... consider the effect on your existing client base. Very likely, the people who use your product heavily really know the UI very well and have very well developed muscle memory. If you make significant changes to the UI, their knowledge and muscle memory won't work. They'll be very unhappy and will complain to their management. I'm not saying you shouldn't make changes, just that you really want to be sure that the benefits will outweigh the costs.
At my place of employment, we have several dozen people who spend their entire work day deep in our records management system. They can navigate through the system, accomplishing their tasks like they were jet powered. Significant changes to the UI would be like chopping off their fingers.
Also depends on the degree you receive. A degree in philosophy or polysci or whatever is not likely going to make you highly marketable. Normally, I would say that you're pretty safe with an STEM degree. However, I attended a conference this weekend that leaves me wondering. One of the speakers was a comp sci prof from my alma mater. The stuff she said sounded more like something I'd expect from a sociology prof. If that's what's passing for comp sci these days, I'd have to question the value of a comp sci degree.
For the record, I'm not a misanthrope. I just dislike people.
Sorry if I'm a bit grumpy. Had a rough week dealing with end users and I'm feeling a bit BOfH.
I used to be the paranoid weirdo until Snowdon. Now I'm smarter than most.
... to sell any particular product? If someone complains, will Apple be obligated to sell Chromecast devices on their website? When I walk into Safeway, I cannot find any of the Loblaws house brands on sale. Likewise, when I walk into Loblaws, I cannot find any of the Safeway house brands on sale. Yet, in neither case does anyone complain that these companies are being anticompetitive.
No retailer should be obligated to sell any particular product. Apple has both its own website and physical stores. Chromecast is available for sale online and at multiple physical retailers. Amazon prevents me from buying neither by not selling them. By not carrying these products, all that Amazon does it to deprive itself of part of the price I pay.
to what you can actually do.
You can hide files in a hidden container, you can encrypt files and give the key to someone in a different jurisdiction. But, in the end, if they have you and they have the computer, they will probably get what they want. We used to call it "rubber hose crypto".
If you don't have to bring the data with you, don't. Put the encrypted data somewhere in the cloud and pull it down when you need it. Then purge it from your computer.
SD cards are small and might pass if you are not subject to intense scrutiny. But if they are really looking at you, they will be found. If you don't have a lot of data, consider encrypting it and then use steganography to hide it in some of the files in you iPod.
Assuming you do not keep data on the computer, what you need to do is install apps that will:
Make sure to clear history, etc.
The best way to store data securely is in your own head.
Good ideas. I'd suggest going one step further and travel with a laptop you would not mind losing. For instance, when I upgrade systems, I typically keep the old one for travel, etc. Unless I really need to more powerful new system, the old one will usually do just fine for a few days. Why offer thieves a better payday than absolutely necessary?
Math is hard.
Or, more accurately, math is believed to be hard.
Or, more completely, math is believed to be hard by humans, a species known to be shy on intelligence.
(no pun intended).
If the system cannot change while I'm watching, how am I able to watch moving pictures on my TV?
Over the past 30 years (dang, that's a long time), I've worked at three multinationals. All three had this policy. It's unlikely that I happened upon three outliers, so I expect that this is the normal policy for large campuses. That being the case, if it was unreasonable, there would have been multiple large successful lawsuits and the lawyers for all the other big companies would have changed the policy. Large companies are risk-averse. The fact that this policy is still in place in many companies indicates that it is the right policy.
I get really tired for people dumping on large companies without warrant. When they deserve to be slammed, let's slam them, but dumping on them when it is not warranted is just as evil as anything they do.
I'm in the same boat - taking responsibility (I really don't want to claim ownership) of a ton of code that contains no comments, uses meaningless names, is poorly structured, and does things that some of our suppliers will not support. If your code is well-structured and uses meaningful names, you really don't need a lot of comments. I have encountered code in which the comments are wrong. IMO, incorrect comments are worse than no comments. When I see a comment, my initial reaction is to believe what it says. An incorrect comment sends me down a rabbit hold, wasting my time and leaving me frustrated and angry.
Every little picofarad has a nanohenry all its own. -- Don Vonada