chubbard

So I hope someone is explaining this to the you-know-what-hat Senator Dodd. Remember to speak slowly.

Agreed. Aaron's claim is making money in a very indirect way. Making money in the market is hard enough through direct means (purchase a security watch it go up). I would say it would be even harder to purchase something then move the inflation lever up or down in hopes to manipulate their personal wealth would be much much harder. Plus that also means that they can agree on a set of securities they wish to target which I would say is less likely than a cold day in hell. Not to mention the amount of money they lost and haven't gotten back is pale in comparison holding inflation at 3% instead of 4%.

What I would argue is that Bankers and Wallstreet just want it to go back to what it was. They're trying as hard as they can trying to build a time machine to go back before everything fell apart, and resisting all attempts at changing for the better. They just want this to all go away. So given the choice they want that lever to make everything as it was before which is impossible.

Well that's basically what we did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_message

Sure if you could have great certainty there was someone on the other side of your transmission then logically I think you are correct, but they might just be swinging for the fences like us.

If that's so how did NPR go talk to this guy in Kansas and get one? They don't have a lot of money, and they aren't a bank. I bet this guy in Kansas is getting a lot of phone calls like this one.

Where's the controversy? The article does a great job of pointing out that Mark's rant missed the point entirely. Was there actually anything said that turned this mantra upside down?

Pictures or it didn't happen.

Prolific over use of interfaces when all you have is a single implementor. In a word Yes.

I like the concepts of the bubbles and the fact that it show call execution so well instead of one file at a time. That's really cool, but what I find so amazing is that since they built on top of Eclipse they got much further towards a usable system like having an integrated debugger was a nice surprise to me. 10-20 years ago the gap between an academic project and a finished product would have been much wider. Not to mention they got to explore more ground with the concept. Just shows how open source software enables innovation better.

At most I thought it was just a distraction technique or see if you can scare them. While you threaten the company with your lawyers and patents the top brass will have to dedicated some amount of time to fight it with their lawyers, figuring out which patents your infringing on, or what they can say to get rid of you.

If you're lucky you might get a settlement out of it. Otherwise you've slowed them down a little while they were distracted fighting your lawsuit.

How about trading off code readability for code complexity that has some potential future payoff? Library developers might want to trade more of their readability than app developers because of the nature of 3rd party code. It's ultimately a trade off that you have to make, but there are some general rules of thumb can help you so that uber flexilibity doesn't take over.

I guess this is only tangentially related to each other Mock objects and interfaces. I stopped using interfaces in this manner. My rule if you only have one implementation of an interface you don't need an interface. Wait to create the interface when you get your second implementation, and we have great tools that make that easy.

Now for people who do lots of mock objects this rule doesn't help them out much, but my other rule is I don't overly separate my system for testing purposes. Sure there are times when you need a mock object for java mail or external services you need to mock out. But, doing it for every service you have is really a lot of work for questionable gain. This is predicated on practical experience rather than architecture theory. The reason you separate your system for testing is to find more bugs. I found that I wasn't finding anymore bugs by separating things than I was by testing it integrated. And, in fact I found more bugs in the integration of services than I would if I only tested them in separate form. Therefore, I stopped doing the extra work to separate them because the payoff was really too small to bother. It's been much more productive to think like this.

I wrote a post on a potential way we could fix the layout problems with HTML, but stay backwardly compatible. This article hits on exactly the problem. Layout. More precisely the default page flow layout of HTML which is great for text layout, but that's about it.

http://wrongnotes.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-if-html-wasnt-to...

Maybe he should've used google to do some research about how to avoid being classified as an employee.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30177.html

So if she's in favor of the stimulus, but then points out that it didn't do anything. Why did she say she was in favor of it? If the only thing it causes is higher inflation or taxes?

When the head of the company basically says people don't care as much about privacy as they once did. I call that scary. If he'd say we want you to participate fully in our service and we think that means your information is public it would be better.

But, I agree with the article that Facebook is really getting it wrong. Instead of having a default how about present them with a simple dialog. Explain the issues, and ask them what settings the user wants? Share with Everyone, Share with My Friends, etc.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_sa...

Then the accusations that if you or one of your friends fills out a poll your information is shared with the poll author. (As noted on Twit Podcast). So yes I think those are some scary things.

The choice between privacy goes something like this on the internet these days. Be apart of the internet and give up all hope of privacy, or don't participate and be a Luddite. This choice is not acceptable or practical for any future.

Google grossly underestimated how important privacy has become to average user in last year or two. Unfortunately this could have been the killer feature that Buzz could leverage over Facebook and Twitter because they do such a horrible job at it. In fact Facebook's take on privacy has become down right scary. Privacy controls for Buzz could have been it's differentiator. Instead it's turned into the killer mistake threatening to bury Buzz before it even got out of the gate.

But, everyone screws up, everyone makes mistakes, it's all about how fast they fix it. So get some pizza, jolt, and strong coffee it should be a long weekend Google Buzz Engineers.

Restaurants are a competitive market, and with big fish like OpenTable killing it I think it would be pretty difficult to come into there. Stick with what you're doing.

No. Just look at the major innovations on the web and you'll see it doesn't follow that pattern. Search Engines, Google, Web based email, Web based Applications, AJAX, Rebirth of Javascript, Horizontal Scaling, Tagging, Folksonomy, Wikipedia, Twitter, Blogging, all major innovations and some have occurred in less than 8 years of each other. Frequency of major innovations are fueled by how many people are working on it. Rates of innovation can be a measure of how hot a technology is. Every 8 years indicates a much cooler technology than say the web.

