Microsoft's split KBs (e.g. 4000) have 6 on the left. Same for my fancy Goldtouch. Versions of these have been around since the 90's, all with the 6 on the left.
Yeah, look at YouTube's auto-play feature. Used to be that advertisers could count on the the customer actually watching the video (and associated ad) they just clicked for, but with auto play they can get paid for ads even if nobody's watching! Google wins, but only until advertisers realize that their ads "mysteriously" don't work like they used to.
I could live with ads if they were just annoying, but ad blocking is just commonsense self-defense. Browsing just one site exposes you ads from potentially hundreds of sources, each of which potentially carries as much or more risk of attack as the site you're browsing! It just doesn't make sense to voluntarily expose yourself to that magnitude of increased risk.
Seems like a week doesn't go by without seeing a zero-day advisory along the lines of "observed in the wild being served from XYZ ad network." A lot of attackers no longer bother compromising servers, etc when they can just spend a few $ to almost instantly serve up the targets.
First order of business for advertising networks: fix the security, bandwidth and response times issues. Until then, I won't feel any guilt whatsoever about protecting myself from you.
As a tech marketing lady I met observed, the men make the stuff and the women sell it in our industry. She added "maybe that's because we're smarter about getting paid!"
Might help if Microsoft, among others, stopped supporting increased tech H1-B quotas. They tend to depress wages and working conditions, making the "pipeline" we're trying to promote less attractive than, say, marketing. Or doctoring or lawyering. There are only so many really smart people to go around, so one profession's gain is another profession's loss. Design engineers seem to have plateaued around very roughly $100K. That's an OK living, but not exactly what I'd call professional earnings.
Steve Jobs, if not a programmer, was steeped in tech dreams and culture from a young age. John Sculley, a Pepsi marketer, took over Apple in the 80's. He just didn't get it, basically drove Apple to near-bankruptcy.
Bill Gates wasn't a super-programmer, but he was clearly one of us. MS started dying the day that Ballmer took over, and seems to be getting his game back now that a geek is running the show again.
Unicorn makers dream in geek. The "idea guys" don't have the technical vision that's needed to actually lead for the long term.
We're all but beta testers in the eye of $software_company
Correction: We're all but beta testers in the eye of $advertising_company. Ever notice that their advertising platforms rarely suffer from this kind of flakiness?
Google's stock price would barely quiver if Chrome, Android, GMail, etc all evaporated overnight. Might even go UP like when companies announce staff cuts. Those little freebie side-projects are largely there to convince the public and Google's own employees that they're a do-good technology company. Delivering tested, bullet-proof software apparently isn't part of the agenda in that "cool" part of their shop.
So much for ULA's space "technology." Sure, there's the whole bit about the unique demands of space, but commercial additive manufacturing's been around for ages.
That's what the gov't has effectively decreed with the H-1B program.
Until engineers are offered compensation like doctors or lawyers, who's to say the market has failed to produce enough skilled workers? This country's supposed to be big on market economics, but H-1B is a gross government-sponsored distortion of the market. These days, a lot of smart kids are smart enough to prefer fields like law, medicine, finance, etc where they they have a shot at some solid money and security.
Questions: why don't we have enough strong local candidates? Is market theory wrong? Are Americans stupid? Why aren't we attracting top candidates to the field? Is it due to lack of STEM education & funding, not attracting girls,... all the usual platitudes? Answer: it's the money, stupid. H-1B significantly disrupts the local labor market, depressing wages and job security.
H-1B's been expanding since its inception in 1990, supposedly because the market continues to fail to provide enough skilled workers. Yet, all it's succeeded in doing is capping tech wages and trashing job security.
Negotiation is a basic skill. Everybody negotiates things great and small every day, all the time. Yes, even techies: negotiation is the core of those prized "collaboration skills."
Ergo, were Pao's rather bald assertion to be true, women would be unskillful collaborators and consequently less valuable. Not my experience.
You have data backups & resiliency in place as a matter of policy, right?
