On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 11:36:35 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Again, "communications" could mean just about anything.
> 
> If you mean the 3 people on Earth who design the protocol stacks...
> well,
> those have already been designed. And we already have the 3 people who
> design them.

:headdesk: :headdesk: :headdesk:

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-09-07 11:48, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 11:24:02 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>>>>> crypto/security
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, almost *nobody* actually does that.
>>>
>>> Bullshit.  I'm presently working with two teams that are knee-deep in
>>> crypto and security work.  Identity management, authentication, etc -
>>> all use that extensively.
>>
>> You're telling me there are more than three people on Earth who actually
>> design ciphers?
>
> crypto/security isn't just about designing ciphers.
>
> And I'm telling you that there are more than 3 people who work with crypto
> and security.
>

Who else besides Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman?

;)


-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-09-07 11:50, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 11:36:35 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> Again, "communications" could mean just about anything.
>>
>> If you mean the 3 people on Earth who design the protocol stacks...
>> well,
>> those have already been designed. And we already have the 3 people who
>> design them.
>
> :headdesk: :headdesk: :headdesk:
>
> Jim
>

Indeed.  Johnathan Postel's been dead a while.  This means there's an
opening for Andy.

;)
-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 07/09/2012 12:51 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Those seem to me like the sort of things that get worked out, once and
> for all, and then maybe changed perhaps twice per decade. Not the sort
> of thing you hire a full time employee for.

The company I'm working for ATM makes about 50 F1 racing engines a year 
all of them different. The BOM for each engine may change a dozen times 
during the production process.
So, there are more things in heaven and earth than in your philosophy, 
Andrew. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:41:17 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:

> Le 2012-09-07 11:50, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 11:36:35 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> Again, "communications" could mean just about anything.
>>>
>>> If you mean the 3 people on Earth who design the protocol stacks...
>>> well,
>>> those have already been designed. And we already have the 3 people who
>>> design them.
>>
>> :headdesk: :headdesk: :headdesk:
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
> Indeed.  Johnathan Postel's been dead a while.  This means there's an
> opening for Andy.
> 
> ;)

LOL

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:40:13 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:

> Le 2012-09-07 11:48, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 11:24:02 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>>>>> crypto/security
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, almost *nobody* actually does that.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.  I'm presently working with two teams that are knee-deep in
>>>> crypto and security work.  Identity management, authentication, etc -
>>>> all use that extensively.
>>>
>>> You're telling me there are more than three people on Earth who
>>> actually design ciphers?
>>
>> crypto/security isn't just about designing ciphers.
>>
>> And I'm telling you that there are more than 3 people who work with
>> crypto and security.
>>
>>
> Who else besides Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman?
> 
> ;)

Well, you and I both know that there's more than just RSA when it comes 
to encryption.

And that crypto algorithm research also includes testing - practically 
and mathematically - the strength of the existing algorithms and 
techniques for breaking the algorithms.  This would include research into 
prime number determination as well as looking for other weaknesses in the 
algorithms.

And the design of better algorithms, hardware acceleration, and so on.

Then there's the application of crypto to applications, data storage, and 
so on.

But of course, you and I don't look at it as "simple".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Em 07/09/2012 08:24, scott escreveu:
>>> Manufacturing uses robotics in a huge way.
>>
>> OK. But those robots already exist. Why would you ever need to design
>> more?
>
> Competition. If you don't design new robots that are faster, more
> accurate, more versatile and cheaper than your previous generation, your
> customers will buy their robots from someone who has designed new ones.

at least until robots do the design of faster and better robots.  Then 
no one will do any more shopping.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Em 07/09/2012 08:24, scott escreveu:
> >>> Manufacturing uses robotics in a huge way.
> >>
> >> OK. But those robots already exist. Why would you ever need to design
> >> more?
> >
> > Competition. If you don't design new robots that are faster, more
> > accurate, more versatile and cheaper than your previous generation, your
> > customers will buy their robots from someone who has designed new ones.
>
> at least until robots do the design of faster and better robots.  Then
> no one will do any more shopping.

So the Robot Apocalypse ends suddenly when they all decide it would be more fun
to just go shopping?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> Now, don't despair, just move on to the next interview - and the next,
> and the next, until you find the right job.

Gotta love these cell phones.  Today I got to overhear some guy talking about
this dude who was just awarded a doctorate in engineering, summa cum laude, from
the University of Texas at Austin.*  This guy is talking about how he took a
gander at the spreadsheet the new doctor dudemade to organize his job search.
It's in a spreadsheet because, well, how else would a brilliant engineering
graduate keep track of 350 applications?  And he hasn't found a job yet.

* UT Austin has a decent engineering program.  I'm at UT San Antonio, which is
cheaper and more convenient.

It looks like I'll be screwed, too, even if I get that far.

