This is a management/politics question. Gaining resources for your own department is what a good manager or VP does every day. IT people are fundamentally bad at this because they give answers that are technical and correct, yet are irrelevant in a financial or political context. While fighting the good fight, terms like "PCI", "HIPAA", and "BSA" will help you much more than "IPSEC" or "DNS".
Learn political skills, work on establishing trust relationships with the other players rather than just being a technical grunt, and remember that if you're not at the table, you're on the menu.
I doubt Microsoft is concerned with HIPAA, because this has no chance of being implemented in the short term...
These are just more junk patents from the big corporations; it's unlikely that anyone expects to make any money off this. But IF things change enough and HIPAA is reinterpreted, they're sitting on a gold mine.
There's a simple solution to this. Charge $5,000/yr for every patent that's being held. If your idea isn't worth that much, then you shouldn't be making the government do paperwork for it.
I am honest American myself not complete satisfied with policies of Great Republic. It is good you tell grievance to all very publicly. When you arrive my friend Mr. Lee will visit and he will adjust your computer for maximum benefit, and help educate you on proper Chinese customs.
Who cares? They're programmers. They are to the information era what those rows of Chinese women hunched over sewing machines are to the industrial one. You're not going to magically improve the quality of code, or substantially increase productivity, by rearranging their seats. An unhappy programmer working 9 to 5 and constantly afraid of losing his job is still going to produce code. Code that is almost certainly good enough for your purposes.
If these were artists or mathematicians, yes, environment would matter. But they are not. The romantic notion of the brilliant code hacker is an anachronism, and it has been for a while. You need to understand that you are not running a creativity studio. You are running an assembly line. If you employ someone that writes beautiful, profound code, you need to fire their ass immediately, and replace them with a workhorse who can read the specs and implement them with the same level of passion as a mechanic swapping out an alternator.
... the one with more knowledge of hydrodynamics is the one you want. You're conflating math as a measure of intelligence with math as a requirement to get the job done.
Math skills above the high school level simply shouldn't matter to a coder. A programmer assembles existing algorithms into a cohesive whole. He/she does not create fundamental new work. If that's what you are interested in, you should be in computer science, not spending your time writing C# or Java code.
Even worse, a programmer with a bit too much knowledge is dangerous. You might think you have a really cool (and much faster) alternative to the library hash functions, but from a professional mathematician's viewpoint, you're the equivalent of a chimpanzee who just figured out how the controls on a power drill work. And don't even get me started on statistics - of all the good programmers I've met, maybe 10% understand what confounders are and have some vague idea of how to deal with them.
I'm not knocking programmers here. But in general, they are the information era equivalent of plumbers. You don't want a hotshot plumber who has his own system of joining pipes to maximize flow volume. You want someone who does it the same way as the other million plumbers. In coding, you just need to understand what formula to plug in and how the components handed to you work. But if you're writing something that requires a high level of intelligence to produce, you're doing it wrong...
The military has reversed its policy on USB drives - because quite frankly it was throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The restriction was actually preventing work from getting done, a lot of times at my unit we would leave at 3:30pm instead of finishing a project because we had no way to move files from a laptop that was not on the network to one of our machines, and IT help was not available. You're talking about millions of hours of worker productivity lost because IT could not figure out a way to make one of the most useful technologies safe. The USB restriction is precisely the way NOT to conduct security - unless you're lazy and don't care much about your users actually work.
IT people make the common mistake of "the NSA does it that way" + "the NSA is very secure" = "this is a secure way of doing it". You're not the NSA. Look at your users first and tailor the solution around them.
There is no quick answer to this. You can't ask "how to do I prevent bot infections?" any more than you can ask "how can I keep my body healthy?" It's just too general a question. The solution is going to involve assessment of your particular situation, and the combination of the appropriate products and policies.
Re:Sounds rather disappointing, really
on
Hollow Spy Coins
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Use red paint to mark a clear X on all your spy coins. That's what I do and I haven't accidentally spent one yet.
I'm pretty sure this law will not apply to regular police officers, SWAT, military, guards at Federal buildings, or contractors doing physical security for the government. You know, the people who the government feels actually need to defend themselves.