What's policy (probably HR's responsibility) for this scenario? That's what you do: follow policy, nothing more, nothing less. If there's no policy or procedure, then you do exactly that: nothing.
Don't improvise. This is an HR issue. You have NO idea what legal or other policy minefields you're stepping into. There are only downsides for you.
Of course that's the first directive of movie-making, and also of raising kids. They don't listen to what you say, but they sure do watch what you do and that's how you end up rearing them. Any parent who thinks their lecturing matters just isn't paying attention.
So, if you still want to make videos, make them about you and the rest of the family. Show how you are with various people (including your daughter, her mother, your parents, etc), how you approach things & situations, what you're proud of/like/dislike about yourself, etc. The good and the bad or it'll come off fake. Maybe tell some stories that show some of the how & why you're like that. I'm afraid that's about the limit of the medium. Get too preachy and you lose 'em every time. Oh, and keep the segments short... you know where attention spans are heading.
You missed the point. 20 years from now, everybody in your bracket will have a 24/7 robot to do the cleaning, cook and take care of the yard. All without wondering how much to tip them, nor the nagging doubt that the servants are giggling over your sex-toy collection! (Though you can bet the robots will report what they see back to Amazon for targeting advertising, and for figuring out how to tailor your individualized pricing to what they can get away with.)
There will, however, be a thriving market for robot repair techs. And targeting/pricing data analysts.
In the 60's and much of the 70's, most people wrote in high-level languages as if they were coding assembler. Goto's all over the place. Not that they had a choice -- for example, control flow in Fortran IV, the most-used high-level language of the time, featured IF, DO (a crude version of the modern FOR -- not do), GOTO, CALL, RETURN. No else, while, do/while, no modern-style for, case, etc. AND, get this: NO BLOCKS; the IF statement controlled only a *single* statement, so that meant you often *had* to say IF (...) GOTO xxx. Just like assembler. It was awful! There were other less-popular but more-evolved languages, but unstructured practices were very often carried over to those as well. GOTOs were just how most programmers thought.
That's the backdrop for Djikstra's condemnation of GOTO. Certainly, the then-current mass use of GOTOs was a very bad thing since it completely obscured program logic. If you read the original article, he's not so much condemning GOTO as he's arguing for structured programming.
Consider GOTO Considered Harmful as a successful wake-up call. By keeping his message black/white, i.e. GOTO is bad, he gave his message punch and made it much talked-about. People started to think in a more structured manner (though at first we thought the "structured crowd" were a bunch of weenies), and started to demand better control-flow features. Pretty soon, structured control-flow was de rigeur in any new or revised language. Fortran even got IF/END IF in Fortran 77!
People nowadays have hardened the anti-GOTO bias into gospel. At the time, the response was more nuanced, more in line with the spirit of what Djikstra was saying. For example, in 1974 even Niklaus Wirth's new PASCAL (a principled, hard-line structured language if there ever was one) included the goto statement with the warning in the User Manual and Report that "the goto statement should be reserved for unusual or uncommon situations where the natural structure of an algorithm has to be broken." If anybody was going to out-and-out outlaw goto, Wirth would have been the guy.
You're giving them ideas for shaky "precedents"! Ripping up street signs up during wartime is pretty standard https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... and hadn't you heard we're at war?
Is this "LA" a reference to Los Angeles? In California? Since 2010, Los Angeles freeways *have* been widened to the tune of many $B and years of traffic delays. Opposition and complaints were simply ignored. Some surface streets have been widened in a major way (e.g. Santa Monica Blvd.) and most other major surface arteries are being repaved and "optimized." Ditto about opposition and complaints. Traffic control & signalling has been vastly expanded -- just look at the level of detail available on Google Traffic now vs. 2 years ago. And just try (like my very politically connected and organized neighborhood did) to cut down on local traffic -- all you'll get is city administration's sympathy, but then they add that the roads must roll and we should actually expect our local traffic to increase significantly.
