Just some observational evidence, but big companies do not seem to buy ideas or technologies. . . they do seem to buy customers, though.
You're right. Ideas are dime a dozen, execution is what's hard. Unless you have proven to be able to execute, the idea from a third party is just potential liability.
That product had a few Easter eggs, a picture of the dev team in a dinner party that could be access by typing a correct sequence in the about box, also in a couple of releases, on Christmas a Santa's hat would appear on one of the icons (we had to remove that one, since it was perceived politically incorrect). Even one version that never got released, had a simulation function for a business process where work items moving through the process diagram would be rendered as Lemmings, with music and everything.
Utter bullshit. The easiest way to control weight is to exactly follow the scientific advice. I lost a lot of weight (about 25 kg over 6 months) by a simple system: (Change in Weight (kg))/7700 = Calories I ate - Calories I used
Could you elaborate? The units don't make sense. If I'm reading your comment right, you're saying that 1kg of body fat holds 7700kCal/kg, so shouldn't the equation be:
(7700 kCal/kg) * (Change in weight(kg)) = Calories I ate - Calories I used
And if you want to enlighten people about their misunderstandings of your religion, it's probably wise to know the difference between a "statement" and a "question," and, at a bare minimum, decency requires not conflating ignorance of internal concepts like "ex cathedra" to stupidity.
Otherwise, you come across as just another thumpin' asshole.
It's complicated. Many old religions have two components: the popular beliefs and the philosophical part of them. This is true of Catholicism (do not confuse with Christianism), Buddhism, etc.
The philosophical part is complicated. It's not something that you just explain in a couple of sentences on Slashdot, it will take some studying to get the meaning right of many concepts, such as "ex cathedra" or "metaphysical causality".
Going back on the topic of the article, you could read a great comment at the bottom of this story: http://arstechnica.com/science... that gives (IMHO) a great summary of on what the Catholic Church believes regarding evolution and big bang.
Only if you're dumb enough to let authentication program be suspceptible to such an attack. Dictionary attacks can be trivially defeated by rating limiting tries and after, say, 5 tries not allowing any more attempts for some cooldown period. No attacker is going to bother if they can only have 5 tries every 15 to 20 minutes.
Please, if you ever have to implement one of this cool down periods, don't be an asshole and allow just 5 attempts (or 3 or something equally idiotic).
There's no good reason why not allow, let's say a 100 attempts, and even really short cool down period should be enough, for example 500ms. Time for some quick & dirty math, assuming 36 possible characters and an 8 character password, a 500ms cool down would add: 36^8*.5/60/60/24/365 ~= 48000 years to brute force all combinations.
I disagree on both counts, Medallia has been profitable for quite some time and it's growing really fast, so hardly a waste of VC capital.
On the engineering side, we do build new things, some are really challenging. For example we have a very cool real-time OLAP engine (we can render reports with a median time of 183ms, on datasets with a hundred million records and thousands of columns), our text analytics team does build it's own models (we have researchers on payroll), our sentiment analysis models for some industries are better than anything else out there, the testing infrastructure is wonderful, and there are things I cannot discuss
Working here I've met some of the brightest people in the world (I stand by that). In all, it's a great place to work as an engineer.
Maybe that's where the notion of a true name comes from.
Whenever I find myself having trouble naming a class or a method/function, it's typically a sign that something in my understanding of the problem (or the framing of the solution) is wrong. And I need to revisit the thought process that took me there. Usually, once I do so, names fall in place without much friction.
"355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!"