Sometimes the term "illegal" is used to mean "inadmissible as evidence in court." I thought one can record any audio anywhere, they just might not be able to use it in court.
That's a great point about voltage. The labs probably provide perfect power.
I had a contractor install recessed kitchen lighting and he used 130V halogen bulbs. The slightly thicker filament lasts 3x longer than regular halogens.
Statistically, if you buy 20 bulbs with a lifetime of X hours, you will have some bulbs that burn out before X hours. That doesn't mean the lifetime statement was wrong.
I can counter your anecdote with mine: In my entire life I've never seen an LED burn out unless it was in my own circuit. That includes alarm clocks, toys, computer cases, and LED light bulbs. They dim over time, but unless they get excess heat the dang things seem to last forever. I first started buying LED bulbs 5 years ago, but only in the last 3 years have I bought more LED than CFL. The CFLs do die, but it takes a long time.
My guess is you have a problem with your electric service.
A checksum that you can do in your head would be better than something you must use an external tool on. You don't want to expose "hunter2" in your example by typing it in there.
anybody who takes more than 5 seconds to look at your password, or even a malicious system maintainer who grabs passwords at login, will be in a position where your passwords are just 3-4 token variations... once a human mind sets you as a target, your online world is SOL.
This objection only applies to the really simplistic example I give, and only if they see 2 or more passwords. "His passwords are boxcar73 and boxcar98? Duh..." In reality, you can do something only slightly more mentally complex than tacking the service name onto the end that yields an essentially random string. Think ROT13, but not using a constant 13.:-) Since my employer requires me to rotate passwords every 90 days, I feel safe writing "dellbattery" on a post-it on my monitor knowing that nobody is going to get "xy4platypus2&Zp" from that, no matter how many of my passwords they look at.
The 2 benefits to using the service name are that you don't have to write anything down for those services, and your spouse can login to your account without needing to read the keyword list. But you still need some written list because sometimes you can't use the service name though: rotating passwords, changing passwords, or when the algorithm produces a password that the site doesn't accept (too long, too many special characters). One of the items in my list is exceptions like "standard hash but no special characters" which I hate doing.
I do like your scheme though too. I think the real take away is that everyone can come-up with a scheme like this that is easy for them to remember, and now they can have secure passwords without having to write anything down. Don't write-down the password. Write down a reminder of the password that requires special knowledge in order to use. It is far far more secure than what most people are recommending.
While there is some overlap between reporting and dashboarding, there are some things for which reporting is more appropriate. Your examples are all trends and realtime stuff where dashboarding seems more appropriate. But data mining is where reporting comes in.
For example, suppose there was recall on particular lot number of something. You may want to determine everyone who used that particular lot. This is not something you want on a dashboard. This is something you want to see on screen, export into a spreadsheet, archive, and print. You may want to see which client was most impacted, or how many it was used. Maybe you know the % failure in the lot and you want to estimate the number of people in Nigeria affected as compared to the number of people in Egypt. This reporting or querying, but not dashboarding.
Ahh Sorry, that video probably isn't using the voxel engine. That's why it looks so good, but they can't really move around freely. It is more like Microsoft Photosynth.
Thank you, I've been posting this to every password-related Slashdot article for years and never managed to get modded up. My scheme is a slight variation, where the "357a" part is derived from the name of the web site or application you are logging into. Maybe you use the vowels in the web site name and their count: so the password for homework.com might produce "boxcaroeoo4." With this approach, instead of writing down "357a" or "oeoo" you write down "vowels + count" or "standard derivation" or something like that. The benefit is that if you use the same algorithm most of the time you don't have to write anything down.
Do experienced devs even know this? I've programmed in several languages and I could never give a list of functions on demand.
Just to be clear: The summary says they didn't ask for function names. It says they asked the names of some of the most commonly used classes in the language.
Ultimately it depends on what the person claims to know. This seems like is a decent question if the C++ programmer claims to know the STL. One can't code any language for long without knowing it's standard containers. Plus, anyone with a CS degree should know that any modern language will need an array, a linked list, a queue, and an associative set. If you just guess "array, list, queue, set" you'd be half way toward the answer.
Here's the elephant in the toom: these questions are so subjective that people can't give a good answer without meeting you. Maybe you interview poorly. Maybe you don't speak clearly. Maybe you are disfigured and that intimidates people. Maybe you don't dress for the part. We can't tell from your question. I suspect those kinds of factors are the dominant factors here so you might be better off asking someone who interviewed you. That's where a recruiter comes in. They have experience sizing people up, and they know what positions are available and who is filling them.
