Microsoft is pushing PKI again. I think somebody realized it's the key to enterprise lock-in.
BTW, I think you misspelled telecom in your sig. There is a great article on the giant swindle that was the 1996 Telecom Act here: http://www.consumersunion.org/telecom/lessondc201. htm
Note that I said "potentially". It's not a stereotype, it's just an observation. A stereotype is saying it always happens. The guy I ended up hiring was awesome at Unreal, but I knew he didn't have ADD. But many of the people I know who play FPS a lot do have attention issues. I interviewed a guy who bragged about how he brokered many deals in EQ, getting people communicating via a BBS he set up. That guy got huge points for initiative and entrepreneurialism. I was impressed that he took commissions, even if it was in game money.
It's a heck of a lot more directed than the personality tests administered by some corporations, which stick you in a quadrant and decide what you'll be good at. Or scripts that pattern match resumes for keywords, that many technical recruiters use.
Baystar investment managers have left Baystar "to pursue other opportunities." These include, running technology funds for Mutual Fund companies!
Gotta love the way the ol boy network functions in the financial sector. Just give your classmate from Yale a call, and boom - you are off to lose more money for other people...
Financial analysts need permanent records. I need to be able to Google the guy running a fund, and have it say "this moron thought SCO was a good idea in 2003."
I agree that SHOULD be the lesson. Yet, Baystar reps constantly repeated the mantra that the litigation was not being focused on properly.
I'm afraid that that the Baystars of the word learn, is to properly evaluate the IP case before funding it. In fact, a whole cottage industry is there for the plucking. Law firms that SPECIALIZE in consulting with investment firms, to determine if the IP case has merit. "Looking to invest in that no name company that has a submarine patent? Hey, talk to us first! We'll let you know if they have any chance of winning! Our lawyers only run $200/hr!"
There's something you are not mentioning, it goes to the root of education. To you, learning C from a book and some print outs WAS fun. It had to be, or you wouldn't have stuck with it. The idea of learning a skill was what made you happy.
I'm seeing a dearth of this lately. I had to do some recent hires, and I just flat out started looking for the people who showed interest in learning.
Some applicants had more certifications, from a mill mostly, but I was looking for the guy who taught himself scripting on the Linux box he setup at home. Somebody whose hobby was doing something creative, perhaps using a computer.
I'd also bring up gaming in the interview, what video games the person liked, etc. If they felt it was a social bridge question, they latched right onto it, talking about what games they liked. Others saw it as a trap, and (perhaps) fibbed about it, saying they hardly gamed at all, when I thought that was probably not true.
In fact, the question was neither a trap or a digression, I wanted to see who revealed what by discussions about gaming, and what kind of gaming they did. If they jammed at FPS, I tended to mark that as potential attention span issue. If they played alot of EQ or RPG, I also noted that as potentially compulsive. I was looking for people who liked adventure games, like the often derided MYST or Prince of Persia. Puzzle solvers scored extra points in the interview.
Not everyone is going to enjoy just learning a skill, un-assisted, from a book. I'm not sure with the generation of new hires coming from college, you will get many people who acquired skills that way.
Software is also based on iteration. Buying the 1.0 product of somebody isn't a reason to conclude the deal.
I'd like to see art use that model. Hey, this painting you are buying is 1.0. I have plans to improve it, I'll stop by and work on it some more while it's on your wall.
The Deep Impact project is going to fly alongside a comet, and shoot at it, making parts break off for further observation. It's the first drive-by shooting in space.
The thread has turned into a primer on gun control - but lets stick with geek stuff.
First - the machine. A tip - if you have DSL or cable at home, DON'T bring it. Set up with GOTOMYPC or something of the ilk, and simply session into your home machine from where you are going. For some, this is not reasonable, they are going to sit in a cafe or what have you. But for many, consider using a remote session.
Music - there are wireless headsets like the ones you might see at http://www.gadgetcentral.com/wm-we01_intro.html
Wear them. Put the unit in a pants pocket or jacket pocket completely from view.
Take a look at the latest in color blackberries and others. I saw a guy who had what I thought was this unit: http://www.pdagold.com/articles/detail.asp?a=155
He had a pull out, snap together chicklet keyboard - and the thing had 802.11b wireless and he had an adapter to direct the display to an overhead projector that was in the office. It was brilliant, he hopped on the wireless network and had a 800x600 display of a remote computer via WTS in moments - with stuff he carried in his jacket pocket.
Buffalo Spammer won't you come out and play?
Come out and play?
Come out and play?
Buffalo Spammer won't you come out and play?
By the light of your cellmate's moooooon!!!!
so the end result is that some "g" cards work as "a" cards with "g" access points.
