They can talk about 'trusted partners' and 'optimising websites' all they want, but the main point here is that they are sending your phone number over HTTP. Anyone on a hop along the way or of course the end website and their 'trusted partners' can now link an IP address to a phone number. Via other cookies they can tie that IP address to your previous ones and suddenly they have a Phone Number to go with the previously anonymous browsing history and customer profile.
Just imagine if that irritating banner ad could actually call you!
It really is a phenomenal breach of privacy and security.
I agree with this, but I would even take it further. All you really need for an interview is to have a degree, once you are in the interview your skill and personality will get you the job.
I have crappy grades (a couple of fails in there) and in my first interview I was asked about them and I told the engineers straight up that I was distracted that year and didn't put in the effort that I should have. Then I explained that I had worked hard on the last year and my results proved that. Grades were the topic of the interview for less than a minute, then it was all about what I knew.
Also, to the people saying that you may not know the material well enough all I can say is that as a graduate you know nothing anyway. 80/90% of what I know and use now as an engineer (working for some of the biggest companies in the world) was learnt on the job. If they focus too much on grades they are doing themselves a disservice. The best programmer I know has a fucking Accounting degree!
If we could hook up some Liposuction equipment to it, then use the extracted fat of the occupant as a fuel for the machine we'd really be getting somewhere. Their fat arses would actually be hauling them around. Ha!
Griffiths appears to have been singled out by US authorities. British-based members of Drink or Die were reportedly tried in Britain. I think I remember another recent situation where British citizens were dealt with by their own government while Australians were sold out by their Government and left in the hands of the Americans.
He may well be a prolific software pirate but this seems fishy to me, and the precedent it sets worries me more. "Any Australian who has pirated software worth more than $US1000 could be subject to the same extradition process as Griffiths was." Thats a whole lotta Aussies right there.
What you said is true, but not in anyway applicable here. You can write bug free software, it's just several orders of magnitude more expensive and time consuming to write it. It's just common sense that you expect (and deal with, i.e. easy bug reporting, crash recovery) bugs in everything but the small bits of code that are mission critical. We're not looking for seven more astronauts every time Word crashes.
It just makes it safer, in that it is easier to see what's going on.
for(int i=0; i< 100; i++) { // Do stuff, and for the love of god dont mess with i. As long as you don't, this loop will ALWAYS exit. // And importantly, the number of itterations is immediately clear. }
while (thisValue < 100) { // Need to explicitly increment thisValue in here. If you stuff that up its infinite. }
The compiler may turn it into the same code but that is irrelevant. What is important is that one is safer and more testable than the other. When it's used for a purpose like controlling an aircraft at almost mach 2 you dont want any surprises. It also assumes that you don't use a variable for the for loop limit, which is why they had extensive coding standards that said what you could and couldn't do.
Interesting stuff this critical code. When I started out as a grad at a large Aerospace company we were given shiploads of Flight Control Computer code to unit test for a new(ish) fighter aircraft. Most of the stuff we worked with was what you have described as 'Level A' code but I didn't really understand what it all meant at the time.
Anyway, the level of testing required was very, very high. I say that even though we were grads working on it, because it was not our choice what to test and what to leave, and they were done multiple times with different people, the the branches, lines run etc compared. It was the lowest level of the software tests and everything was in modules about 30 lines long that needed 100% coverage, every logical combination tested out etc. Plus the languages they used (ADA95, fortran(77?) and assembly) were cut down to remove anything too untestable. I think 'while' loops were out because, as opposed to 'for's, there is a chance of a infinite loop. That sort of stuff. Would be a nightmare to code in.
In not sure how other FCC's usually are, but interestingly this one had 4 CPU's with a fifth 'controlling' one or something and basically each calculation would be performed on all 4 then the results correlated and the majority answer taken. I guess to protect it from a freakish glitch or maybe some deliberate interferance? Not sure, but surely accurate.
Fly-By-Wire - It's not just the software that crashes.
I'd suggest that you start from the basis that your IT staff are the biggest risk to your organization's security, and if anyone of them disputes this, remember that arguing with colleagues was one of the clear signs of an impending attack.