Overall, I find Ph.D computer scientists tend to work in very specialized academic areas. Language development, artificial intelligence, and encryption come to mind. The same goes for mechanical and electrical engineers - they tend to have BS or MS degrees, and the Ph.Ds are specialized and get very high salaries but have a very small pool of positions. It would be a fascinating experiment to submit your resume without the Ph.D and see if you get a different response. If you do that, please post the results somewhere!
Regarding your point #1: Network neutrality has nothing to do with usage-based billing. This is the #1 biggest misconception. If an ISP wants to charge based on the number of packets on the network, they can do that.
I read it again, and I missed the funniest part the first time.
"Imposing utility-like regulation, as in treating broadband like the telephone or even railroad tracks, inevitably creates a bureaucratic morass that in fact slows growth and innovation."
MASSIVE. ANALOGY. FAILY.
The author draws an analogy between broadband and telephone companies. Umm.... broadband companies ARE telephone companies dude. That's like saying "Imagine treating a Collie like a dog, that would be ridiculous!" Applying "utility-like regulation" to regulated monopoly utilities makes perfect sense.
Comparing to the railroad is the best though, because the "net neutrality" laws actually originated with the railroad when they were called called "common carrier" laws. These laws have been in place for hundreds of years, yet it is painted to be some kind of new heavyweight regulation.
As with most mainstream articles on this topic, it just simply doesn't get what network neutrality really is. The problems start with the first sentence.
Net neutrality, the FCC's effort to govern broadband providers who supply Internet access, enters a new chapter as
Net neutrality is not the name of an FCC plan. It is the principle upon which the internet was created. They make this out to be some new regulatory effort, rather than something that has been around for decades.
There's the pro-business side, reflecting the interests of the companies that have paid for the broadband — cable operators and telcos. They naturally want to be able to charge bigger users higher prices
So now the author implies that net neutrality means that they can't charge bigger users higher prices. Bigger users do pay higher prices! They always have, that makes perfect sense. Then it says:
That's the logical growth area of their businesses —charging the distributors of data as well as the consumers (you and me).
Distributors and consumers do pay for their data.
The article is trying to be "nice" to everyone: identify each player in this topic and paint them out to have a reasonable interest. But to do that, the article must omit the core issue which is that cable and telecom monopolies want to double-charge distributors who have already paid. But if you mention that, it is kinda tough to make it look like each side has a fair and balanced interest in this. The article paints out 5 different interested parties, but there are really only two: the greedy monopolies who want to make more money without having to invest in infrastructure, versus everyone-else.
I am loathe to read the article linked within this one titled "RELATED: A Q&A about net neutrality" because I fear yet more inaccuracy.
1) Are you sure they ever burning to begin with? Lots of people didn't start programming because they loved it. Lots of them started because it was a profitable field. They didn't go home and code til 3am in the first place.
2) Make sure you don't confuse burnout with shifting life priorities. I used to go home, grab some Taco Bell, then write code, compete, hack, etc. But now I go home, kiss my wife, eat dinner, and play with my kids. I'd love to code, but I had to cut a lot of that out. Don't think it was an easy realization, as I could write a novel on the topic. But I didn't burnout, I just shifted my priorities. Next step might be taking care of my parents, which will also cut into coding time.:-(
Netflix offers 4k for streaming for Breaking bad, Ghostbusters, and Smurfs 2. Who bought their 4K TV to watch SMURFS 2?!?!?!?! http://variety.com/2014/digita...
The article is completely overblowing this, borderling lying. Ebay was not hacked. The BBC should be ashamed and take the article down:
EBay has been compromised so that people who clicked on some of its links were automatically diverted to a site designed to steal their credentials.
But the image caption says the truth:
A listing for an iPhone 5S contained code that resulted in users being sent to a scam site
Those are *completely* different issues. A link is not a hack! The article goes on to make up more garbage:
He [the security researcher] said that the technique used was known as a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack. It involved the attackers placing malicious Javascript code within product listing pages.
Posting a link is not an XSS attack. And a link is not the same as Javascript.
The article says "a security researcher" but they never say the persons name or credentials. I bet there was no researcher. It sounds more like a friend of one of the reporters saw this scam link, Googled some search terms and came-up with "XSS" then suddenly became a security researcher.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes the term "illegal" is used to mean "inadmissible as evidence in court." I thought one can record any audio anywhere, they just might not be able to use it in court.
Can someone with legal knowledge of this clarify?
That's a great point about voltage. The labs probably provide perfect power.
I had a contractor install recessed kitchen lighting and he used 130V halogen bulbs. The slightly thicker filament lasts 3x longer than regular halogens.
Statistically, if you buy 20 bulbs with a lifetime of X hours, you will have some bulbs that burn out before X hours. That doesn't mean the lifetime statement was wrong.