Cheers OP!
[La Marouette Cabernet-Sauvignon]

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 00:29:49 -0400, waggy wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> Now, don't despair, just move on to the next interview - and the next,
>> and the next, until you find the right job.
> 
> Gotta love these cell phones.  Today I got to overhear some guy talking
> about this dude who was just awarded a doctorate in engineering, summa
> cum laude, from the University of Texas at Austin.*  This guy is talking
> about how he took a gander at the spreadsheet the new doctor dudemade to
> organize his job search. It's in a spreadsheet because, well, how else
> would a brilliant engineering graduate keep track of 350 applications? 
> And he hasn't found a job yet.
> 
> * UT Austin has a decent engineering program.  I'm at UT San Antonio,
> which is cheaper and more convenient.
> 
> It looks like I'll be screwed, too, even if I get that far.

Nah, sometimes it's a question of luck, too.

As I told Andy, don't despair.  It's not about the rejections, it's about 
the one that accepts you.  For the ones who reject you, it's their loss.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 08.09.2012 05:37, schrieb waggy:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Em 07/09/2012 08:24, scott escreveu:
>>>>> Manufacturing uses robotics in a huge way.
>>>>
>>>> OK. But those robots already exist. Why would you ever need to design
>>>> more?
>>>
>>> Competition. If you don't design new robots that are faster, more
>>> accurate, more versatile and cheaper than your previous generation, your
>>> customers will buy their robots from someone who has designed new ones.
>>
>> at least until robots do the design of faster and better robots.  Then
>> no one will do any more shopping.
>
> So the Robot Apocalypse ends suddenly when they all decide it would be more fun
> to just go shopping?

http://xkcd.com/1046/

Post a reply to this message

On 08/09/2012 1:21 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 08.09.2012 05:37, schrieb waggy:

>>
>> So the Robot Apocalypse ends suddenly when they all decide it would be
>> more fun
>> to just go shopping?
>
> http://xkcd.com/1046/
>

Andrew? ??? ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 9/6/2012 2:34, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> rather than "web-based business development".

This is secret code for "10+ hour days trying to meet the unrealistic 
expectations and deadlines of our clients, rather than someone who you can 
actually talk to when they tell you to do something infeasible."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."

Post a reply to this message

On 9/6/2012 9:52, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> So apparently there were a shedload of people far better than me
> to choose from.

You can't rank something like that on a linear scale. There were a number of 
people they thought were better for their job than you were, yes.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."

Post a reply to this message

On 9/6/2012 9:46, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> The thing is, I can't think of any career that makes use of an ability to
> memorise and apply pointless algorithms...

The legal system. It's like hacking English.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."

Post a reply to this message

On 9/6/2012 12:05, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> The thing is, I can't think of any career that makes use of an ability
>>> to memorise and apply pointless algorithms...
>>
>> Off the top of my head:
>
>> research
>
> Seriously? That's a career? Talk about "vague"...

The point is that whatever you research in any field, you're going to need 
that ability.

>> finance
> Wouldn't I need extensive finance qualifications to do that?

No. The finance guys have extensive knowledge. They rely on technical guys 
to implement their algorithms. I know several mathematicians who don't know 
how to predict stocks, but know how to program computers with algorithms to 
predict stocks. And they use baroque custom languages like R, K, etc.

>> crypto/security
> Seriously, almost *nobody* actually does that.

Really? Wow. I guess all the people working in that field would disagree. 
You realize this includes things like analyzing how you can tell someone is 
breaking into your system and such, right?

>> logistics
>
> Really? I'm sure it's difficult keeping track of stuff, but I don't see much
> technical detail involved. It's just about keeping track of a lot of stuff
> all at once. It's hard, but it isn't very technical.

It's about getting it there efficiently. Logistics: Customer orders four 
dump trucks of cement. You have to figure out when to send the trucks to get 
it there soon enough after they're ready that they don't waste time, but not 
so soon that it congeals inside the truck. You also have to know how they're 
going to use it, so you can space out the trucks so the second is ready 
before the first has set enough. You have to have real-time traffic 
estimates, knowing how to route around them, including rerouting trucks 
already moving to get them where they're supposed to go at the right times. 
You have to account for days when a truck breaks down, a driver is out sick, 
or a construction company cancels or defers an order.  And that's just local 
delivery of fucking *cement*. What do you think a company like Amazon or UPS 
needs?

>> data mining
> Does anybody actually do that? I thought it was just a fashionable middle
> management buzzword.

That's ... all google does, basically. Every company that actually has a 
successful business needs constant "Actionable Business Information." How 
much to order. Who to hire. Where to advertise.

Heck, I write computer programs at Google, and my salary is based on how 
much money those computer programs make, just like salesmen get commission. 
How do you measure it? Well, if the user watches a lesson on my program, and 
then goes into one of the other programs and does what the lesson told him 
to do, and from that Google makes more money, then I attribute part of that 
to my program. *figuring out* those relationships is difficult. Going the 
extra step of looking at what he's already doing and suggesting other things 
he could tell his clients to ask for is yet another level harder.