A little heavy handed perhaps? I agree that high level access should be treated with the same level of respect as master keys or safe passwords, and any decent company should have processes in place to protect themselves. But this guy sounds like a power tripping fuckwit. Tell a subset of your workers they the greatest risk to the security of the company then monitor them to see which ones react badly?
As for the actual article, take out the IT parts and it's just common sense. Maybe keep an eye on the shabby looking guy in the corner mutterring about how he's going to "show them all one day".
I understand that Singapore are trying to push the boundaries here but 2008? Really? To have a robot that can "navigate both indoors and outdoors in an urban landscape", climb stairs and use elevators all without the use of GPS is something I wouldn't think we'd be able to do for 5/10 years.
But I guess everyone is in the same boat so the winner might be the one that gets 1/4 way through the course and shuts the elevator door on it's head. In the first DARPA Challenge the 'winner' only got 7 miles through the 142 mile course.
Um, I don't know about the others but I would not lump Australia in with those countries. Australia has one nuclear reactor which is primarily used for research and to produce radioactive materials for medical purposes.
It does not AFAIK produce any power for general consumption. Even if it does produce some it is misleading to say Australia has been "using nuclear power". We're all coal and gas over here. ?Luckily? we have shiploads of the dirty stuff.
Wow, you really wanted to get that point across didn't you? You posted the same baseless opinion in three different posts in this thread.
So Mr Sniper runs around a presumably large area setting up remotely operated rifles, somehow rigged up to fire at the same time as the real one he's using? That is idiotic, please think before you post.
bad_words = ['asshat', 'asshead', 'asshole', 'cunt', 'fuck', 'gook', 'nigger', 'shit'] # all in lower case.......
raise ValidationError, ngettext("Watch your mouth! The word %s is not allowed here.",
"Watch your mouth! The words %s are not allowed here.", plural) % \
In fact Steve himself has joked about his own death. On the australian ABC's Enough Rope I remember him saying something like...
"I've been doing this for 20 years without incident, yet the day something happens there's going to be a whole bunch of people saying "There, I told you he'd get bitten!""
Still, when I fuck up at work the worst thing I catch is unpaid overtime.
I'm not sure if you are on the same models as we have here in Australia but I had until recently a Ford Escort 1978. Classic piece of machinery. I would leave the thing completly unsecured because I was sure that no one else but myself could start the thing, let alone drive it.
I would twist bits, lean on bits and hit bits with a hammer to get that thing going and keep it running. In four years the most money I spent on it was for new tires. Don't you just love a car that you can actually service yourself? Now I, like you, am a paid member of the programming community and I have a car than I dare not open the hood for fear of voiding the warranty.
I miss that piece of shit. Best car I will ever own. Sold it and ran like hell!
I think most people realise that CD's are very overpriced, but I assumed that was because of the record company profits combined with the cost of getting a physical CD to the store.
The point is that the artists profits are 85% down. After hearing all those stories about artists making profits in the cents from a $15 CD, God knows how they will be able to buy beer now.
The other option is of course to sell it yourself directly.
This brings up a good point for code bases of any reasonable size. The majority of the time people will not be reading every line of your code and trying to work out what each line does, but stepping through huge chains of functions trying to work out what is going wrong. (yes I spend a huge amount of time debugging)
So I find having a huge comment at the start of a function that describes exactly what it does and the inputs and outputs is invaluable. Then you can quickly determine if this is the problematic function or not. Obviously any code that is particularly complex or unobvious (eg using unusual form methods or third party library methods that do magic) should have large commehts. But dont over comment because it just pissed me off. I know the language and if I don't talk to HR because I shouldn't be in the building.
It's here that I agree with the style that Visual Studio suggest where they encourage you to comment the inputs, outputs, exceptions thrown etc. of each method. It's not always applicable but when it is do it.
Jeez, name me a book not prefixed with "The BabySitters Club" that does not contain violence, drugs, sex, profanity, greed, lust... etc. Thats what makes life interesting.
I thought it was a line of Hari Krishnas. They would dance along chanting and run at the first sign of trouble so you had to get some speed up and plow through the whole lot of 'em.
Classic. I really really really love that series.