Ask a Canadian and an American if tomorrow will be sunny. The American "believes" it will be. The Canadian doesn't know, because s/he's "being realistic." They'd go on to say that the American is just "being a typical American" thinking happy thoughts. What can I say? Canadians just don't believe in the power of positive thinking. Or much else for that matter.
Cynics? Oh yeah! Canadians and Americans fundamentally look at life differently, and that's been going on since way before healthcare. On New Year's eve, Americans look forward to the sure-to-be-wonderful new year while Canadians celebrate that they made it through the old one! Cynicism bordering on pessimism is in Canada's DNA, same as positive thinking is in the US' DNA. Yes, I'm painting with an overly broad brush here, but to make a point.
Science may require some belief, too, but it sure feels less like of a stretch than religion.
Oh, and most Canadians are well aware that as recently as the early 60's they were historically oppressed and kept in "the great darkness" by an unholy cabal of church and semi-totalitarian state. That's enough to make a hard-ass "realist" of anyone.
Hard to not think of Bill Clinton's infamous words while you actually read the memo. A lawyer's opinion is just work for hire. If all you needed to legally kill somebody was a lawyer's opinion letter, we'd all have killed each other long ago for perfectly "justifiable" reasons. By definition, it's the the job of any lawyer to be able to make a case that black is white, or anything else you like. The next day, they can make the case that black is red. Just depends on who the client is that day.
But doesn't recreating a waveform by summing several other waveforms require that those components be of significantly higher frequency? Basic Taylor series stuff? E.g. recreating a 1 GHz carrier at the receiver from 10 random-distance sources would require each of those sources to be in the order of 10 - 100 GHz, especially if those transmitted waveforms are further constrained to be simultaneously delivering signals to other receivers.
FIPS certification is only available for systems that implement modest key lengths. Many of the approved algorithms are designed to support much greater key length, but longer keys are not allowed by the specs. FIPS won't certify 'em. It's a pretty safe guess that the allowed key lengths are such that the NSA can break them if needed using custom hardware or whatever else quasi-unlimited money can buy. Remember 20+ years ago when the gov't regulated all crypto as a munition? They still allowed low-bit encryption because they knew they could break it. They're still playing that game, except now it's done with standards and certifications instead of laws.
You really don't want to start making up your own ad hoc crypto. Approved algorithms have been extensively vetted by honest experts; any possible weaknesses would be very, very subtle. Using approved algorithms with non-standard "ridiculous" key lengths is probably the safest workaround to suspected weaknesses until... on second thought, key lengths much greater than the gov't "recommends" will always be a good idea! Keep in mind that any weaknesses in crypto algorithms would merely make them easier to break, but breaking still requires huge resources and takes time. Longer keys kick up that effort exponentially to the point that very probably nobody can break them in a useful time frame, provided that implementations are reliable and trustworthy.
To think that for all these years I had assumed these types of conferences are just well-publicized cocktail parties. Maybe that's the most revealing part of this new round of disclosures. But then again, those upper-crust Brits have been known to take their parties (and their spying) pretty seriously...
Won't help your current situation, but in the future consider routinely dropping some standard personal easter eggs into your code. You need to invent your own obscure bag of tricks, but some silly examples would be that stringing together the 3rd letter of each of the first 10 variable names spells your name, or trivially encrypted words in numeric constants or variable names. It's been done in literature for years, for example http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-05/pl_print
Yeah, I know you can supposedly hear "Paul is dead" if you play a certain Beatles track backwards. This isn't the kind of "proof" that would send someone to prison, but being able to demonstrate a few such little flourishes should be plenty enough to buy you the benefit of the doubt and likely constitute probable cause for an investigation.
Most importantly, SHUT UP and don't tell ANYBODY what your secrets are unless you're up against the wall. Even then, don't spill all of 'em. This is security by obscurity -- not an opportunity to show your friends how clever your little treasures are. People talk.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's split KBs (e.g. 4000) have 6 on the left. Same for my fancy Goldtouch. Versions of these have been around since the 90's, all with the 6 on the left.