Not that it's especially complex math, but the complexity is pretty 
astounding, especially when you're talking about the size of databases 
Google deals with.

>> robotics
> Is there any commercial application for that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvf29R7nXlM

>  From what I've seen, installing comms equipment doesn't require a great
> deal of technical skill - you just need to be good at carrying stuff around
> and running cables.

Heh heh heh. So, you already know how to calibrate a cell phone tower 
installation? How to splice optical fiber? How to run 10Kilovolt power 
circuits?

You've only installed stuff that was built for retail installation, clearly.

Granted, probably not a whole lot of programming involved.

>> marketing
> There's technical expertise in that?

If you're marketing technical products, you'll sell 10x as much if the 
person writing the ad actually knows what the product does, yes.

Do you think you could talk to the manufacturer and write a reasonable ad 
for a desktop computer system or a tape backup carousel? Do you think you 
could talk to the manufacturer and write a reasonable ad for an 
anti-retrovirus drug?

>> disaster response
> What kind of disaster response requires technical skill?

The kind where the disaster has struck technical infrastructure. Didn't you 
write the disaster recovery documents for your previous job? Could you have 
done that without knowing anything about technology?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."

Post a reply to this message

On 9/7/2012 3:24, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Ironically, I'm really quite bad with numbers. I'm good with /equations/...

That's what finance is about.

> You're telling me there are more than three people on Earth who actually
> design ciphers?

There's a lot more to security than designing the cyphers. And yes, Bellcore 
had, for example, a 250 person department doing just that sort of stuff. 
Ever hear of the NSA? Is it MI6 where you are, or some other part?

> I would have thought that querying the data to get the numbers you want is
> the /easy/ part.

It's really not, because the numbers aren't in one place. The number you 
want is "what percentage of what I spent on each project (ad, program, etc) 
actually turned into profit money?"

> The hard part, surely, is figuring out what questions to
> ask in the first place. And that is out of my league.

Nope. The easy part is asking the question.  "If I buy the new lab analysis 
machine for $100K, how long before I make that money back, and how much more 
will I make over its lifetime?"

Or "how frequently should we make backups? If we make them too frequently, 
then the amount of effort we spend making backups we never restore outweighs 
the amount of effort it would take to reproduce the results from the time of 
the last back up to the time of the crash where we needed the restoration."

> OK. But those robots already exist. Why would you ever need to design more?

The robotics for making space stations don't really exist. Nor do the 
robotics for manufacturing flying automobiles.

>>>> marketing
>>>
>>> There's technical expertise in that?
>>
>> Yes. Writing marketing copy that actually convinces technical people
>> requires technical expertise.
>
> You must be looking at very different "marketing copy" than the stuff I've
> seen.

That's because you're not looking at marketing copy for products marketed to 
technical people. Look at some ads for computers on Amazon.

> In particular, such material is utterly devoid of even the slightest hint of
> technical detail. Lots of hand-waving about "total cost of ownership" and
> "return on investment" and so forth, but no technical specifications, and no
> prices.

Because that's the numbers the business people want to know. See above.

Now, go look at an ad for a scuba computer. Or a camera.

> Or rather, it requires technical skill to design the data center correctly
> in the first place. By the time a disaster actually occurs, it should be
> easy enough that a trained monkey could do the actual recovery part...

It depends how big your data center is. Trust me, when something "goes 
wrong" at a google data center, and they start seeing 15-second drops of 4% 
packet loss every hour or so over various inter-center data connections, 
figuring out wtf is going on is quite technical.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."

Post a reply to this message

On 9/7/2012 8:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
> That's not actually how it works.  I know from having worked on DR plans
> for large and small companies.

Indeed, if it worked that way, you would have just planned to avoid the 
disaster in the first place.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."

Post a reply to this message

On 08/09/2012 04:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/6/2012 9:46, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> The thing is, I can't think of any career that makes use of an ability to
>> memorise and apply pointless algorithms...
>
> The legal system. It's like hacking English.

Not really. Computer systems follow rules. The legal system does not. 
(And neither does English, BTW.)

Post a reply to this message

>>> finance
>> Wouldn't I need extensive finance qualifications to do that?
>
> No. The finance guys have extensive knowledge. They rely on technical
> guys to implement their algorithms. I know several mathematicians who
> don't know how to predict stocks, but know how to program computers with
> algorithms to predict stocks. And they use baroque custom languages like
> R, K, etc.

I saw an interesting comment on LinkedIn about this - saying that nobody 
uses Haskell for this kind of thing because it's "non-deterministic", in 
that the calculation might take 10 seconds or 10 years, and there's no 
way to know which. [This is obviously false, but I can see where 
somebody might get that misconception...]

