 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] gmail com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