Yeah, look at YouTube's auto-play feature. Used to be that advertisers could count on the the customer actually watching the video (and associated ad) they just clicked for, but with auto play they can get paid for ads even if nobody's watching! Google wins, but only until advertisers realize that their ads "mysteriously" don't work like they used to.
I could live with ads if they were just annoying, but ad blocking is just commonsense self-defense. Browsing just one site exposes you ads from potentially hundreds of sources, each of which potentially carries as much or more risk of attack as the site you're browsing! It just doesn't make sense to voluntarily expose yourself to that magnitude of increased risk.
Seems like a week doesn't go by without seeing a zero-day advisory along the lines of "observed in the wild being served from XYZ ad network." A lot of attackers no longer bother compromising servers, etc when they can just spend a few $ to almost instantly serve up the targets.
First order of business for advertising networks: fix the security, bandwidth and response times issues. Until then, I won't feel any guilt whatsoever about protecting myself from you.
As a tech marketing lady I met observed, the men make the stuff and the women sell it in our industry. She added "maybe that's because we're smarter about getting paid!"
Might help if Microsoft, among others, stopped supporting increased tech H1-B quotas. They tend to depress wages and working conditions, making the "pipeline" we're trying to promote less attractive than, say, marketing. Or doctoring or lawyering. There are only so many really smart people to go around, so one profession's gain is another profession's loss. Design engineers seem to have plateaued around very roughly $100K. That's an OK living, but not exactly what I'd call professional earnings.
What happens when you take away the geek?
Steve Jobs, if not a programmer, was steeped in tech dreams and culture from a young age. John Sculley, a Pepsi marketer, took over Apple in the 80's. He just didn't get it, basically drove Apple to near-bankruptcy.
Bill Gates wasn't a super-programmer, but he was clearly one of us. MS started dying the day that Ballmer took over, and seems to be getting his game back now that a geek is running the show again.
Unicorn makers dream in geek. The "idea guys" don't have the technical vision that's needed to actually lead for the long term.
We're all but beta testers in the eye of $software_company
Correction: We're all but beta testers in the eye of $advertising_company. Ever notice that their advertising platforms rarely suffer from this kind of flakiness?
Google's stock price would barely quiver if Chrome, Android, GMail, etc all evaporated overnight. Might even go UP like when companies announce staff cuts. Those little freebie side-projects are largely there to convince the public and Google's own employees that they're a do-good technology company. Delivering tested, bullet-proof software apparently isn't part of the agenda in that "cool" part of their shop.
'coz buying a vineyard is sooo passe.
So much for ULA's space "technology." Sure, there's the whole bit about the unique demands of space, but commercial additive manufacturing's been around for ages.
That's beyond your pay grade, guy.
That's what the gov't has effectively decreed with the H-1B program.
Until engineers are offered compensation like doctors or lawyers, who's to say the market has failed to produce enough skilled workers? This country's supposed to be big on market economics, but H-1B is a gross government-sponsored distortion of the market. These days, a lot of smart kids are smart enough to prefer fields like law, medicine, finance, etc where they they have a shot at some solid money and security.
Questions: why don't we have enough strong local candidates? Is market theory wrong? Are Americans stupid? Why aren't we attracting top candidates to the field? Is it due to lack of STEM education & funding, not attracting girls,... all the usual platitudes?
Answer: it's the money, stupid. H-1B significantly disrupts the local labor market, depressing wages and job security.
H-1B's been expanding since its inception in 1990, supposedly because the market continues to fail to provide enough skilled workers. Yet, all it's succeeded in doing is capping tech wages and trashing job security.
Negotiation is a basic skill. Everybody negotiates things great and small every day, all the time. Yes, even techies: negotiation is the core of those prized "collaboration skills."
Ergo, were Pao's rather bald assertion to be true, women would be unskillful collaborators and consequently less valuable. Not my experience.
What she's saying is incredibly condescending!
You have data backups & resiliency in place as a matter of policy, right?