> It's about getting it there efficiently. Logistics: Customer orders four
> dump trucks of cement. You have to figure out when to send the trucks to
> get it there soon enough after they're ready that they don't waste time,
> but not so soon that it congeals inside the truck. You also have to know
> how they're going to use it, so you can space out the trucks so the
> second is ready before the first has set enough. You have to have
> real-time traffic estimates, knowing how to route around them, including
> rerouting trucks already moving to get them where they're supposed to go
> at the right times. You have to account for days when a truck breaks
> down, a driver is out sick, or a construction company cancels or defers
> an order. And that's just local delivery of fucking *cement*. What do
> you think a company like Amazon or UPS needs?

Hmm, interesting. I assumed they just get it wrong most of the time.

>>> data mining
>> Does anybody actually do that? I thought it was just a fashionable middle
>> management buzzword.
>
> That's ... all google does, basically.

Yeah, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around how Google actually 
obtains any income...

> Not that it's especially complex math, but the complexity is pretty
> astounding, especially when you're talking about the size of databases
> Google deals with.

OK. But does any other company on the planet do that?

>> From what I've seen, installing comms equipment doesn't require a great
>> deal of technical skill - you just need to be good at carrying stuff
>> around and running cables.
>
> Heh heh heh. So, you already know how to calibrate a cell phone tower
> installation? How to splice optical fiber? How to run 10Kilovolt power
> circuits?
>
> You've only installed stuff that was built for retail installation,
> clearly.
>
> Granted, probably not a whole lot of programming involved.

I've seen a guy splice fiber. He cut the two ends, put them in a 
machine, and pressed a button. It used a digital microscope to align the 
ends in three dimensions, and then weld them together. Freaky as hell. 
Apparently it costs about £8,000. (Which is presumably peanuts compared 
to what the fiber it splices costs...)

Post a reply to this message

On 07/09/2012 03:46 PM, scott wrote:
>> Sure, there are autonomous machines all around us. I don't think that
>> designing or programming them requires a vast amount of technical
>> knowledge - just extensive testing and experimentation.
>
> That's a very bad way to design products, it's expensive and time
> consuming, and liable to create a product with lots of bugs you don't
> find until they're out in the field. Far better to get people with vast
> technical knowledge to properly design the product in the first place,
> the actual product testing should just be a formality, not a tool to
> find the best design.

I take it you don't subscript to "test-driven software development" as a 
methodology either? ;-)

> But don't worry, you're not alone in underestimating the amount of
> design work that goes into everyday products. Once you've been to a few
> conferences on design and simulation software you realise that nothing
> is just designed by trial and error. For example even the part of your
> dishwasher that contains the salt to soften the water has been carefully
> studied, designed and simulated to minimise salt use, pressure drop and
> material costs. Certainly some person didn't just draw it out and say
> "that'll work, let's test it" and then maybe make a couple of tweaks.
> You wouldn't survive 5 minutes if your company worked like that.

I can imagine a lot of design work goes into a brand new product. But if 
you're making a dishwasher, you're not making a brand new product. 
You're making a product which is nearly identical to several hundred 
thousand existing products, but with one or two trivial differences. 
Most of the research has already been done. You just need to 
double-check that your new design doesn't contain any unexpected flaws.

Post a reply to this message

>>> Right. And encryption/decryption algoritms sprout from trees?
>>
>> From what I've seen, there are, like, three academics globally who
>> write the vast majority of this stuff. And there are already /way/ more
>> ciphers in existence than anybody actually wants or needs.
>
> Ok. And no one ever needs to implement those algorithms?

Well, that's true. I mean, it's not as if there are already thousands of 
proprietary and open-source libraries that implement both basic 
cryptographic primitives and entire protocols... Oh, wait.

Post a reply to this message

>> You must be looking at very different "marketing copy" than the stuff
>> I've seen.
>
> That's because you're not looking at marketing copy for products
> marketed to technical people. Look at some ads for computers on Amazon.

Unfortunately Dell figured out that I'm the head of the UK IT 
department. (Hell, I *am* the UK IT department!) Hence, every single 
frigging month they mail me an A4 pamphlet telling me about all the 
fantastic stuff they can sell me.

No technical detail ANYWHERE! >_<

Seriously, you're telling me your stuff will revolutionise by business, 
but you can't actually articulate WHY?

But wait a minute... I'm not there now. Ah! Now all their junkmail will 
be returned to sender. Oh, this makes me very happy. :-D

Post a reply to this message

On 08/09/2012 5:15 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/7/2012 8:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's not actually how it works.  I know from having worked on DR plans
>> for large and small companies.
>
> Indeed, if it worked that way, you would have just planned to avoid the
> disaster in the first place.
>

O_O

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 08/09/2012 5:25 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 08/09/2012 04:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 9/6/2012 9:46, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> The thing is, I can't think of any career that makes use of an
>>> ability to
>>> memorise and apply pointless algorithms...
>>
>> The legal system. It's like hacking English.
>
> Not really. Computer systems follow rules. The legal system does not.
> (And neither does English, BTW.)

