before continuing I should note that I was one of those who (incorrectly) predicted Amazon.Com's demise. Amazon was (is?) carrying $2 billion in junk bond debt. I could not see how they could ever crawl out of that hole. Clearly I was wrong. Looking at Amazon now I see four things:
A direct retailer of books, electronics and other products.
A software company that sells its software and infrastructure to support other vendors retailing.
An internet infrastructure company that can sell time on its computer network "farms" and bandwidth pipes.
A huge "bricks and mortar" distribution chain for books and other products. This distribution chain can also be "rented" in part to support other vendors.
When you compare Amazon and Google, you can see how weak Google really is. While Amazon is very much a software company, Google is rapidly becoming nothing more than an advertising/media company. However, the problem that Google has is that their business model is easily subject to attack by competitors. While Amazon has a difficult to replicate business because of the cost of it's infrastructure (software, internet and bricks and mortar distribution) Google pretty much has one thing: it's search engine. The search engine is under attack by Amazon (with their A9 search engine) and Microsoft, among others. The only real defense Google has is slightly better results and force of habbit (I use Google because I'm used to using Google). Right now Google has a big pool of cash from the stock market. But they remain vulnerable to competitors and they have no other revinue stream to fall back on.
Google seems to be attempting to take their pool of cash and diversify deeper into media and advertising. Presumably the objective is to give them a revinue stream like Amazon's, that cannot be easily attacked. But this evolution takes Google farther from being the leading edge technology software company that many Googlistas still seem to think they are.
Having been very wrong about Amazon, I fear making any predictions about Google's future. But it is tempting to say that they are following an Internet model where everything happens faster. In their case the rise to bloated egos beleiving their own press ("we're all brilliant") to business decline as their revinue growth stagnates and their attempt at expansion gets mired in the difficulty of expanding into advertising and media.
I would add to the points made in the parent post that Google now seems to have fallen in love with their own "brilliance". It is tempting to predict that their swollen heads will cause Google to topple over.
I remember Jaron Lanier from the 1990s when he gained some fame from his pronouncements about virtual reality. Perhaps I'm ignorant of his real accomplishments, but Lanier, like Paris Hilton, seems to be famous as a result of self promotion, rather than anything he has achieved. In the world of pundits it appears that it is quite possible to create yourself from thin air (or perhaps hot air). Unless I'm simply ignorant of Lanier's accomplishments, why should we listen to anything he has to say?
One of the wisest comments I've heard on security was: security is the tax that the rest of us pay because some people are immoral.
Security has a definite cost. Casinos are probably the extreme example. They tend to hire people paid an hourly wage who handle large amounts of money. Perhaps they have little choice but to watch them all them time. The people who are working at the casino are generally willing to put up with a total surveilance work environment because the jobs pay better than most relatively unskilled jobs.
I have not read the book that was reviewed, but the reviewer seems to sugget that something like this kind of total surveilance environment is desirable. The problem is that such an environment exacts a cost from the majority of honest and moral people in the hope that it will deter or catch those who are dishonest. A heavily restricted surveilance environment is likely to drive anyway many people who have other job options. As espionage scandels have shown, there is never any guarantee that any set of counter measures will assure that someone does not betray trust.
There has to always be a balance between risk and the cost of the security measures. Security "professional" like the reviewer seem to forget this. After all, it is not their problem when people quit for a more pleasant environment or when the organization cannot attract highly qualified people who can choose to work elsewhere.
Odd that a number of book sellers on abebooks.com also list a 1963 edition. As I noted, it appears that there was a 1963 edition which was updated in 1973.
From the Amazon listing for the hardcover of The Deltoid Pumpkin Seen by McPhee:
The same date is shown on the listing on ABE Books. I believe that McPhee may have issued an updated version in 1973. I seem to recall that there was material about the what the inventors felt was the promise of fuel efficient transport in the time of the "oil crisis". My point was that this idea has been around for thirty years.
The idea of hybrid lighter than air lifting and an aerodynamic hull has been around for a while. In his 1963 book The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed essayist and journalist John McPhee covers the story the the Aereon, which was an early avitar of the dynalifter. There was a brief resurgence of interest in this aircraft design during the oil crisis in the 1970s. It now seems to be back once again now that oil has risen in price.