I can counter your anecdote with mine: In my entire life I've never seen an LED burn out unless it was in my own circuit. That includes alarm clocks, toys, computer cases, and LED light bulbs. They dim over time, but unless they get excess heat the dang things seem to last forever. I first started buying LED bulbs 5 years ago, but only in the last 3 years have I bought more LED than CFL. The CFLs do die, but it takes a long time.
My guess is you have a problem with your electric service.
I believe that they must also have a line of sight to the pilot. That's a big problem.
A checksum that you can do in your head would be better than something you must use an external tool on. You don't want to expose "hunter2" in your example by typing it in there.
anybody who takes more than 5 seconds to look at your password, or even a malicious system maintainer who grabs passwords at login, will be in a position where your passwords are just 3-4 token variations... once a human mind sets you as a target, your online world is SOL.
This objection only applies to the really simplistic example I give, and only if they see 2 or more passwords. "His passwords are boxcar73 and boxcar98? Duh..." In reality, you can do something only slightly more mentally complex than tacking the service name onto the end that yields an essentially random string. Think ROT13, but not using a constant 13. :-) Since my employer requires me to rotate passwords every 90 days, I feel safe writing "dellbattery" on a post-it on my monitor knowing that nobody is going to get "xy4platypus2&Zp" from that, no matter how many of my passwords they look at.
The 2 benefits to using the service name are that you don't have to write anything down for those services, and your spouse can login to your account without needing to read the keyword list. But you still need some written list because sometimes you can't use the service name though: rotating passwords, changing passwords, or when the algorithm produces a password that the site doesn't accept (too long, too many special characters). One of the items in my list is exceptions like "standard hash but no special characters" which I hate doing.
I do like your scheme though too. I think the real take away is that everyone can come-up with a scheme like this that is easy for them to remember, and now they can have secure passwords without having to write anything down. Don't write-down the password. Write down a reminder of the password that requires special knowledge in order to use. It is far far more secure than what most people are recommending.
While there is some overlap between reporting and dashboarding, there are some things for which reporting is more appropriate. Your examples are all trends and realtime stuff where dashboarding seems more appropriate. But data mining is where reporting comes in.
For example, suppose there was recall on particular lot number of something. You may want to determine everyone who used that particular lot. This is not something you want on a dashboard. This is something you want to see on screen, export into a spreadsheet, archive, and print. You may want to see which client was most impacted, or how many it was used. Maybe you know the % failure in the lot and you want to estimate the number of people in Nigeria affected as compared to the number of people in Egypt. This reporting or querying, but not dashboarding.
Ahh Sorry, that video probably isn't using the voxel engine. That's why it looks so good, but they can't really move around freely. It is more like Microsoft Photosynth.
Oh wait, use the higher-quality video link at https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The 360p version of that beats the 1080p version of the original.
Here's the direct YouTube link, BTW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Another potential problem here might be dynamic lighting.
Thank you, I've been posting this to every password-related Slashdot article for years and never managed to get modded up. My scheme is a slight variation, where the "357a" part is derived from the name of the web site or application you are logging into. Maybe you use the vowels in the web site name and their count: so the password for homework.com might produce "boxcaroeoo4." With this approach, instead of writing down "357a" or "oeoo" you write down "vowels + count" or "standard derivation" or something like that. The benefit is that if you use the same algorithm most of the time you don't have to write anything down.
In short, the analyst should have said "Because they are no longer reporting to Wall Street, they can take more risk."
Wait so when Dell went private they had to fire all the employees? That is what you just said. IPO's are a one time cash trick.
I don't follow. Can you explain?
Companies don't make any more money from wall street after wards unless they spilt the stock or release more shares.
How does the company profit from a stock split?
Do experienced devs even know this? I've programmed in several languages and I could never give a list of functions on demand.
Just to be clear: The summary says they didn't ask for function names. It says they asked the names of some of the most commonly used classes in the language.
Ultimately it depends on what the person claims to know. This seems like is a decent question if the C++ programmer claims to know the STL. One can't code any language for long without knowing it's standard containers. Plus, anyone with a CS degree should know that any modern language will need an array, a linked list, a queue, and an associative set. If you just guess "array, list, queue, set" you'd be half way toward the answer.
Here's the elephant in the toom: these questions are so subjective that people can't give a good answer without meeting you. Maybe you interview poorly. Maybe you don't speak clearly. Maybe you are disfigured and that intimidates people. Maybe you don't dress for the part. We can't tell from your question. I suspect those kinds of factors are the dominant factors here so you might be better off asking someone who interviewed you. That's where a recruiter comes in. They have experience sizing people up, and they know what positions are available and who is filling them.