I take it that you don't want to find a job just find reasons that you 
won't get one.

Please listen to the people who have many more years of experience than 
you do. And have worked in more than one place.
That last statement is just troll-ish.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 17:41:01 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> You must be looking at very different "marketing copy" than the stuff
>>> I've seen.
>>
>> That's because you're not looking at marketing copy for products
>> marketed to technical people. Look at some ads for computers on Amazon.
> 
> Unfortunately Dell figured out that I'm the head of the UK IT
> department. (Hell, I *am* the UK IT department!) Hence, every single
> frigging month they mail me an A4 pamphlet telling me about all the
> fantastic stuff they can sell me.
> 
> No technical detail ANYWHERE! >_<
> 
> Seriously, you're telling me your stuff will revolutionise by business,
> but you can't actually articulate WHY?

Yes, because Dell is representative of companies that actually do 
technical marketing /correctly/.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 09:15:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 9/7/2012 8:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's not actually how it works.  I know from having worked on DR
>> plans for large and small companies.
> 
> Indeed, if it worked that way, you would have just planned to avoid the
> disaster in the first place.

Yup.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> Yes, because Dell is representative of companies that actually do
> technical marketing /correctly/.

Alternatively, Dell has figured out that purchasing decisions are made 
by the pointy-haired boss, not the guy who actually knows about this stuff.

Then again, given what a stellar company Dell isn't...

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 20:27:47 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> Yes, because Dell is representative of companies that actually do
>> technical marketing /correctly/.
> 
> Alternatively, Dell has figured out that purchasing decisions are made
> by the pointy-haired boss, not the guy who actually knows about this
> stuff.
> 
> Then again, given what a stellar company Dell isn't...

Maybe you need to have a look at some of the websites that list technical 
requirements for products instead of picking the one company you've 
interacted with that does things the way that you assume everyone does 
them.

Just a thought.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> Yes, because Dell is representative of companies that actually do
>>> technical marketing /correctly/.
>>
>> Alternatively, Dell has figured out that purchasing decisions are made
>> by the pointy-haired boss, not the guy who actually knows about this
>> stuff.
>>
>> Then again, given what a stellar company Dell isn't...
>
> Maybe you need to have a look at some of the websites that list technical
> requirements for products instead of picking the one company you've
> interacted with that does things the way that you assume everyone does
> them.
>
> Just a thought.

Did I mention that I used Dell for the absolute minimum amount of stuff? 
They certainly aren't be favourite company. :-P

And yes, if you go to just about any website to purchase stuff, they 
give you a list of technical specifications. But that's not "marketing 
copy", is it?

Post a reply to this message

On 9/7/2012 7:46, scott wrote:
> nothing is just designed by trial and error.

The handset of classic telephones like this
http://i891.photobucket.com/albums/ac112/stur5380/Misc%20pics/IMG_0982.jpg
spent 14 months in design research, with hundreds of test subjects.

The arrangement of buttons on a touch-tone phone was one of something like 
15 or 18 possible patterns, with people trying out how fast they could dial 
numbers and how long they could remember what number they dialed.

Even trivial things like "count to ten" thus take months of research.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."

Post a reply to this message

On 9/8/2012 9:30, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> OK. But does any other company on the planet do that?

Every single other company on the planet does this, or they're not yet 
making any money and hence are a bad bet for you to be applying to. It's 
fundamental planning. It's what you're *supposed* to be learning to do when 
you get an MBA degree.

> I've seen a guy splice fiber. He cut the two ends, put them in a machine,
> and pressed a button. It used a digital microscope to align the ends in
> three dimensions, and then weld them together. Freaky as hell.

Yep, then it tests it and tells him if it worked. And to find the break, you 
plug a different machine in, it flashes a laser down the wire, figures out 
how long it takes to return after bouncing off the break, and then tells you 
where to go to fix it.

Now, how much technical skill do you think it took to design those machines, 
and how much technical skill do you think it took to do that work before 
those machines were common?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 20:54:17 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Did I mention that I used Dell for the absolute minimum amount of stuff?
> They certainly aren't be favourite company. :-P

You had mentioned that once or twice, I believe.  I don't believe I 
claimed they were your favourite company, just the one that happened to 
meet your narrow expectations.

> And yes, if you go to just about any website to purchase stuff, they
> give you a list of technical specifications. But that's not "marketing
> copy", is it?

It sure is.  You think it gets accurately written on its own?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> And yes, if you go to just about any website to purchase stuff, they
>> give you a list of technical specifications. But that's not "marketing
>> copy", is it?
>
> It sure is.  You think it gets accurately written on its own?