Slashdot Mirror
They can talk about 'trusted partners' and 'optimising websites' all they want, but the main point here is that they are sending your phone number over HTTP. Anyone on a hop along the way or of course the end website and their 'trusted partners' can now link an IP address to a phone number. Via other cookies they can tie that IP address to your previous ones and suddenly they have a Phone Number to go with the previously anonymous browsing history and customer profile.
Just imagine if that irritating banner ad could actually call you! It really is a phenomenal breach of privacy and security.
Chrome will be 'Beta' for years, just like everything with Google. Gmail is still in beta for God's sake.
What about the time it takes to switch to Firefox because Chrome doesn't work properly with Facebook?
I agree with this, but I would even take it further. All you really need for an interview is to have a degree, once you are in the interview your skill and personality will get you the job.
I have crappy grades (a couple of fails in there) and in my first interview I was asked about them and I told the engineers straight up that I was distracted that year and didn't put in the effort that I should have. Then I explained that I had worked hard on the last year and my results proved that. Grades were the topic of the interview for less than a minute, then it was all about what I knew.
Also, to the people saying that you may not know the material well enough all I can say is that as a graduate you know nothing anyway. 80/90% of what I know and use now as an engineer (working for some of the biggest companies in the world) was learnt on the job. If they focus too much on grades they are doing themselves a disservice. The best programmer I know has a fucking Accounting degree!
If we could hook up some Liposuction equipment to it, then use the extracted fat of the occupant as a fuel for the machine we'd really be getting somewhere. Their fat arses would actually be hauling them around. Ha!
LipoBot - Patent Pending.
In related news, Slashdot's editors have no spellcheckers.
No actually, I was talking about the treatment of British gitmo detainees compared to Aussie ones. Maybe should have spelled that out more. Oh well.
He may well be a prolific software pirate but this seems fishy to me, and the precedent it sets worries me more. "Any Australian who has pirated software worth more than $US1000 could be subject to the same extradition process as Griffiths was." Thats a whole lotta Aussies right there.
What you said is true, but not in anyway applicable here. You can write bug free software, it's just several orders of magnitude more expensive and time consuming to write it. It's just common sense that you expect (and deal with, i.e. easy bug reporting, crash recovery) bugs in everything but the small bits of code that are mission critical. We're not looking for seven more astronauts every time Word crashes.
I know, bloody Google engineers! They've created a Google AIDS now?
They might want to start monitoring this 'one day off a week for your own projects' thing.
It just makes it safer, in that it is easier to see what's going on.
// Do stuff, and for the love of god dont mess with i. As long as you don't, this loop will ALWAYS exit.
// And importantly, the number of itterations is immediately clear.
// Need to explicitly increment thisValue in here. If you stuff that up its infinite.
for(int i=0; i< 100; i++)
{
}
while (thisValue < 100)
{
}
The compiler may turn it into the same code but that is irrelevant. What is important is that one is safer and more testable than the other. When it's used for a purpose like controlling an aircraft at almost mach 2 you dont want any surprises. It also assumes that you don't use a variable for the for loop limit, which is why they had extensive coding standards that said what you could and couldn't do.
Interesting stuff this critical code. When I started out as a grad at a large Aerospace company we were given shiploads of Flight Control Computer code to unit test for a new(ish) fighter aircraft. Most of the stuff we worked with was what you have described as 'Level A' code but I didn't really understand what it all meant at the time.
Anyway, the level of testing required was very, very high. I say that even though we were grads working on it, because it was not our choice what to test and what to leave, and they were done multiple times with different people, the the branches, lines run etc compared. It was the lowest level of the software tests and everything was in modules about 30 lines long that needed 100% coverage, every logical combination tested out etc. Plus the languages they used (ADA95, fortran(77?) and assembly) were cut down to remove anything too untestable. I think 'while' loops were out because, as opposed to 'for's, there is a chance of a infinite loop. That sort of stuff. Would be a nightmare to code in.
In not sure how other FCC's usually are, but interestingly this one had 4 CPU's with a fifth 'controlling' one or something and basically each calculation would be performed on all 4 then the results correlated and the majority answer taken. I guess to protect it from a freakish glitch or maybe some deliberate interferance? Not sure, but surely accurate.