One of the things that those pushing this design may not be mentioning is that increasinly helium is both scarse and a strategic resource. Helium is actually "mined" from underground domes where it has been trapped (I assume formed from radioactive decay). If fleets of airships were helilum based, the price of helium would seen rise to the point where the airships were no longer cost effective. The alternative is hydrogen, but as the Hindenburg demonstrated, hydrogen has its own problems. These issues could be the reason that after over three decades this idea has not caught on.
I find it interesting that Google is rapidly becoming a marketing company rather than a technology company. As an increasing number of sites offer search that is at least almost as good, Google is concentrating more on marketing and defense of its position. The justification for the AOL deal (which cost Google $1 billion) was to avoid having AOL go to Microsoft. Now there is some kind of deal with Opera, again based again on marketing, without any obvious technology edge.
This raises the question of wither Google. There's the search engine and Google Maps, but not much else that I've found compelling. If their innovation starts to flag, will they try to follow the path of Coca-Cola (marketing, sugar, caffine and not much else).
This could be a big change for Google's corporate culture. They appear to think of themselves a a software company that hires "really bright" software engineers. Apparently the idea is that these really bright people are going to be the ones who deliver Google's future innovation. This flys in the face of what seems to increasingly be the "facts on the ground", where Google is increasingly driven by marketing deals.
No cell phones and no personally owned UBS thumbdrives or laptops is pretty much standard in any classified environment. It's not just the FBI. You can, however, use a government owned USB drive or laptop.
I believe that the difficulty of joining the FBI has to do with their "lifestyle" background check. At least for FBI agents, you cannot ever have used illegal drugs. So one party in high school or college where you "inhaled", as President Clinton said, and you can't work for them. Many police forces ask a similar question. But in the FBI's case, as I understand it, this is followed up by a polygraph.
Even if you've been a good boy or girl your entire life, a certain number of innocent people fail the polygraph just because they're nervious. Especially when it comes to the "lifestyle" questions.
Since 2000 the computer industry has changed in many ways. In a tight job market interviewers can get away with grueling interviews. These interviews are not pleasant for anyone, but may be particularly unpleasant for women, who face hours of being grilled by interviewers who are likely to be entirely male.
At one time the "Microsoft Interview" was largely confined to Microsoft. This style of interview can be characterized by hours of being asked to solve technical problems, frequently by writing code on a white board.
While one or two interviewers asking this sort of question might be justified, five hours or more of this style of interview resembles hazing more than anything else. The "Microsoft Interview" is no longer limited to Microsoft. A number of companies, including nVidia and Google use this style of interview. In fact, as far as I can tell, this style of interview is becoming accepted practice.
This interview style is justified by those who use it by the claim that it recognizes "people who are really smart". In practice this interview style only works if the company has a vast sea of candidates to draw from. Without such huge numbers entering the maw of this process, no one would ever be hired. Frequently you can't even get an interview without a solid background of accomplishment. Then on top of this, you must survive the interview process.
An interview process of this kind rewards people who think rapidly on their feet and don't suffer from "stage freight". I've known women who are more than up to this kind of interview, but I have to wonder if these obnoxious interviews are yet another barrier to women in engineering.
It is a dangerous business naming names. There have been a number of people sued over the years, along with the organziations that provided the veil for their anonymity. By, for example, naming Mr. Griggs, you are providing only one side of a story, without giving him an opportunity to reply. Since this could harm his ability to get new business, this might be grounds for legal action. Of course, as we say on slashdot: IANAL (I am not a lawyer) nor do I play one on television. So what do I know.
Given recent history and experiences posted on Slashdot, it appears that actual physical demonstrations of security holes may open you up to getting fired and even charged with a crime. There have been a number of well meaning admin types who have demonstrated security problems only to find themselves in trouble. Among other things, an active demonstration might embarass The Powers That Be. If you write a memo describing the problem The Powers That Be can either address the issue behind the scenes or just ignore the memo. On your end, you can look for another job if you feel that the environment is one that you're uncomfortable with.
Just for the record... In the case of my employer, computer security is very strong, so I'm not writing from personal experience.