 From what I've seen, it gets /inaccurately/ copied and pasted from the 
manufacturer's own website. :-P

I don't think of a table of figures as "copy". I think of something 
written in English.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 10:29:49 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> And yes, if you go to just about any website to purchase stuff, they
>>> give you a list of technical specifications. But that's not "marketing
>>> copy", is it?
>>
>> It sure is.  You think it gets accurately written on its own?
> 
>  From what I've seen, it gets /inaccurately/ copied and pasted from the
> manufacturer's own website. :-P

And who does the work for the manufacturer's website?  Is it just magic?

> I don't think of a table of figures as "copy". I think of something
> written in English.

It certainly counts as documentation that gets created by someone, and it 
takes time to pull the info together.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> There's a lot more to security than designing the cyphers. And yes,
> Bellcore had, for example, a 250 person department doing just that sort
> of stuff. Ever hear of the NSA? Is it MI6 where you are, or some other
> part?

http://www.gchq.gov.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Headquarters

Post a reply to this message

> I take it you don't subscript to "test-driven software development" as a
> methodology either? ;-)

Sure, do tests, but properly design the stuff first (including the 
tests). You shouldn't use testing as a substitute for good design.

> I can imagine a lot of design work goes into a brand new product. But if
> you're making a dishwasher, you're not making a brand new product.
> You're making a product which is nearly identical to several hundred
> thousand existing products, but with one or two trivial differences.
> Most of the research has already been done. You just need to
> double-check that your new design doesn't contain any unexpected flaws.

If you just did that most shops wouldn't even stock your new product 
because the water and power usage would be far above your competitors. 
You think the latest machines are more efficient and better at cleaning 
by magic?

You could use the same argument for car engines, just take the previous 
one, add a couple of trivial differences and test it. But again nobody 
would buy your new car because all your competitors would have spent the 
last 5 years designing a far more efficient engine (even if it looks the 
same from the outside).

Post a reply to this message

>> nothing is just designed by trial and error.
>
> The handset of classic telephones like this
> http://i891.photobucket.com/albums/ac112/stur5380/Misc%20pics/IMG_0982.jpg
> spent 14 months in design research, with hundreds of test subjects.
>
> The arrangement of buttons on a touch-tone phone was one of something
> like 15 or 18 possible patterns, with people trying out how fast they
> could dial numbers and how long they could remember what number they
> dialed.
>
> Even trivial things like "count to ten" thus take months of research.

Sure when complex human interaction is involved it's often difficult to 
avoid testing, but even so there is still lots of work going on to try 
and understand and predict human behaviour exactly to avoid having to do 
such tests.

My point was it's cheaper to avoid real physical testing, especially 
when expensive or lengthy tests are needed. If there is a feasible way 
to avoid it (like by spending more time in design or simulation) it's 
usually better.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/09/2012 09:51 AM, scott wrote:
>> I take it you don't subscript to "test-driven software development" as a
>> methodology either? ;-)
>
> Sure, do tests, but properly design the stuff first (including the
> tests). You shouldn't use testing as a substitute for good design.

Amen.

> You think the latest machines are more efficient and better at cleaning
> by magic?

No. I think they aren't any more efficient at all.

> You could use the same argument for car engines, just take the previous
> one, add a couple of trivial differences and test it. But again nobody
> would buy your new car because all your competitors would have spent the
> last 5 years designing a far more efficient engine (even if it looks the
> same from the outside).

Surely trying to tune an engine to get a few percent more efficiency out 
of it is vastly easier than INVENTING the internal combustion engine in 
the first place...

Post a reply to this message

>> You think the latest machines are more efficient and better at cleaning
>> by magic?
>
> No. I think they aren't any more efficient at all.

Why do you think that?

A quick google found this:

http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/pdf/FSEC-CR-1772-08.pdf

"For instance, in 1993, the energy per cycle for
dishwashers averaged about 2.6 kWh/cycle along with a hot water use of 
about 10 gallons (38
liters). By 2004, with new energy standards (DOE, 2003) the numbers had 
fallen to about 1.8
kWh/cycle with typical water use of about 6 gallons (23 liters)."

How do you think they managed to do that and still clean the dishes? 
They certainly didn't just adjust the amount of water used.

> Surely trying to tune an engine to get a few percent more efficiency out
> of it is vastly easier than INVENTING the internal combustion engine in
> the first place...

Actually no. You try taking a device that has been under mass production 
for decades and the subject of continuous research. If you could get a 
few % more efficiency then you'd be able to ask for a very high salary 
from a lot of companies instantly :-)

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-09-08 12:33, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 07/09/2012 03:46 PM, scott wrote:
>> But don't worry, you're not alone in underestimating the amount of
>> design work that goes into everyday products. Once you've been to a few
>> conferences on design and simulation software you realise that nothing
>> is just designed by trial and error. For example even the part of your
>> dishwasher that contains the salt to soften the water has been carefully
>> studied, designed and simulated to minimise salt use, pressure drop and
>> material costs. Certainly some person didn't just draw it out and say
>> "that'll work, let's test it" and then maybe make a couple of tweaks.
>> You wouldn't survive 5 minutes if your company worked like that.
>
> I can imagine a lot of design work goes into a brand new product. But if
> you're making a dishwasher, you're not making a brand new product.
> You're making a product which is nearly identical to several hundred
> thousand existing products, but with one or two trivial differences.
> Most of the research has already been done. You just need to
> double-check that your new design doesn't contain any unexpected flaws.