Overall, I find Ph.D computer scientists tend to work in very specialized academic areas. Language development, artificial intelligence, and encryption come to mind. The same goes for mechanical and electrical engineers - they tend to have BS or MS degrees, and the Ph.Ds are specialized and get very high salaries but have a very small pool of positions. It would be a fascinating experiment to submit your resume without the Ph.D and see if you get a different response. If you do that, please post the results somewhere!
Submarines that stay out for years use nuclear power, so that is a proven option since there is an ocean in the sky.
Fixed that for you. :-p
Otherwise, I agree with you.
Regarding your point #1: Network neutrality has nothing to do with usage-based billing. This is the #1 biggest misconception. If an ISP wants to charge based on the number of packets on the network, they can do that.
I read it again, and I missed the funniest part the first time.
"Imposing utility-like regulation, as in treating broadband like the telephone or even railroad tracks, inevitably creates a bureaucratic morass that in fact slows growth and innovation."
MASSIVE. ANALOGY. FAILY.
The author draws an analogy between broadband and telephone companies. Umm.... broadband companies ARE telephone companies dude. That's like saying "Imagine treating a Collie like a dog, that would be ridiculous!" Applying "utility-like regulation" to regulated monopoly utilities makes perfect sense.
Comparing to the railroad is the best though, because the "net neutrality" laws actually originated with the railroad when they were called called "common carrier" laws. These laws have been in place for hundreds of years, yet it is painted to be some kind of new heavyweight regulation.
As with most mainstream articles on this topic, it just simply doesn't get what network neutrality really is. The problems start with the first sentence.
Net neutrality, the FCC's effort to govern broadband providers who supply Internet access, enters a new chapter as
Net neutrality is not the name of an FCC plan. It is the principle upon which the internet was created. They make this out to be some new regulatory effort, rather than something that has been around for decades.
There's the pro-business side, reflecting the interests of the companies that have paid for the broadband — cable operators and telcos. They naturally want to be able to charge bigger users higher prices
So now the author implies that net neutrality means that they can't charge bigger users higher prices. Bigger users do pay higher prices! They always have, that makes perfect sense. Then it says:
That's the logical growth area of their businesses —charging the distributors of data as well as the consumers (you and me).
Distributors and consumers do pay for their data.
The article is trying to be "nice" to everyone: identify each player in this topic and paint them out to have a reasonable interest. But to do that, the article must omit the core issue which is that cable and telecom monopolies want to double-charge distributors who have already paid. But if you mention that, it is kinda tough to make it look like each side has a fair and balanced interest in this. The article paints out 5 different interested parties, but there are really only two: the greedy monopolies who want to make more money without having to invest in infrastructure, versus everyone-else.
I am loathe to read the article linked within this one titled "RELATED: A Q&A about net neutrality" because I fear yet more inaccuracy.
I have a few thoughts on burnout:
1) Are you sure they ever burning to begin with?
Lots of people didn't start programming because they loved it. Lots of them started because it was a profitable field. They didn't go home and code til 3am in the first place.
2) Make sure you don't confuse burnout with shifting life priorities. I used to go home, grab some Taco Bell, then write code, compete, hack, etc. But now I go home, kiss my wife, eat dinner, and play with my kids. I'd love to code, but I had to cut a lot of that out. Don't think it was an easy realization, as I could write a novel on the topic. But I didn't burnout, I just shifted my priorities. Next step might be taking care of my parents, which will also cut into coding time. :-(
http://www.forbes.com/sites/cl...
"...He’ll now own 98% of the lush 141 square mile resort island..."
Or perhaps you mean the Senate seats?
I had the same experience. I can barely comprehend a patent that I am one of the inventors on!
Netflix offers 4k for streaming for Breaking bad, Ghostbusters, and Smurfs 2. Who bought their 4K TV to watch SMURFS 2?!?!?!?!
http://variety.com/2014/digita...
The article is completely overblowing this, borderling lying. Ebay was not hacked. The BBC should be ashamed and take the article down:
EBay has been compromised so that people who clicked on some of its links were automatically diverted to a site designed to steal their credentials.
But the image caption says the truth:
A listing for an iPhone 5S contained code that resulted in users being sent to a scam site
Those are *completely* different issues. A link is not a hack! The article goes on to make up more garbage:
He [the security researcher] said that the technique used was known as a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack. It involved the attackers placing malicious Javascript code within product listing pages.
Posting a link is not an XSS attack. And a link is not the same as Javascript.
The article says "a security researcher" but they never say the persons name or credentials. I bet there was no researcher. It sounds more like a friend of one of the reporters saw this scam link, Googled some search terms and came-up with "XSS" then suddenly became a security researcher.