The same criticisms were brought up in the U.S. during the Apollo project. Why send a man to the moon when people in Harlem didn't have basic health services? You might want to check out "Whitey on the Moon" by Gil Scott-Heron. Opening lines:
A rat done bit my sister Nell. (with Whitey on the moon) Her face and arms began to swell. (and Whitey's on the moon) I can't pay no doctor bill. (but Whitey's on the moon) Ten years from now I'll be payin' still. (while Whitey's on the moon)
In hindsight, I think you'd agree that the whole manned space thing was probably worth it...
The people in other countries seem to disagree with you about how they actually feel. From a poll done by University of Maryland earlier this year:
"An average of 61 percent express a lot or some confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs, across the nineteen nations polled (excluding the US). Thirty-one percent say they have not too much or no confidence at all. In 13 nations, a majority or plurality has confidence in Obama; in five nations they do not; one nation is divided."
Would you like to show me another national leader that has a confidence rating over 40% across the countries polled?
I did specifically say "While that is interpreted loosely". And you're completely missing the reasoning of why Al Gore won his Nobel. They were not interested in reducing global warming per se, but rather in avoiding the massive conflicts that would erupt between nations as a result of resources getting scarce. Straight from the mouths of the Nobel committee:
[Global warming] "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."
So they were rewarding him more for work on sustainability in general, even though his name is synonymous with global warming specifically.
And IMHO, Obama has accomplished something of substance. He managed to get elected. Proving that Americans are not as batshit crazy and ignorant as the rest of the world believes is the international relations equivalent of proving the Riemann Hypothesis.
More importantly, the Peace Prize is not given just for creating positive change. It is given specifically for improving relations between nations, reducing standing armies, and promoting peace congresses. While that is interpreted loosely - especially in recent years, giving it to a software developer would be a huge jump. In a sense, it would be like giving the Peace Prize to the manufacturer of the hammer that was first used on the Berlin Wall.
I did not understand the question in that case. I'm still missing why that's "new". I can do that right now with an arbitrary cell phone and my existing Google Voice number. Checked through the Google Voice page, I'm probably missing something.
This is incorrect. The charge is if you forward your Sprint number to another number, not the other way around. I use Sprint and Google Voice, and have never had an extra charge from Sprint. The only number I give out is the Google Voice number, my phone is set to not even ring if a call comes in to the Sprint number - the caller just gets a voicemail telling them to call the Voice number instead.
The main problem is not the legal language. The problem is that lawyers in general and politicians in particular are clueless about how an axiomatic system works. They do not understand the concept of a "basis", or why minimizing the number of axioms is important. Only someone ignorant of these things would come up with statements like "cats, dogs, squirrels, any type of llama, and any other mammal". A mathematician or logician would simply say "all mammals".
The problem is that they try to clarify law by increasing complexity, as in my above semantic example. Until they realize that you can only clarify law by increasing simplicity, they are doomed to failure, adding layer over layer of overlapping and contradictory rules.
You COULD create a very rigorous legal structure. But not if you're a lawyer. You need to be someone who at the very minimum has an intuitive understanding of how first order predicate calculus systems work. You start with tangible atoms that are not prone to misinterpretation, and throw out all the mumbo-jumbo slop language like "tort" and "vacate" whose meanings even lawyers can't agree on. Then you understand how change effects your system.
After you've done all that, a revision control system will make complete sense.
The problem is that lawyers are to justice what carpenters are to architecture. They can only be focused on the minutiae of how Blah v. Idaho affects their case, not on the system in general. As a result you get lawyers writing briefs on what the word "the" means. When's the last time you saw mathematicians arguing about what "integer" meant? The reason is not that they are smarter, it is because they understand where the Peano Axioms fit into the big picture.
I really get the sense that you're trying to reinvent the wheel here. If you talk to a decent physics teacher, they could probably point you to a lot of existing tools (and programming toolkits) that do what you want. I've set up several similar math and science environments for various classrooms. And I've certainly never had to write a line of code to do it.
Are you doing this for pedagogical value or as an excuse to write code that someone besides yourself will use? That's the real question you need to be asking.
The time you take to unwind when you get home is probably what would become your exercise time. Exercise IS unwinding for those of us who do it regularly.
I worked a ridiculous schedule years back. My rule of thumb is - if you have time to brush your teeth, you have time to exercise. I was working 60 hours a week, and spending another 40 hours training for ultramarathon.