Fly-By-Wire - It's not just the software that crashes.
As for the actual article, take out the IT parts and it's just common sense. Maybe keep an eye on the shabby looking guy in the corner mutterring about how he's going to "show them all one day".
I understand that Singapore are trying to push the boundaries here but 2008? Really? To have a robot that can "navigate both indoors and outdoors in an urban landscape", climb stairs and use elevators all without the use of GPS is something I wouldn't think we'd be able to do for 5/10 years.
But I guess everyone is in the same boat so the winner might be the one that gets 1/4 way through the course and shuts the elevator door on it's head. In the first DARPA Challenge the 'winner' only got 7 miles through the 142 mile course.
Um, I don't know about the others but I would not lump Australia in with those countries. Australia has one nuclear reactor which is primarily used for research and to produce radioactive materials for medical purposes.
It does not AFAIK produce any power for general consumption. Even if it does produce some it is misleading to say Australia has been "using nuclear power". We're all coal and gas over here. ?Luckily? we have shiploads of the dirty stuff.
Wow, you really wanted to get that point across didn't you? You posted the same baseless opinion in three different posts in this thread.
So Mr Sniper runs around a presumably large area setting up remotely operated rifles, somehow rigged up to fire at the same time as the real one he's using? That is idiotic, please think before you post.
bad_words = ['asshat', 'asshead', 'asshole', 'cunt', 'fuck', 'gook', 'nigger', 'shit'] # all in lower case .......
raise ValidationError, ngettext("Watch your mouth! The word %s is not allowed here.",
"Watch your mouth! The words %s are not allowed here.", plural) % \
Ha! Assheads
In fact Steve himself has joked about his own death. On the australian ABC's Enough Rope I remember him saying something like...
"I've been doing this for 20 years without incident, yet the day something happens there's going to be a whole bunch of people saying "There, I told you he'd get bitten!""
Still, when I fuck up at work the worst thing I catch is unpaid overtime.
Ha! Fantastic.
I'm not sure if you are on the same models as we have here in Australia but I had until recently a Ford Escort 1978. Classic piece of machinery. I would leave the thing completly unsecured because I was sure that no one else but myself could start the thing, let alone drive it.
I would twist bits, lean on bits and hit bits with a hammer to get that thing going and keep it running. In four years the most money I spent on it was for new tires. Don't you just love a car that you can actually service yourself? Now I, like you, am a paid member of the programming community and I have a car than I dare not open the hood for fear of voiding the warranty.
I miss that piece of shit. Best car I will ever own. Sold it and ran like hell!
Put it another way... It only cost $80K and it has similar acceleration to the Ferrari Enzo!
Plus it's only a prototype. How can you be negative about that? Are the batteries made from harp seal eyes or something?
I think most people realise that CD's are very overpriced, but I assumed that was because of the record company profits combined with the cost of getting a physical CD to the store. The point is that the artists profits are 85% down. After hearing all those stories about artists making profits in the cents from a $15 CD, God knows how they will be able to buy beer now. The other option is of course to sell it yourself directly.
This brings up a good point for code bases of any reasonable size. The majority of the time people will not be reading every line of your code and trying to work out what each line does, but stepping through huge chains of functions trying to work out what is going wrong. (yes I spend a huge amount of time debugging)
So I find having a huge comment at the start of a function that describes exactly what it does and the inputs and outputs is invaluable. Then you can quickly determine if this is the problematic function or not. Obviously any code that is particularly complex or unobvious (eg using unusual form methods or third party library methods that do magic) should have large commehts. But dont over comment because it just pissed me off. I know the language and if I don't talk to HR because I shouldn't be in the building.
It's here that I agree with the style that Visual Studio suggest where they encourage you to comment the inputs, outputs, exceptions thrown etc. of each method. It's not always applicable but when it is do it.
Jeez, name me a book not prefixed with "The BabySitters Club" that does not contain violence, drugs, sex, profanity, greed, lust... etc. Thats what makes life interesting.
I thought it was a line of Hari Krishnas. They would dance along chanting and run at the first sign of trouble so you had to get some speed up and plow through the whole lot of 'em. Classic. I really really really love that series.