Don't confuse rock star developers with people being assholes. If your arrogant attitude turned off your coworkers, then when you stop being arrogant the situation should improve. If your coworkers are assholes it will not.
There are people out there who will thrive in situations like this. I am not one of them. I have spent time in jobs with assholes like this and the time and money was never worth it.
True.
However,CS Lewis once said that if you want to be a good writer you have to be interested in more than just writing. I think the same hold true for development and or hacking. If you want to be a good developer than you should have more interests than just programming. Posts like these are a reflection of that.
True. As someone who just started aikido last year there are some moves that I would not attempt in a dangerous situation do to lack of mastery. However I have done ikkyo so many times from various starts that it could be used very effectively in a tense situation. Hopefully I never have to find out :)
As much as you feel a responsibility to the public on this you have a massive conflict of interest in this area. Sure, be nice and send your competitor an email. After that stay out of it and move on. There have been plenty of hackers who felt they were doing the right thing by informing companies of security issues they found only to have the same companies turn around and attempt to press charges on them.
yes the debate between 5.56mm and 7.62mm crowds is hot enough to rival a .Net/Java debate LOL. Still I am glad to see it. How many soldiers lost their lives because of faulty M-16's in Vietnam? How many lives were lost because of faulty equipment in WW2? I have two friends who are active duty military and if they come under fire I want to make sure that their equipment does what it needs to do when they need it. So a little spot light on these issues doesn't hurt.
The basic service rifles and carbines of WWII were reliable. So was the BAR light machine gun by then.
We're talking about the reliability and effectiveness of the very most basic weapons issued to our troops.
Heck, when counting effectiveness, the current Europellet (9mm) pistol, which has to use FMJ ammo, is much less effective in stopping than the old M1911 (the latter of which just happens to be the design I carry every time I exit my dwelling).
I agree. As a veteran myself, I often wondered about the decisions to move from the proven 7.62 to the not-so-effective 5.56. Back in WWII, if a German soldier took at .30-06 in the chest from an M1, he wasn't getting up from it. Even the British Enfield and Vickers guns using the venerable old .303 (7mm) would put a man down reliably with a solid hit.
I personally know troops who have shot insurgents several times with M4s at lethal ranges (less than 200') and they took the hits and kept fighting long enough to return fire. Those same insurgents hit with a 7.62 slug would be DRT. Full stop. There is a reason quite a few Marines and soldiers carried .357 revolvers in Vietnam. The reason was the stopping power. The 125 grain .357 traveling at 1400 FPS boasts 96% one shot stops on human torsos that are not armoured. The .357 is still the gold standard for handgun stopping power. Like you with your 1911, I'm a .357 guy. If I cannot do it with six, I need something belt fed. Plus, like a lot of guys I know, I favour a New York reload anyway.
Although I quibble that I'm a Facklerite instead of a Marshall and Evans type, so I don't trust their .357 results, I'm specifically and convincingly told their data is just not of high enough quality to support their conclusions (I haven't investigated for real because since I was a teen the M1911 has fit my hand like a glove, so it's weapon choice/shot placement first, followed by the natural choice of .45 ACP over .38 Super, which I'll note is not the equal of .357).
The Martin Fackler camp believes that at service pistol velocities killing scales with the number of holes poked in a person, stopping scales with the area of the bullet. And all things being equal, .45 is a lot bigger than .357.
However I note that that famous .357 load has a nominal velocity that's twice as high as .45 ACP, so maybe it really is disproportionately effective (note that only the 10mm has really duplicated or rather substantially exceeded its ballistics, even .357 SIG doesn't quite reach the .357 Magnum).
One thing that got me to wondering in this direction is the "unreasonable effectiveness" of ~.30 caliber ball (FMJ) ammo (e.g. including the .303, German 7×57mm and Russian 7.62×54mmR). Absent construction like the relatively fragile West German 7.62 NATO round, like e.g. AK-47 rounds it's going flip, at least partly, before exiting without fragmentation, and without dumping much of its energy unless it hits solid bone or the like.
Fackler's general thesis about wounding is that permanent crush cavity counts, "hydrostatic shock" and the like don't much or at all, soft tissue by and large gets pushed out of the way and snaps back. Note that he got his start in this in Vietnam field surgery....
But when I look at the temporary effects of a high power 7.62 or thereabouts slug, I note that in most any torso hit their radius is going to encompass the spine. So I've been wondering if their proven effectiveness on the battlefield is a combination of a potentially temporary shock effect on the CNS via the spine (plus of course the direct effects), followed by bleeding out etc. before sufficient medical care can be rendered. The first being the "put down", the second being the "stay down", or at least weak enough not to get back up and be effective.
For what it's worth, I believe the original specifications for 9mm NATO involve a higher pressure than standard commercial 9mm (effectively +P, i.e., probably not something to fire a C&R WWI Luger, but again not quite a .357 magnum).
I worked frontline customer support for a small software company that sold to county governments. The sales process was just as bad as described in this article. Most of the goverment workers and elected officials were very pleasant to work with. I had a few who were royal pains to deal but most of the people I dealt with on a regular basis were by far easier than my support at a insurance company.
I will take his tame/boring "starups" any day over a large percentage of the startups I see on TechCrunch and Pando (which I am starting to see many that have tame/boring ideas at scale anyway). His business is profitable, he doesn't need to worry about the problems that come along with accepting VC money, and can sleep in during rush hour (sold me right there LOL). Many startups are high risk with a high reward long shot with just as high failure rate. So I will take lame but profitable ideas to the bank anytime.
Thanks, this seems to be a great next step after reading the Dining Cryptographers Problem [1]! Any recommendations for papers that describe this specific implementation?
