ateeqs

Would you be willing to share what the minimum/maximum is for a mid level?

Recently, news was indicating that people were considering homes as an investment again. This is likely what is fueling these prices.

I guess, I would say, you should use your "gut-feelings." If something doesn't feel right, something probably isn't right.

Exactly. I still remember this Onion article from a few years back being confused as actual news.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/28/world/iran-news-agency-duped/

Completing does not factor into hiring decision. A paid certificate does not factor in, either. In almost all cases, decision to hire is based on:

1) Whether we like the person (i.e., can we get along with him for months, years, etc.)

2) Is the person honest?

3) Was this person recommended, and do your views align with the recommender's?

I suspect that this is the likely answer here, since old telephone keypads did not have Q and Z.

I take the "ad-hominem reply" back-- It seems you are at the "name calling" stage of disagreement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Di...

Hehe, given that you have been constantly attacking me so far, I think it's the other way around: I think you feel you are somehow superior to me. :)

You also need to learn to quote properly since I did not claim anyone to be "stupid."

Also, it has not been shown that the government has stolen anything. People are upset that the government has an indirect mechanism to access their data. And I am saying that giving third-party your data implies that other entities will get to it if they want it.

Not looking forward to your ad-hominem reply. ;)

Don't laugh, but there is "PowerShell." :) (laughs)

Mmmm, I think it's just not profitable for them to do this any more.

Yeah, I am having the same issue trying to compile gcc on an emulated old MIPS. :-/

I believe this is the case. If you try to run a 16-bit executable on x64 Windows, you will receive a "not compatible" error MessageBox essentially saying WOW cannot help you.

Funny, you seem to be "frustrated" a lot. ;)

A lot of peeps in HN seem to have this expectation that their data is somehow secure when they give it to a third-party. This is a completely false and an impossible expectation. To me, this _is_ and has been reality for a while. If an entity with resources really wants to get to your data, they will get to it. It doesn't matter if they steal or get a court order-- that, to them, is just semantics.

I'm not the one having trouble accepting this. It's just everyone suddenly realized this last week.

Also, realize that the -entire- ecosystem that we have now is probably insecure and will probably be insecure for the foreseeable future.

Realize that it's probably just not the US government that has this type of access.

Oooh, cursing. That's one way to show your larger than average wiener size in HN, isn't it? ;)

I am not sure I said they were equivalent-- they are two sizes of evil.

Besides, "stealing" is a relative term, and the government does not consider what it is doing as stealing.

This is true.

I thought you were trolling, and he was just responding to you?

I agree with mikeyouse's post here.

So, are you upset that they are so smart that they are gaming the system? Or are you upset that they are gaming the system?

I am not sure if they are proud themselves-- but some people see their work and probably grin.

Also, a caveat on making judgement about information being released piece-meal: You can pick a sentence out of an essay to make the author look to be at fault.

Wait guys, let me get this straight: You guys are not okay with the US government accessing your data that Google has, but you are somehow okay with sharing your data with Google?

I just see big "evil" vs small "evil." I'm not seeing much of a difference.

Also, would you be okay if another government had access to your data in Google's cloud?

You guys are probably not seeing the futility of it all.

Microsoft is in trouble for other reasons, as well. Windows 8 and 8.1 suck. They just don't listen to anyone-- developers, enterprises, home-users, you name it.

"They'll shove a xyzw down your throat and you'll like it" has been their philosophy for quite some time-- be it .NET, Ribbon interface, Metro, etc.

They are quickly (erm slowly) becoming irrelevant, and it's mainly as a result of this practice.

It will take decades to reverse the trend. Everyone is scared these days. A lot of what we see are a consequence of being scared-- the government being scared of the populace, and the populace being scared of the government.

Neat

vegnos (http://www.vegnos.com) -- A (Windows) desktop search engine (can also recover files in NTFS volumes).

Patents aside, I feel Twitter does not have much in terms of innovation.

Why is this even news?

Haha. This is awesome! :)

And?

But why exactly is an in-memory NoSQL database necessary? This is a "non-sequitur." The fundamental purpose to using NoSQL databases is when your data spans multi-terabytes (where "multi" > 4) and you need replication and slicing. Main-memory NoSQL database seems unnecessary, doesn't it?

Also, when you say "main memory" NoSQL database, are you saying "never store in page file" but always reside/lock in main memory? If it will go to the page file, it's not really main-memory, is it?

How exactly is it substantial? I felt he mostly says things along the lines of, "oh, here is the 3-DES algorithm." But there is no commentary after it. Queestions like why is 3-DES structured so, or what are these fields are not explained at all. To me, it says that he doesn't really know how 3-DES works at all. Or, another case I remember is the simple password protection scheme in ZIP. He says that the three keys are initialized with these three values (which can be found in the PKZIP app readme). Then he goes on to claim that it is not secure and that cryptographers can break it easily. But how would start to do it is not explained at all. Why even mention what these three keys are initialized with? It was a disappointing book.

I felt he did not even disseminate old knowledge because he does not know/comprehend old knowledge. He just disseminated old predicates.