1,456 karma · joined March 18, 2011
tss@hey.com
I am interested in reverse engineering, operating systems, and compilers. Always happy to chat.
On the other hand, the top rated answer has a pretty elaborate and abstract theory about widgets and film makers. I make no assertion about the accuracy of this abstract theory, but I can summarize reality in a much simpler way: many programmers work in businesses where software is a cost center. If you want to make money as a programmer, you need to work at a company where software is a generator of profit and negotiate compensation aggressively after demonstrating your value.
The following is required reading if you'd like an algorithm for doing the above:
Don't Call Yourself A Programmer, And Other Career Advice http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pro...
Salary Negotiation: Make More Money, Be More Valued http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/
Of course, what goods/services should be guaranteed and what the value of X should be for each one is and will remain an open problem.
Work-life balance is very important as well, a point the author emphasizes. He seems to have made that choice later in life (as did I) and I commend him for it. But, while I can exhort others too to strive for such balance, I will not begrudge them the choice to work exceedingly hard (especially as they are first developing in their careers) to achieve other "unbalanced" goals. People do accomplish insanely great things by working insanely hard. If they choose to do this in their work as employees, that is their privilege and, as long as they are highly-skilled and highly compensated, I say more power to them if they do it without the benefit of protective labor laws.
Complete comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3642433.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcri...
As far as malware goes, virtualization obfuscators are the current state of the art. They are a fundemental advancement in packing. Up until virtualization obfuscators, all other packers had the weakness where at some point the unprotected program would end up in memory. This weakness is easily exploitable (ala VxClass, see Recon 2010 for an easily digestible talk). Virtualization obfuscators are still beatable with manual reverse engineering (see Rolles WOOT 2009) and some effort has been made to automate the process (see Wenke Lee's group at Oakland 2009). But when a packing scheme forces you to hire reverse engineers who know what symbolic execution is, you know that you've substantially raised the bar.
[1] http://www.projectposner.org/
[2] http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudgeships/JudicialCompensa...
[3] http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2010year-end...
Contexts in which dress matters may disproportionally be contexts to avoid, but there are contexts that are worthwhile in which dress is very important.
The above illustrates that the problem is not with privacy, as you seem to think. Thinkers across the ideological spectrum generally believe people have the right to keep things private in many areas of their lives. The question is to what should this right apply and to what extent. Privacy is not doomed just because it is linked to Roe. It has well founded support in a range of cases.
It is personally my fault for not including a credit to Highrise for the design
Lesson to us: add credits
Crediting someone for their property doesn't make stealing it ok. By default, stealing is wrong. Waiting for an objection and/or linking to the owner doesn't change that. This seems like a problematic worldview for a young company.
I've done more analysis on a similar test called PISA, but I think it's worth bringing up in the context of this debate. In standardized testing there are often significant underlying factors that have nothing to do with the schools themselves. From the executive summary of PISA: "[In the United States], after accounting for socio-economic background, the performance difference between students from single-parent families and those from other types of families stands at 23 score points.... Parents’ engagement with their children’s reading life has a positive impact on their children’s reading performance." Consider that the divorce rate in the US is one of the highest in the world, 5 times that of China. This problem along with any others is one that needs to be considered in the context of education.
Also, PISA was not done on China, but rather on two specific cities: Shanghai and Hong Kong (similarly, TIMSS was done in Hong Kong). Along with Beijing, these are the most advantaged areas in China in terms of both money and education. The US administers PISA to a wide range of schools across the country. I imagine we would see much different results if PISA only tested Boston and some other advantaged city. The PISA study itself even notes that scores were much higher in urban schools. Other countries are either testing exclusively urban schools or urban schools at a higher rate than the US.
There are serious, serious problems with education in the US. But it's important to look at these studies with a critical eye and avoid the temptation to go off on a rant on how the US is bad at math. Data doesn't lie, but analysis is often wrong and/or exaggerated. In sum, problems with education in the US are deeply rooted in racial, social, and geographic issues. Better management practices and policy reform, while good, doesn't change the fact that the US isn't Singapore.
It sounds like beer is accentuating (not causing) a problem with email etiquette. Your point and Thomas's point are orthogonal: (1) two beers can make you terrible at things you are already bad at and (2) two beers wont make you terrible at things you aren't bad at. Because the bottom line is that people aren't easy to offend over email. I've written 1 email that has offended someone in the last 5 years and that was mostly intentional.
This is a simplistic analysis. Swearing is a device of language that can be used well or misused. Most of the time we can do better, yes, but swearing does have a place that is neither disrespectful or superior [1]. What would John McClane, one of the greatest movie characters of all time [2], be without that classic line?
mil:~ poet$ rvm list known_strings | grep ^ruby
ruby-head
ruby-1.9.3-rc1
ruby-1.9.3-preview1
ruby-1.9.3-head
ruby-1.9.2-p290
ruby-1.9.2-p180
ruby-1.9.2-head
ruby-1.9.1-p431
ruby-1.9.1-p378
ruby-1.9.1-head
ruby-1.8.7-p352
ruby-1.8.7-head
ruby-1.8.6-p420
ruby-1.8.6-head
However, in my anecdotal experience most people run patch releases.I work at MIT Lincoln Laboratory (http://www.ll.mit.edu), a research and development center run by MIT that does work for the government. My group has about 20 people in it and does application security, reverse engineering, and other low level systems stuff. Knowledge of things like assembly, operating systems, and systems are pluses but not required. It's great if you have some experience in those things, but if you can code I want to talk to you. The pluses:
* Extremely difficult and rewarding problems. In the past few weeks my work has had me hacking on a compiler, scaling up databases, reversing malware, etc. We're a really agile and tight knit group.
* Awesome workplace culture. We're a 9-5 shop, you pick your laptop, and you can order any books that you need.
* We reimburse tuition for classes at MIT. Last semester my office mate took operating systems with Robert Morris. We send you to conferences, including Blackhat and Defcon.
* We sponsor relocation and have multiple positions we want to fill.
You do need to be a US citizen and you will have to get a security clearance. I'm happy to talk to you about how the clearance process works and answer any questions you have. If you're local I'll buy you a cup of coffee while we talk it over. You really can't waste my time. The first step is to get in touch with me and I can explain to you how our hiring process works.
Email: tsally@mit.edu
An open source license for academics has additional needs: (1) it should require that source and modifications used to validate scientific claims be released with those claims; and (2) more importantly, it should absolve authors of shame, embarrassment and ridicule for ugly code.