Even changing a small mounting bracket requires lots of simulation 
(Google finite elements analysis* ) to make sure the bracket will not 
break after 3 months of use.

Even if a good deal of the research has been done, a change in 
regulations, or market conditions, can force a dish-washing machine 
maker to have to review the entire design.

Besides, there's lots of research that has to be redone because it was 
initially done by another company and you can't be sued for 
reverse-engineering their product, so if both use 1/8th inch mounting 
brackets, you need to be able to show a judge that you did do all the 
calculations necessary to determine that it was the proper thickness, 
ans that you didn't simply copy the other company's bracket.

* lots of math and programming in that field, for someone with an 
interest in those.  You may not know the first thing about strength of 
materials, or vibrations, but the engineers and physicists who do can't 
program their way out of a paper bag, so they need programmers and math 
is the common languages that these two groups speak.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-09-08 12:36, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>>> Right. And encryption/decryption algoritms sprout from trees?
>>>
>>> From what I've seen, there are, like, three academics globally who
>>> write the vast majority of this stuff. And there are already /way/ more
>>> ciphers in existence than anybody actually wants or needs.
>>
>> Ok. And no one ever needs to implement those algorithms?
>
> Well, that's true. I mean, it's not as if there are already thousands of
> proprietary and open-source libraries that implement both basic
> cryptographic primitives and entire protocols... Oh, wait.

Suuuure. The government, military and finance industries really love 
using open-source libraries to encrypt their confidential information.

And private industries really, absolutely, unequivocally love having to 
distribute their software for free because theses same open source 
libraries have licencing terms that prevent them from being used in 
commercial software!

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 10/09/2012 02:51 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2012-09-08 12:36, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>>>> Right. And encryption/decryption algoritms sprout from trees?
>>>>
>>>> From what I've seen, there are, like, three academics globally who
>>>> write the vast majority of this stuff. And there are already /way/ more
>>>> ciphers in existence than anybody actually wants or needs.
>>>
>>> Ok. And no one ever needs to implement those algorithms?
>>
>> Well, that's true. I mean, it's not as if there are already thousands of
>> proprietary and open-source libraries that implement both basic
>> cryptographic primitives and entire protocols... Oh, wait.
>
> Suuuure. The government, military and finance industries really love
> using open-source libraries to encrypt their confidential information.
>
> And private industries really, absolutely, unequivocally love having to
> distribute their software for free because theses same open source
> libraries have licencing terms that prevent them from being used in
> commercial software!

Perhaps you missed the part where I said there are proprietary libraries 
for this as well?

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-09-10 10:08, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 10/09/2012 02:51 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> Le 2012-09-08 12:36, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>>>>> Right. And encryption/decryption algoritms sprout from trees?
>>>>>
>>>>> From what I've seen, there are, like, three academics globally who
>>>>> write the vast majority of this stuff. And there are already /way/
>>>>> more
>>>>> ciphers in existence than anybody actually wants or needs.
>>>>
>>>> Ok. And no one ever needs to implement those algorithms?
>>>
>>> Well, that's true. I mean, it's not as if there are already thousands of
>>> proprietary and open-source libraries that implement both basic
>>> cryptographic primitives and entire protocols... Oh, wait.
>>
>> Suuuure. The government, military and finance industries really love
>> using open-source libraries to encrypt their confidential information.
>>
>> And private industries really, absolutely, unequivocally love having to
>> distribute their software for free because theses same open source
>> libraries have licencing terms that prevent them from being used in
>> commercial software!
>
> Perhaps you missed the part where I said there are proprietary libraries
> for this as well?

No I didn't.  I was addressing the open-source part of your comment.

As for proprietary libraries, you do realise that they need maintaining, 
being ported to new platforms, etc...


-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

> As for proprietary libraries, you do realise that they need maintaining,
> being ported to new platforms, etc...

Large, complex applications need maintaining. A small single-function 
library that already works correctly? Why would it need any maintenance? 
As for porting, most of this stuff seems to be written in ANSI C, and 
it's pure algorithmic code. You would /think/ it's fairly portable...

Now, code to drive custom hardware implementations? That might be more 
tricky.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-09-10 12:30, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>> As for proprietary libraries, you do realise that they need maintaining,
>> being ported to new platforms, etc...
>
> Large, complex applications need maintaining. A small single-function
> library that already works correctly? Why would it need any maintenance?
> As for porting, most of this stuff seems to be written in ANSI C, and
> it's pure algorithmic code. You would /think/ it's fairly portable...