I think you meant "b" cards. 802.11a uses 5Ghz, but b and g use 2.4Ghz. But you might be right, since a/b cards could do both frequencies. I think g cards only run at 2.4Ghz though.
while Vonage is great for geeks, I can cause it to break up with heavy file transfers.
Try the linksys BEF series, use the QOS feature that maps to the individual ports on the switch. Plug the ATA into switch port 3, for instance, and push 3 up in the web interface, make everything else low.
It should stop the Vonage problems. I have a house with several net users (all on at once), I needed to be sure the phonecalls were #1.
They've already started blocking port 25 outbound (one thing that I might be okay with)
I'm glad you are okay with it. Some of us aren't. And we're not spammers. SMTP has not been given any special status by the ISP, as a protocol. It's being singled out because of abuse. But what if I have a home device, say a fire alarm, that I want to use SMTP to page me if it goes off? Should I, as a Comcast customer, be prevented from using that protocol? I have to switch or tunnel it in SSL, or ask my paging provider to use something else because my ISP decided SMTP was right out?
Why can't the ISP simply shut down protocols, based on at least the CONCEPTS presented in the EULA, such as abuse? I can't send out a SINGLE email, because then I might send 100,000? Well, how about waiting UNTIL I DO THAT, and then block JUST ME.
Selectively filtering entire protocols is a slippery slope, and eventually is just a band-aid.
Norton's paper is on financial and reciprocal negotiation strategies on ISP backbone peering. It doesn't say anything about queuing mechanisms at those peering points. The words "queue" and "qos" don't appear anywhere in there.
I think what he meant by "mess with" (I'm guessing) is adjusting traffic priorities based on application data.
Masking VOIP inside IPSEC or SSL would ultimately be pointless. In addition to the added latency of software encryption/decryption, you'd lose some functionality of VOIP, like the ability to transfer a call.
Lots of people use H.323 and SIP and proprietary codecs and signalling. What is Comcast gonna do, hunt it all down and throw it in a low queue? With Teamspeak, you can just switch port numbers, foiling that.
I see no legal difference between taking a competitors traffic and putting in a low queue, and simply blocking Vonage's entire IP range for the PSTN gateways totally. Poof, end of competition. The effect is the same, why not just be explicit and target individuals?
Vonage's device they send you doesn't adjust the TOS value in the IP packet. I checked with a hub and ethereal. I have the Cisco device, newer customers are getting the Motorola. Don't know about that.
So, it's at the class of service level of everything else. Which doesn't have any packet loss and has low latency. In order to give themselves competitive advantage, Comcast could only trust the TOS and DSCP values in VOIP flows coming from their equipment, but the ENTIRE CONCEPT OF QOS is predicated on the idea of congestion!
Now, if they deliberately threw competing VOIP flows into a low queue and INDUCED loss, well - that's actionable as anti-competitive behavior. And in the standard IANAL disclaimer, I have no idea what the remedies available are.
Also, as another posted that got modded up pointed out, Vonage could use VPN or otherwise mask the RTSP stream. But that's silly. It's also counter productive long term.
I think the parent article is kind of a troll to get legislation by the FCC and others regarding QOS. It's a tactic to cause dissention because of the pass the FCC took on regulating companies like Vonage.
Well, nobody has (yet) tried to make CPAs out as fun. I don't think even David Chase from the Sopranos could make that job interesting.
"by day, they fill out tax relief forms and study this year's changes to the IRS tax code! by night, they fight crime and stop evildoers from taking money off the books!"
Capone went to prison (Alcatraz) on tax evasion. I'd love to see the IRS audit all spammers they can get ahold of. It might drive them offshore, but then we might have a chance at the ISP level to blacklist IP ranges for SMTP traffic.
SPF is a good idea, I get tired of that checklist that says why your idea won't work. It's pedantic and discourages good ideas from being discussed.
If SPAM is allowed to thrive offshore, I see a time when service providers like AT&T are asked to track SMTP and provide governments the figures for - you guessed it - tariffs.
Without proper legislation, Gene Simmons could turn into an evil scientist who uses tiny robots to hatch an evil plan to destroy the world's oil supply and bankrupt the World Bank. Then we'd need an overweight Tom Selleck to save us!
They can also learn to be like the Swiss. Or how geographic location can dicate your foreign policy and how to maintain soveriegnty and even profit by being in the middle, acting as a banker.
Really shrewd players of Diplomacy (the Avalon Hill game) thrive on that strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is pushing PKI again. I think somebody realized it's the key to enterprise lock-in.