My advice:
1. Get rid of your TV. Don't turn it off - get it out of your house. It will change your perception of time and slow things down. Can't explain it any better.
2. Keep a time journal. Every 15 minute chunk in your day needs to be accounted for. Why are you spending an hour each day getting ready to leave?
3. Start managing time like money. Where can you cut 15 minutes out of your day?
If this sounds drastic, it is. There's no magic pill solution to trying to work 12 hour days and living 1.5 hours from work.
Stallman's argument is more that cloud services are almost always non-open. He does not have a per se objection to cloud services - and if you were to reveal all your source code and protocols, I doubt it would be objectionable to him.
Of course it's impossible to free cloud services in the sense of modification and distribution, but if the source is open you have the chance to make your own.
Well, that's my point exactly. You're obviously not the type who cares what filesystem the phone is using, so the phone works for you. Is your phone even jail-broken?
You used "decent" five times in your post and "half-decent" once. If you like "decent" then the iPhone is for you. Most geeks I know prefer "un-fucking-believably awesome". The iPhone is not for them.
... your new Prius isn't designed for a nitrous injection kit.
If you like software and hardware transparency, DON'T USE AN IPHONE! It was never designed for geeks. What Apple is afraid of is that their normal demographic will start using jail-broken apps, find a new world of problems, and start blaming Apple.
This is true, but even a market share analysis would only be initiated if there was a gut feeling that it would be worth it. And how does the company know that Ubuntu X.Y.Z isn't just a flavor of the month? What happens if Kubuntu comes into vogue, or even Slackware, and the 25 support people they hired are no longer qualified for the majority of the incoming calls?
Techies only understand the relative stability and longevity of various distros because we live within the Linux paradigm. To an outsider, it's a chaotic system where distros are born, and through what looks like random chance, either thrive or shrivel.
By christening an official distro, outsiders are comforted that they are not backing the wrong horse in a very crowded race. And getting them on board with the official distro benefits all distros in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article: "We assume you're on Windows or you probably wouldn't need this guide."
It's hard to explain to the GUI crowd why this is such a big deal...
... just tell me how much it would cost for 4 of these with the SLI bridge thingie so I can make WoW run faster.
Not a good idea at all...
You would lose power steering. Controlling a car in an emergency situation without power steering would not be something I would want to try.
Then again, I have a "clutch" in my car, so these types of scenarios don't worry me too much.
This is a management/politics question. Gaining resources for your own department is what a good manager or VP does every day. IT people are fundamentally bad at this because they give answers that are technical and correct, yet are irrelevant in a financial or political context. While fighting the good fight, terms like "PCI", "HIPAA", and "BSA" will help you much more than "IPSEC" or "DNS".
Learn political skills, work on establishing trust relationships with the other players rather than just being a technical grunt, and remember that if you're not at the table, you're on the menu.
I doubt Microsoft is concerned with HIPAA, because this has no chance of being implemented in the short term...
These are just more junk patents from the big corporations; it's unlikely that anyone expects to make any money off this. But IF things change enough and HIPAA is reinterpreted, they're sitting on a gold mine.
There's a simple solution to this. Charge $5,000/yr for every patent that's being held. If your idea isn't worth that much, then you shouldn't be making the government do paperwork for it.
I am honest American myself not complete satisfied with policies of Great Republic. It is good you tell grievance to all very publicly. When you arrive my friend Mr. Lee will visit and he will adjust your computer for maximum benefit, and help educate you on proper Chinese customs.
... this is flame bait:
Who cares? They're programmers. They are to the information era what those rows of Chinese women hunched over sewing machines are to the industrial one. You're not going to magically improve the quality of code, or substantially increase productivity, by rearranging their seats. An unhappy programmer working 9 to 5 and constantly afraid of losing his job is still going to produce code. Code that is almost certainly good enough for your purposes.
If these were artists or mathematicians, yes, environment would matter. But they are not. The romantic notion of the brilliant code hacker is an anachronism, and it has been for a while. You need to understand that you are not running a creativity studio. You are running an assembly line. If you employ someone that writes beautiful, profound code, you need to fire their ass immediately, and replace them with a workhorse who can read the specs and implement them with the same level of passion as a mechanic swapping out an alternator.
... the one with more knowledge of hydrodynamics is the one you want. You're conflating math as a measure of intelligence with math as a requirement to get the job done.