Still, there's one guy or gal whose job description is to be in charge 
of it, just in case.  Now, said guy or gal, may be responsible for 
hundreds of these single-function libraries, but there still needs to be 
someone to wake up at 2am when a someone figures out how to read the 
encryption key in memory, or that you thought would be secure since you 
ROT-13ed it.  Twice.

>
> Now, code to drive custom hardware implementations? That might be more
> tricky.

There you go.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

> Well, that's true. I mean, it's not as if there are already thousands of
> proprietary and open-source libraries that implement both basic
> cryptographic primitives and entire protocols... Oh, wait.

I wonder how many people were involved with defining the standard for eg 
the BluRay format? Seems like quite a lot of work heavily based around 
preventing people breaking the encryption, and recovering from the 
situation if someone does break it. I highly doubt they will just 
copy&paste that solution to the next generation format, so surely there 
are people actively working on this.

Then not to mention all the people working on writing players for 
BluRay, both for standalone hardware and software to run on computers 
and games consoles. I imagine you wouldn't be able to do that without a 
good understanding of how the algorithms work.

Or maybe you could work for Sony writing rootkits for their audio CDs 
:-) Or Sky to encrypt the TV signals from satellites (don't think that 
was written once and never changes), or banks or credit card companies, 
or ...

It seems like a pretty endless list to me of companies that would 
require programmers with a very good understanding of how to select and 
implement cryptographic techniques. Hey, even we have two software guys 
here implementing these things into RFID tags, and we make printers!

Post a reply to this message

On 11/09/2012 08:38 AM, scott wrote:
>> Well, that's true. I mean, it's not as if there are already thousands of
>> proprietary and open-source libraries that implement both basic
>> cryptographic primitives and entire protocols... Oh, wait.
>
> I wonder how many people were involved with defining the standard for eg
> the BluRay format? Seems like quite a lot of work heavily based around
> preventing people breaking the encryption, and recovering from the
> situation if someone does break it. I highly doubt they will just
> copy&paste that solution to the next generation format, so surely there
> are people actively working on this.

I'm sure the actual cryptographic primitives are well-known 
off-the-shelf models. The protocol by which they are combined into a 
complete system? Yeah, that's probably band new.

> Or maybe you could work for Sony writing rootkits for their audio CDs
> :-)

You realise that Sony BMG didn't actually /write/ that, right? They just 
/bought/ it from some crappy 3rd party company [who presumably has 
really good sales staff]. Probably sold it to some marketiod suit who 
doesn't understand the first thing about computers, claiming it was a 
magic bullet to completely solve all their problems for just $$$/month.

> It seems like a pretty endless list to me of companies that would
> require programmers with a very good understanding of how to select and
> implement cryptographic techniques. Hey, even we have two software guys
> here implementing these things into RFID tags, and we make printers!

Well, maybe. Also seems like they wouldn't need very many of these guys, 
and not very often.

Post a reply to this message

> I'm sure the actual cryptographic primitives are well-known
> off-the-shelf models. The protocol by which they are combined into a
> complete system? Yeah, that's probably band new.

That was my point, you seem to be looking very narrow mindedly at jobs, 
and deciding which primitive to use and how to implement it into a 
complete system in a secure way is not trivial.

> You realise that Sony BMG didn't actually /write/ that, right? They just
> /bought/ it from some crappy 3rd party company [who presumably has
> really good sales staff].

Only if it is a completely off-the-shelf product that can be just used 
as-is. I would imagine in most cases the 3rd party would be developing 
custom software for someone like Sony, and thus Sony would be quite well 
involved with the spec and development, not just at management level.

>> It seems like a pretty endless list to me of companies that would
>> require programmers with a very good understanding of how to select and
>> implement cryptographic techniques. Hey, even we have two software guys
>> here implementing these things into RFID tags, and we make printers!
>
> Well, maybe. Also seems like they wouldn't need very many of these guys,
> and not very often.

If you're looking for a job where you spend 8 hours a day 5 days a week 
working on pure crypto algorithms then agreed these are going to be 
harder to find than ones where you work on crypto stuff as only a part 
of the job. I don't think we would employ anyone solely to do the crypto 
work, we need them to do other stuff when necessary (but then we're a 
small company where software is a minor part of the product).

Post a reply to this message

On 6-9-2012 21:05, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> The thing is, I can't think of any career that makes use of an ability
>>> to memorise and apply pointless algorithms...
>>
>> Off the top of my head:
>
>> research
>
> Seriously? That's a career? Talk about "vague"...

Not much more than: data-analist, programmer, or even farmer.
FYI when asked what my job is, 'researcher' is my most common reply.

Bio-informatics/bio-statistics would also fit your description.


-- 
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low

Post a reply to this message