. htm
BTW, I think you misspelled telecom in your sig. There is a great article on the giant swindle that was the 1996 Telecom Act here: http://www.consumersunion.org/telecom/lessondc201
Note that I said "potentially". It's not a stereotype, it's just an observation. A stereotype is saying it always happens. The guy I ended up hiring was awesome at Unreal, but I knew he didn't have ADD. But many of the people I know who play FPS a lot do have attention issues. I interviewed a guy who bragged about how he brokered many deals in EQ, getting people communicating via a BBS he set up. That guy got huge points for initiative and entrepreneurialism. I was impressed that he took commissions, even if it was in game money.
It's a heck of a lot more directed than the personality tests administered by some corporations, which stick you in a quadrant and decide what you'll be good at. Or scripts that pattern match resumes for keywords, that many technical recruiters use.
Baystar investment managers have left Baystar "to pursue other opportunities." These include, running technology funds for Mutual Fund companies!
Gotta love the way the ol boy network functions in the financial sector. Just give your classmate from Yale a call, and boom - you are off to lose more money for other people...
Financial analysts need permanent records. I need to be able to Google the guy running a fund, and have it say "this moron thought SCO was a good idea in 2003."
I agree that SHOULD be the lesson. Yet, Baystar reps constantly repeated the mantra that the litigation was not being focused on properly.
I'm afraid that that the Baystars of the word learn, is to properly evaluate the IP case before funding it. In fact, a whole cottage industry is there for the plucking. Law firms that SPECIALIZE in consulting with investment firms, to determine if the IP case has merit. "Looking to invest in that no name company that has a submarine patent? Hey, talk to us first! We'll let you know if they have any chance of winning! Our lawyers only run $200/hr!"
Good post, Bruce.
There's something you are not mentioning, it goes to the root of education. To you, learning C from a book and some print outs WAS fun. It had to be, or you wouldn't have stuck with it. The idea of learning a skill was what made you happy.
I'm seeing a dearth of this lately. I had to do some recent hires, and I just flat out started looking for the people who showed interest in learning.
Some applicants had more certifications, from a mill mostly, but I was looking for the guy who taught himself scripting on the Linux box he setup at home. Somebody whose hobby was doing something creative, perhaps using a computer.
I'd also bring up gaming in the interview, what video games the person liked, etc. If they felt it was a social bridge question, they latched right onto it, talking about what games they liked. Others saw it as a trap, and (perhaps) fibbed about it, saying they hardly gamed at all, when I thought that was probably not true.
In fact, the question was neither a trap or a digression, I wanted to see who revealed what by discussions about gaming, and what kind of gaming they did. If they jammed at FPS, I tended to mark that as potential attention span issue. If they played alot of EQ or RPG, I also noted that as potentially compulsive. I was looking for people who liked adventure games, like the often derided MYST or Prince of Persia. Puzzle solvers scored extra points in the interview.
Not everyone is going to enjoy just learning a skill, un-assisted, from a book. I'm not sure with the generation of new hires coming from college, you will get many people who acquired skills that way.
If Darl goes to prison, maybe he will be somebody's darling.
It would be great if Alton went over and smacked Bobby Flay upside the head with a meat tenderizer. Repeatedly. Hard.
Software is also based on iteration. Buying the 1.0 product of somebody isn't a reason to conclude the deal.
I'd like to see art use that model. Hey, this painting you are buying is 1.0. I have plans to improve it, I'll stop by and work on it some more while it's on your wall.
Mom I'd like to....Find a programming language for. A MILF-APLF
The Deep Impact project is going to fly alongside a comet, and shoot at it, making parts break off for further observation. It's the first drive-by shooting in space.
The thread has turned into a primer on gun control - but lets stick with geek stuff.
5
First - the machine. A tip - if you have DSL or cable at home, DON'T bring it. Set up with GOTOMYPC or something of the ilk, and simply session into your home machine from where you are going. For some, this is not reasonable, they are going to sit in a cafe or what have you. But for many, consider using a remote session.
Music - there are wireless headsets like the ones you might see at http://www.gadgetcentral.com/wm-we01_intro.html
Wear them. Put the unit in a pants pocket or jacket pocket completely from view.
Take a look at the latest in color blackberries and others. I saw a guy who had what I thought was this unit:
http://www.pdagold.com/articles/detail.asp?a=15
He had a pull out, snap together chicklet keyboard - and the thing had 802.11b wireless and he had an adapter to direct the display to an overhead projector that was in the office. It was brilliant, he hopped on the wireless network and had a 800x600 display of a remote computer via WTS in moments - with stuff he carried in his jacket pocket.
Ah yes, it's a wonderful life...
Buffalo Spammer won't you come out and play?
Come out and play?
Come out and play?
Buffalo Spammer won't you come out and play?
By the light of your cellmate's moooooon!!!!
Didn't we have this exact story on Slashdot last month?
so the end result is that some "g" cards work as "a" cards with "g" access points.