What's policy (probably HR's responsibility) for this scenario? That's what you do: follow policy, nothing more, nothing less. If there's no policy or procedure, then you do exactly that: nothing.
Don't improvise. This is an HR issue. You have NO idea what legal or other policy minefields you're stepping into. There are only downsides for you.
Of course that's the first directive of movie-making, and also of raising kids. They don't listen to what you say, but they sure do watch what you do and that's how you end up rearing them. Any parent who thinks their lecturing matters just isn't paying attention.
So, if you still want to make videos, make them about you and the rest of the family. Show how you are with various people (including your daughter, her mother, your parents, etc), how you approach things & situations, what you're proud of/like/dislike about yourself, etc. The good and the bad or it'll come off fake. Maybe tell some stories that show some of the how & why you're like that. I'm afraid that's about the limit of the medium. Get too preachy and you lose 'em every time. Oh, and keep the segments short... you know where attention spans are heading.
You missed the point. 20 years from now, everybody in your bracket will have a 24/7 robot to do the cleaning, cook and take care of the yard. All without wondering how much to tip them, nor the nagging doubt that the servants are giggling over your sex-toy collection! (Though you can bet the robots will report what they see back to Amazon for targeting advertising, and for figuring out how to tailor your individualized pricing to what they can get away with.)
There will, however, be a thriving market for robot repair techs. And targeting/pricing data analysts.
We're not subject to the same rules as the little people.
In the 60's and much of the 70's, most people wrote in high-level languages as if they were coding assembler. Goto's all over the place. Not that they had a choice -- for example, control flow in Fortran IV, the most-used high-level language of the time, featured IF, DO (a crude version of the modern FOR -- not do), GOTO, CALL, RETURN. No else, while, do/while, no modern-style for, case, etc. AND, get this: NO BLOCKS; the IF statement controlled only a *single* statement, so that meant you often *had* to say IF (...) GOTO xxx. Just like assembler. It was awful! There were other less-popular but more-evolved languages, but unstructured practices were very often carried over to those as well. GOTOs were just how most programmers thought.
That's the backdrop for Djikstra's condemnation of GOTO. Certainly, the then-current mass use of GOTOs was a very bad thing since it completely obscured program logic. If you read the original article, he's not so much condemning GOTO as he's arguing for structured programming.
Consider GOTO Considered Harmful as a successful wake-up call. By keeping his message black/white, i.e. GOTO is bad, he gave his message punch and made it much talked-about. People started to think in a more structured manner (though at first we thought the "structured crowd" were a bunch of weenies), and started to demand better control-flow features. Pretty soon, structured control-flow was de rigeur in any new or revised language. Fortran even got IF/END IF in Fortran 77!
People nowadays have hardened the anti-GOTO bias into gospel. At the time, the response was more nuanced, more in line with the spirit of what Djikstra was saying. For example, in 1974 even Niklaus Wirth's new PASCAL (a principled, hard-line structured language if there ever was one) included the goto statement with the warning in the User Manual and Report that "the goto statement should be reserved for unusual or uncommon situations where the natural structure of an algorithm has to be broken." If anybody was going to out-and-out outlaw goto, Wirth would have been the guy.
tearing out all of the street signs
You're giving them ideas for shaky "precedents"! Ripping up street signs up during wartime is pretty standard https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... and hadn't you heard we're at war?
Is this "LA" a reference to Los Angeles? In California? Since 2010, Los Angeles freeways *have* been widened to the tune of many $B and years of traffic delays. Opposition and complaints were simply ignored. Some surface streets have been widened in a major way (e.g. Santa Monica Blvd.) and most other major surface arteries are being repaved and "optimized." Ditto about opposition and complaints. Traffic control & signalling has been vastly expanded -- just look at the level of detail available on Google Traffic now vs. 2 years ago. And just try (like my very politically connected and organized neighborhood did) to cut down on local traffic -- all you'll get is city administration's sympathy, but then they add that the roads must roll and we should actually expect our local traffic to increase significantly.
