It put North Haverbrook on the map.
I'm not backing the NFL here, but this blackout rule doesn't bother me much and it has at least some basis in reality and fairness: to have a full stadium experience (I won't argue whether that's really worth it these days). IIRC, the doesn't kick in until 72 hours before kickoff, it only applies to networks within 75 miles and it only applies to local broadcast/cable TV (you still get the game on Sunday Ticket). And, in most cases, local businesses will buy up the unused tickets to give to charity, and the NFL relents, and the whole issue is moot.
I'm far more pissed with the blackout rules for MLB. I live in Las Vegas, I have the MLB.TV package, and I am blacked out from at least 6 teams (Dodgers, Angels, D-Backs, Padres, A's, Giants). None of those teams are within 300 miles of me, so I'm not driving to home games. And yet, I can't watch any of those teams, because (in theory) I should have access to those teams from my local cable network. But the cable cos and the networks like to bitch about retransmission fees and so I haven't seen the Dodgers all year.
The REALLY stupid blackout rule: Hawaii is blacked out from the Giants & A's. HAWAII !!!! I know there's kayaks in McCovey Cove every game, but I have yet to see any Polynesian catamarans.
I have 2 simple rules:
1) If the job is really terrible -- crazy boss, lousy environment, not enough funding -- it should be obvious within 30 days or so. At most companies this is a probationary period anyway. I've quit a couple of jobs quickly for these reasons, and I've found that HR (if not the boss) is generally okay with this. Act professionally, of course, give notice and all that, but It's better to cut ties early if you feel that you and the employer are not a good match.
2) Assuming I get past 30 days and still like it, I've always tried to make it to 2 years before trading up. I've found that after year 1, I'll get a bonus or a bump in salary almost automatically. Year 2 is when the employer starts to look for something more out of me, and also when I'll get a better idea of possible career paths within the company.
My experience is that job hopping is not a big deal as long as you have good reasons, and as long as it's not TOO often. Good reasons include relocation, a substantial (I'd say 25%+) bump in pay, or changing jobs to do what you really want to do. No one will care that you only worked 3 months at The Gap before finding a Web developer job.
Applied Cryptography by Bruce Schneier. Really any and all of his books.
Well, they did say "it is more important to focus on how things look from the top than how they actually are down below".
I'd say you follow the same process: inform them, wait 1/3/7 days or whatever, then go public. If you suspect the exploit is deliberate, informing the manufacturer isn't telling them anything they didn't already know. Or, maybe it IS telling them, since in the case of open source, the exploit could have been introduced surreptitiously by a developer who's long gone, and the current developers have no idea of the exploit's existence.
Caveat: if you suspect revealing the bug will cause blowback to you. If you think the NSA/FBI/CIA will come after you for threatening to reveal it, I'd say just go public immediately, and include major press orgs so they can't just silence you.
Minor quibble with this. SEAD is a combat tactic which assumes you're already at war and suppressing defenses to advance a specific mission. A no-fly zone is a strategic patrol. It tells the enemy that you have overwhelming air superiority within the theater, and it assumes the enemy isn't willing to risk testing the no-fly zone. In the past no-fly zones have been more or less declared and imposed, and actually SEAD missions were unnecessary.
To be sure, actually enforcing a no-fly zone could require SEAD missions, in which case, it's not so no-fly. But yeah, it's still a dumb idea here, and it could provoke a wider war.
Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD aka Wild Weasel) is a combat tactic intended to reduce friendly losses and improve the effectiveness of air strikes. That is, to kill more of them and less of us. How in hell does someone consider that "humanitarian"?
This is one of the most Orwellian pieces of doublespeak I've read all year.
No. Experts in their field shouldn't need to be taught how to understand your system; that's part of being an expert ( or indeed, even a professional).
I completely agree but how are we even calling this "expert" or "professional"? Do I need to educate someone, a "programmer" let's say, about the fundamentals of Java? About electronics? About physics? How to type? How to use the toilet?
Maybe that's over the top, but at some point, if someone claims they can do X, we assume a basic level of skill. To use a car analogy: cars basically all work the same way. The car dealer doesn't make you take a test before you buy it and drive it home. They have to make sure you have a valid license, of course, but licensure is not their problem, and licensure by the state assumes that the basics of driving are the same across different models of cars.
Since when did the car owner's manual teach the owner how to drive?
I work for an airline. We train pilots on our aircraft and our procedures. We certainly do not teach them how to fly.
All good ideas. I think a lot of people are actually open to change as long as they feel their skill and experience is being valued. Suggest that it would be good to simplify and modernise the process and find out what ideas Bob has and the challenges he sees in implementing any changes.
This is definitely true but I would also add "offer to help with the changes" (or find someone who is capable of helping). Outsiders may have good ideas about how to fix things, but anyone can be a critic. That can be annoying to the original maintainer who has to do the work, regardless of how much it improves the system.