I think you meant "b" cards. 802.11a uses 5Ghz, but b and g use 2.4Ghz. But you might be right, since a/b cards could do both frequencies. I think g cards only run at 2.4Ghz though.
while Vonage is great for geeks, I can cause it to break up with heavy file transfers.
Try the linksys BEF series, use the QOS feature that maps to the individual ports on the switch. Plug the ATA into switch port 3, for instance, and push 3 up in the web interface, make everything else low.
It should stop the Vonage problems. I have a house with several net users (all on at once), I needed to be sure the phonecalls were #1.
They've already started blocking port 25 outbound (one thing that I might be okay with)
I'm glad you are okay with it. Some of us aren't. And we're not spammers. SMTP has not been given any special status by the ISP, as a protocol. It's being singled out because of abuse. But what if I have a home device, say a fire alarm, that I want to use SMTP to page me if it goes off? Should I, as a Comcast customer, be prevented from using that protocol? I have to switch or tunnel it in SSL, or ask my paging provider to use something else because my ISP decided SMTP was right out?
Why can't the ISP simply shut down protocols, based on at least the CONCEPTS presented in the EULA, such as abuse? I can't send out a SINGLE email, because then I might send 100,000? Well, how about waiting UNTIL I DO THAT, and then block JUST ME.
Selectively filtering entire protocols is a slippery slope, and eventually is just a band-aid.
Norton's paper is on financial and reciprocal negotiation strategies on ISP backbone peering. It doesn't say anything about queuing mechanisms at those peering points. The words "queue" and "qos" don't appear anywhere in there.
I think what he meant by "mess with" (I'm guessing) is adjusting traffic priorities based on application data.
the pigs cant track you either.
The Pigs?? Nice to know Charles Manson is being allowed to post to Slashdot.
Masking VOIP inside IPSEC or SSL would ultimately be pointless. In addition to the added latency of software encryption/decryption, you'd lose some functionality of VOIP, like the ability to transfer a call.
Lots of people use H.323 and SIP and proprietary codecs and signalling. What is Comcast gonna do, hunt it all down and throw it in a low queue? With Teamspeak, you can just switch port numbers, foiling that.
I see no legal difference between taking a competitors traffic and putting in a low queue, and simply blocking Vonage's entire IP range for the PSTN gateways totally. Poof, end of competition. The effect is the same, why not just be explicit and target individuals?
Vonage's device they send you doesn't adjust the TOS value in the IP packet. I checked with a hub and ethereal. I have the Cisco device, newer customers are getting the Motorola. Don't know about that.
So, it's at the class of service level of everything else. Which doesn't have any packet loss and has low latency. In order to give themselves competitive advantage, Comcast could only trust the TOS and DSCP values in VOIP flows coming from their equipment, but the ENTIRE CONCEPT OF QOS is predicated on the idea of congestion!
Now, if they deliberately threw competing VOIP flows into a low queue and INDUCED loss, well - that's actionable as anti-competitive behavior. And in the standard IANAL disclaimer, I have no idea what the remedies available are.
Also, as another posted that got modded up pointed out, Vonage could use VPN or otherwise mask the RTSP stream. But that's silly. It's also counter productive long term.
I think the parent article is kind of a troll to get legislation by the FCC and others regarding QOS. It's a tactic to cause dissention because of the pass the FCC took on regulating companies like Vonage.
Well, nobody has (yet) tried to make CPAs out as fun. I don't think even David Chase from the Sopranos could make that job interesting.
"by day, they fill out tax relief forms and study this year's changes to the IRS tax code! by night, they fight crime and stop evildoers from taking money off the books!"
Capone went to prison (Alcatraz) on tax evasion. I'd love to see the IRS audit all spammers they can get ahold of. It might drive them offshore, but then we might have a chance at the ISP level to blacklist IP ranges for SMTP traffic.
SPF is a good idea, I get tired of that checklist that says why your idea won't work. It's pedantic and discourages good ideas from being discussed.
If SPAM is allowed to thrive offshore, I see a time when service providers like AT&T are asked to track SMTP and provide governments the figures for - you guessed it - tariffs.
Without proper legislation, Gene Simmons could turn into an evil scientist who uses tiny robots to hatch an evil plan to destroy the world's oil supply and bankrupt the World Bank. Then we'd need an overweight Tom Selleck to save us!
However, I do think they should make a movie about how all geeks get laid daily!
Insta-freezing New York is one thing, what your asking for defies the audience's sense of disbelief.
They can also learn to be like the Swiss. Or how geographic location can dicate your foreign policy and how to maintain soveriegnty and even profit by being in the middle, acting as a banker.
Really shrewd players of Diplomacy (the Avalon Hill game) thrive on that strategy.