Math skills above the high school level simply shouldn't matter to a coder. A programmer assembles existing algorithms into a cohesive whole. He/she does not create fundamental new work. If that's what you are interested in, you should be in computer science, not spending your time writing C# or Java code.
Even worse, a programmer with a bit too much knowledge is dangerous. You might think you have a really cool (and much faster) alternative to the library hash functions, but from a professional mathematician's viewpoint, you're the equivalent of a chimpanzee who just figured out how the controls on a power drill work. And don't even get me started on statistics - of all the good programmers I've met, maybe 10% understand what confounders are and have some vague idea of how to deal with them.
I'm not knocking programmers here. But in general, they are the information era equivalent of plumbers. You don't want a hotshot plumber who has his own system of joining pipes to maximize flow volume. You want someone who does it the same way as the other million plumbers. In coding, you just need to understand what formula to plug in and how the components handed to you work. But if you're writing something that requires a high level of intelligence to produce, you're doing it wrong...
The military has reversed its policy on USB drives - because quite frankly it was throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The restriction was actually preventing work from getting done, a lot of times at my unit we would leave at 3:30pm instead of finishing a project because we had no way to move files from a laptop that was not on the network to one of our machines, and IT help was not available. You're talking about millions of hours of worker productivity lost because IT could not figure out a way to make one of the most useful technologies safe. The USB restriction is precisely the way NOT to conduct security - unless you're lazy and don't care much about your users actually work.
IT people make the common mistake of "the NSA does it that way" + "the NSA is very secure" = "this is a secure way of doing it". You're not the NSA. Look at your users first and tailor the solution around them.
There is no quick answer to this. You can't ask "how to do I prevent bot infections?" any more than you can ask "how can I keep my body healthy?" It's just too general a question. The solution is going to involve assessment of your particular situation, and the combination of the appropriate products and policies.
Use red paint to mark a clear X on all your spy coins. That's what I do and I haven't accidentally spent one yet.
I'm pretty sure this law will not apply to regular police officers, SWAT, military, guards at Federal buildings, or contractors doing physical security for the government. You know, the people who the government feels actually need to defend themselves.
It's sad when someone is this unaware of history.
The same criticisms were brought up in the U.S. during the Apollo project. Why send a man to the moon when people in Harlem didn't have basic health services? You might want to check out "Whitey on the Moon" by Gil Scott-Heron. Opening lines:
A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face and arms began to swell.
(and Whitey's on the moon)
I can't pay no doctor bill.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
Ten years from now I'll be payin' still.
(while Whitey's on the moon)
In hindsight, I think you'd agree that the whole manned space thing was probably worth it...
The people in other countries seem to disagree with you about how they actually feel. From a poll done by University of Maryland earlier this year:
"An average of 61 percent express a lot or some confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs, across the nineteen nations polled (excluding the US). Thirty-one percent say they have not too much or no confidence at all. In 13 nations, a majority or plurality has confidence in Obama; in five nations they do not; one nation is divided."
Would you like to show me another national leader that has a confidence rating over 40% across the countries polled?
Oh wait, there isn't one...
I did specifically say "While that is interpreted loosely". And you're completely missing the reasoning of why Al Gore won his Nobel. They were not interested in reducing global warming per se, but rather in avoiding the massive conflicts that would erupt between nations as a result of resources getting scarce. Straight from the mouths of the Nobel committee:
[Global warming] "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."
So they were rewarding him more for work on sustainability in general, even though his name is synonymous with global warming specifically.
And IMHO, Obama has accomplished something of substance. He managed to get elected. Proving that Americans are not as batshit crazy and ignorant as the rest of the world believes is the international relations equivalent of proving the Riemann Hypothesis.
More importantly, the Peace Prize is not given just for creating positive change. It is given specifically for improving relations between nations, reducing standing armies, and promoting peace congresses. While that is interpreted loosely - especially in recent years, giving it to a software developer would be a huge jump. In a sense, it would be like giving the Peace Prize to the manufacturer of the hammer that was first used on the Berlin Wall.
I did not understand the question in that case. I'm still missing why that's "new". I can do that right now with an arbitrary cell phone and my existing Google Voice number. Checked through the Google Voice page, I'm probably missing something.