Ask a Canadian and an American if tomorrow will be sunny. The American "believes" it will be. The Canadian doesn't know, because s/he's "being realistic." They'd go on to say that the American is just "being a typical American" thinking happy thoughts. What can I say? Canadians just don't believe in the power of positive thinking. Or much else for that matter.
Cynics? Oh yeah! Canadians and Americans fundamentally look at life differently, and that's been going on since way before healthcare. On New Year's eve, Americans look forward to the sure-to-be-wonderful new year while Canadians celebrate that they made it through the old one! Cynicism bordering on pessimism is in Canada's DNA, same as positive thinking is in the US' DNA. Yes, I'm painting with an overly broad brush here, but to make a point.
Science may require some belief, too, but it sure feels less like of a stretch than religion.
Oh, and most Canadians are well aware that as recently as the early 60's they were historically oppressed and kept in "the great darkness" by an unholy cabal of church and semi-totalitarian state. That's enough to make a hard-ass "realist" of anyone.
Hard to not think of Bill Clinton's infamous words while you actually read the memo.
A lawyer's opinion is just work for hire. If all you needed to legally kill somebody was a lawyer's opinion letter, we'd all have killed each other long ago for perfectly "justifiable" reasons.
By definition, it's the the job of any lawyer to be able to make a case that black is white, or anything else you like. The next day, they can make the case that black is red. Just depends on who the client is that day.
But doesn't recreating a waveform by summing several other waveforms require that those components be of significantly higher frequency? Basic Taylor series stuff? E.g. recreating a 1 GHz carrier at the receiver from 10 random-distance sources would require each of those sources to be in the order of 10 - 100 GHz, especially if those transmitted waveforms are further constrained to be simultaneously delivering signals to other receivers.
The shooter that is...
FIPS certification is only available for systems that implement modest key lengths. Many of the approved algorithms are designed to support much greater key length, but longer keys are not allowed by the specs. FIPS won't certify 'em. It's a pretty safe guess that the allowed key lengths are such that the NSA can break them if needed using custom hardware or whatever else quasi-unlimited money can buy. Remember 20+ years ago when the gov't regulated all crypto as a munition? They still allowed low-bit encryption because they knew they could break it. They're still playing that game, except now it's done with standards and certifications instead of laws.
You really don't want to start making up your own ad hoc crypto. Approved algorithms have been extensively vetted by honest experts; any possible weaknesses would be very, very subtle. Using approved algorithms with non-standard "ridiculous" key lengths is probably the safest workaround to suspected weaknesses until... on second thought, key lengths much greater than the gov't "recommends" will always be a good idea! Keep in mind that any weaknesses in crypto algorithms would merely make them easier to break, but breaking still requires huge resources and takes time. Longer keys kick up that effort exponentially to the point that very probably nobody can break them in a useful time frame, provided that implementations are reliable and trustworthy.
To think that for all these years I had assumed these types of conferences are just well-publicized cocktail parties. Maybe that's the most revealing part of this new round of disclosures. But then again, those upper-crust Brits have been known to take their parties (and their spying) pretty seriously...
Won't help your current situation, but in the future consider routinely dropping some standard personal easter eggs into your code. You need to invent your own obscure bag of tricks, but some silly examples would be that stringing together the 3rd letter of each of the first 10 variable names spells your name, or trivially encrypted words in numeric constants or variable names. It's been done in literature for years, for example http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-05/pl_print
Yeah, I know you can supposedly hear "Paul is dead" if you play a certain Beatles track backwards. This isn't the kind of "proof" that would send someone to prison, but being able to demonstrate a few such little flourishes should be plenty enough to buy you the benefit of the doubt and likely constitute probable cause for an investigation.
Most importantly, SHUT UP and don't tell ANYBODY what your secrets are unless you're up against the wall. Even then, don't spill all of 'em. This is security by obscurity -- not an opportunity to show your friends how clever your little treasures are. People talk.