I think a lot of people have a problem in the tech world because they reach certain "platforms" and decide they aren't going back. Let me break it down: 1) You worked for company A for 10 years and got promoted to Senior Software Engineer. Unfortunately, unknown to you, company A didn't actually know anything about software engineering so you're actually not much of a software engineer. 2) You try to find another job. You probably won't find another job as a software engineer if you don't actually know how to do that job; even if you had the title. 3) There are jobs available. However, they have titles like Analyst or Specialist and those are so "beneath" you, right? You were an ENGINEER for gosh sakes. You couldn't possibly bring yourself down. My advice: Get over yourself and let your skills speak for themselves. Your title and current position don't define you or your capabilities. When you start understanding that, you start developing real skills and enjoying your job.

I'm sad to see that I'm the only one that thinks that congestion has gotten worse due to the abundantly clear lack of thought in traffic engineering. I think there might be two scenarios that potentially account for this: 1) I learned about the idea of planning less capacity than is required to "force people's hands" on using public transit. Idealistically, it sounds great. Like most idealistic plans, the real world doesn't work that way and it just pisses people off and, viola, traffic congestion. 2) I don't feel like traffic engineering is keeping-up with our technology. At least in my area (and in many to which I travel), I see no efforts being made to use the technology we have to better improve traffic. Instead of having connected, intercommunicating and load-sensing intersections, we still have a lot of unconnected, unaware intersections that induce a lot of the congestion problems.

This would appear to be a solution marketed to the less intelligent software developers and schemers. The tool's "dashboard" is hosted by the tool creators. Let me help you out: You do all the work of baking our toolkit into your stuff and, at some random point in the future, we'll take the client off your hands at no charge.

I'm glad to see a post that positively promotes development in science. For some reason, our "science" has stagnated lately in my opinion with "scientists" taking hard-line approaches to situations - they are no longer thinking out of the box and force everyone to think in the box or be ostracized and labeled "stupid". I agree that there is more likely a part of the brain that helps us "see". I believe that the data used by that brain center can be different to produce different results: 1) You see with your eyes the events happening in front of you. 2) You see with your mind when you recall a sequence of events, situation, or even dream.

I, personally, am shocked to see this out of Oracle. In other news, having worked on many of the less-common Oracle products (not Database or AS), I've actually found that the majority of their crap doesn't work at all. When you report a bug, they have a team dedicated to basically finding a reason why the bug shouldn't be fixed/resolved. One product in particular never works out of the box and always requires patches on the GA version in order to work. Also, when you go to upgrade this product (which is required constantly due to bugs), you have to figure out how to upgrade crap yourself when they decided to break/change/modify configurations between versions. They also have no problem with introducing major architectural changes in minor releases.

I think it's important for them to understand the sequences and logic aspect of programming. Even if they don't necessarily have to "code" anything, there's a lot to be learned. In another approach: Teach them something about programming so that they won't be the jerk that you have to put up with in meetings that doesn't understand what programming means. You know who I'm talking about: "I hear you say that will take 3 weeks to write. Why don't we see if we can get that down to 1.5 as that's when we really need it." ... "Oh! Well why didn't you just say you had a deadline? I was definitely basing my quote around how much project time I was going to spend play Sudoku and drinking Coke rather than the actual amount of time that it would take to write what you asked for."

Let's bring all the security of iOS to your car... sounds great.

How, exactly, would you propose that this is done by carriers? You say that it would be obvious if someone were attempting a DDoS attack but that may not be true. One of the major issues with DDoS is that it doesn't require tremendous bandwidth on the client sides. There could be millions of those (and with the fact that everyone thinks they need 50Mbps home internet for their web surfing) and there's plenty of bandwidth available that could be limited to appear like legitimate traffic. It has been my experience that the best attacks against things involve greater quantities of remote hosts and less bandwidth than fewer hosts with more bandwidth.

I understand where you're coming from but I think that may be a premature observation. I doubt this is just an attack against a single IP address. You should also remember that there comes a point where the incoming volume of traffic destined for the IP address(es) under attack overwhelms the upstream carriers prior to the null-routing of said addresses. The lower the null-route is set, the greater the chance for upstream impact. Mitigating heavy DDoS isn't always just a simple matter.