His point was math has to become relate able again, and in todays world everyone (under and over educated people) can relate to software as a way to solve problems. There are tons of great math problems with practical application out there. Couldn't agree more with that because that's what drew me into math was programming and the practical application of that.

He could have said this in a more direct way without all of the asides and weak socialist plot bait. Clear and concise communication is a mutually exclusive to math skills.

Here's a site I saw the other day that looked pretty nice:

http://psddesigners.com/

I have not used them so this is not a recommendation. Just price comparison. Designs start at $880 with 3 rounds of revisions. So, if you know what you want then this could be a cheaper route. If not this isn't the package for you. Once they are done you're on your own so this is a hands off approach if you want someone who will work with you over time I'd stick with your designer.

If it's a completely original design/layout that the designer comes up with $2K is fairly reasonable. I found fresh designs start around $800 for one page and go up depending on what else you need. If you have a PSD of your design file there are plenty of services that start much cheaper.

ah yes when it's probably just run of the mill porn. mystery over ladies.

'Of course, it is hard to describe what an "institution" really is. It is even harder to convert a bad institution into a good one.'

How does the government keep from eating itself in corruption? We assume this government has reached a steady state by taking only half but not all. However, as the article cites the more corruption you do the more your supporters will do, and the only way to stay in power is to let your supporters be corrupt. Since you're not really building any value, or letting value take root it seems like a prolonged history of this will eventually eat itself without fresh infusions of capital from outside parties. The article hints at this, but it's hard to control it because your supporters are doing it too and might not realize you can't take too much. Plus when outside markets go down I doubt corruption wants to take less in those times. It seems like it will lead to eventual erosion because rebuilding value when markets come back are less likely to happen.

But, is it any more dicey that only accepting reviews from a small population of yelpers that are more loyal to yelp than to the business they review? Think of it this way a yelper whose never heard of your business vs. many loyal customers who've never heard of yelp. To some degree it turns into a yelps loyal customers vs. a business' loyal customers and yelp with always side with their loyal customers on it. Advantage yelp. If they don't let everyone participate in the conversation equally then a business can't put their best foot forward.

I did find it that the salon owner was much wiser about how she approached yelp than the bookstore owner. The bookstore person wasn't listening to her customers, and blaming the wrong person.

Or they have a lot of seed capital, and universal thinks why not take their money. My guess is that they haven't found a way to make much money from this arrangement. The bandwidth and storage costs alone can't be offset by advertising alone. VIP and pay for services are required. Now paying royalties for per play music makes this whole model very unworkable. The royalties imposed by the big 4 are a much more efficient way of preventing such models from taking shape than legal threats. So, legal threat -> resource starvation and legal thread -> royalty deal -> resource starvation. Same outcome, but the big 4 have more money now than doing just the legal route.

Wasn't this supposed to be done in Wave? ;-)

The (google.com) ending is a little misleading since it's just someone's hosted site on sites.google.com. It's not google's opinion, but it would be a lot funnier if it was.

Seriously?! I get modded down for asking a serious question? WTF? And, the response I get is basically "well you weren't paying attention. Anyone with half a brain knew this." Really?

Just the hummer joke alone should garner something. Sweet baby jeez no sense of humor.

Here's what I don't understand about the nobody's neutral point. Sure nobody's absolutely neutral (just like nobody's is absolutely truthful). It's all relative, but who's more neutral seems to be what they have to gain. Who benefits more by being right? If big oil is right then they get to carry on using fossil fuels until we run out. By some estimates there's still several trillion dollars of oil, coal, etc in the ground yet to be extracted.

If global warming advocates are right what do they get? Gold star, notoriety for being great scientists, pat on the back and a gold watch? Even billions of dollars in research grants? Once they're right research money dries up, and you still have to fix the energy crisis that would ensue. And, big oil is handing out money left and right for any study saying the opposite. If funding were your only incentive you could just as easily get money from the other side. If you can prove global warming is or IS NOT caused by human activity you'll be very very famous, maybe rich.

Still that's paltry in comparison to the revenue of the oil, coal, and to some degree gas industries. I can't seem to make the the pay offs for being right equal out.

I like to not be so paranoid, but quite frankly this whole debate just seems like a smoke screen from both sides at the moment. Which could be yet another tactic since status quo benefits the CO2 producers.

Starting out is always tough. Your experience has been somewhat unlucky and somewhat true. Recruiters your age are going to have a high turn over. Lots of people get out of school and go into high tech recruiting. There's no barrier to entry, but it takes a lot of hard work to stay one. They bop around for 3-6 months, and if they don't show some aptitude they get cycled out. See if you can get to know people a little older and have been out there a couple of years. Don't just work with one recruiter. Have several from different companies looking for you.

Go to your local user group meetings. Java, Ruby, Php, Python, .Net, Flex, whatever. (If you get too niche chances are you'll strike out). Typically there are always someone there handing out business cards, or job postings. Take it and send them a nice email introducing yourself the next day along with your resume.

If you have friends that have been out of school for a while try and connect with them. They might know of good people to put you in contact with.

LinkedIn is like crack for recruiters. Make sure you're on there and have some of your experience on there. Connect with people. You'll start to see who is a recruiter very quickly (500+ connections) chances are they're a recruiter. LinkedIn helps you keep in contact with recruiters if they move companies too.

Put your resume on Dice. It can take a month before that pays off because it takes a while for your resume to make the rounds.

The economy sucks, but IT is bouncing back quicker than other sectors.