This is incorrect. The charge is if you forward your Sprint number to another number, not the other way around. I use Sprint and Google Voice, and have never had an extra charge from Sprint. The only number I give out is the Google Voice number, my phone is set to not even ring if a call comes in to the Sprint number - the caller just gets a voicemail telling them to call the Voice number instead.
The main problem is not the legal language. The problem is that lawyers in general and politicians in particular are clueless about how an axiomatic system works. They do not understand the concept of a "basis", or why minimizing the number of axioms is important. Only someone ignorant of these things would come up with statements like "cats, dogs, squirrels, any type of llama, and any other mammal". A mathematician or logician would simply say "all mammals".
The problem is that they try to clarify law by increasing complexity, as in my above semantic example. Until they realize that you can only clarify law by increasing simplicity, they are doomed to failure, adding layer over layer of overlapping and contradictory rules.
You COULD create a very rigorous legal structure. But not if you're a lawyer. You need to be someone who at the very minimum has an intuitive understanding of how first order predicate calculus systems work. You start with tangible atoms that are not prone to misinterpretation, and throw out all the mumbo-jumbo slop language like "tort" and "vacate" whose meanings even lawyers can't agree on. Then you understand how change effects your system.
After you've done all that, a revision control system will make complete sense.
The problem is that lawyers are to justice what carpenters are to architecture. They can only be focused on the minutiae of how Blah v. Idaho affects their case, not on the system in general. As a result you get lawyers writing briefs on what the word "the" means. When's the last time you saw mathematicians arguing about what "integer" meant? The reason is not that they are smarter, it is because they understand where the Peano Axioms fit into the big picture.
I really get the sense that you're trying to reinvent the wheel here. If you talk to a decent physics teacher, they could probably point you to a lot of existing tools (and programming toolkits) that do what you want. I've set up several similar math and science environments for various classrooms. And I've certainly never had to write a line of code to do it.
Are you doing this for pedagogical value or as an excuse to write code that someone besides yourself will use? That's the real question you need to be asking.
I've had the opposite experience, personally...
You bought something from Apple and it didn't burst into flame and/or explode?
The time you take to unwind when you get home is probably what would become your exercise time. Exercise IS unwinding for those of us who do it regularly.
I worked a ridiculous schedule years back. My rule of thumb is - if you have time to brush your teeth, you have time to exercise. I was working 60 hours a week, and spending another 40 hours training for ultramarathon.
My advice:
1. Get rid of your TV. Don't turn it off - get it out of your house. It will change your perception of time and slow things down. Can't explain it any better.
2. Keep a time journal. Every 15 minute chunk in your day needs to be accounted for. Why are you spending an hour each day getting ready to leave?
3. Start managing time like money. Where can you cut 15 minutes out of your day?
If this sounds drastic, it is. There's no magic pill solution to trying to work 12 hour days and living 1.5 hours from work.
Stallman's argument is more that cloud services are almost always non-open. He does not have a per se objection to cloud services - and if you were to reveal all your source code and protocols, I doubt it would be objectionable to him.
Of course it's impossible to free cloud services in the sense of modification and distribution, but if the source is open you have the chance to make your own.
Well, that's my point exactly. You're obviously not the type who cares what filesystem the phone is using, so the phone works for you. Is your phone even jail-broken?
You used "decent" five times in your post and "half-decent" once. If you like "decent" then the iPhone is for you. Most geeks I know prefer "un-fucking-believably awesome". The iPhone is not for them.
... your new Prius isn't designed for a nitrous injection kit.
If you like software and hardware transparency, DON'T USE AN IPHONE! It was never designed for geeks. What Apple is afraid of is that their normal demographic will start using jail-broken apps, find a new world of problems, and start blaming Apple.
This is true, but even a market share analysis would only be initiated if there was a gut feeling that it would be worth it. And how does the company know that Ubuntu X.Y.Z isn't just a flavor of the month? What happens if Kubuntu comes into vogue, or even Slackware, and the 25 support people they hired are no longer qualified for the majority of the incoming calls?
Techies only understand the relative stability and longevity of various distros because we live within the Linux paradigm. To an outsider, it's a chaotic system where distros are born, and through what looks like random chance, either thrive or shrivel.
By christening an official distro, outsiders are comforted that they are not backing the wrong horse in a very crowded race. And getting them on board with the official distro benefits all distros in the long run.