I know I have the aptitude... drive would be my problem. I just find it difficult to actually want to work on something.
That's not really abnormal is it?...
As obvious as it sounds, you should go into the field that you are passionate about.
As one old dude said a long time ago: "Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude"
You should read the essay "How to do what you love" by pg [0]. One thing he says is that it's easy to think you love something just because it has lots of prestige around it. I don't know you, so it is possible that you will love technology, but from your comment "Because the tech industry is what I'm passionate about. My lack of drive comes from things like lack of self-confidence and motivation.", it seems to me that you're into it just because it seems cool from the outside. At least for me, it's impossible to be passionate about something and lacking of drive about the same thing.
What is it in the tech industry you are passionate about? Do you like to solve complex problem through coding? Do you think technology can give you more leverage? The tech industry is huge, so my advice for you would be first to find what you really like about technology.
One more thing. Maybe you will find my comment contemptuous, but I promise you that it is not the case. I am just writing what I would like to have read when I was younger.
Hm, well now that I look back at the comment I made at 2am, it seems rather silly to say I'm passionate about the tech industry itself.
The thing is that I've always been fascinated with technology and what it can do. I love working with it and I love making it work. As far as I'm concerned, making something useful in Java or putting together a computer is just as much fun as watching a movie or eating food.
My problem with drive is the whole "do what you're told" thing. I've tried doing things for a friend, but I often get bored in the middle of it because I'm just doing what I'm told, and it's not of any particular value or interest to me. Things that I don't think are just really cool or things that don't benefit me personally are harder to work on... and I don't think I'm the only one with this problem.
But anyways, thanks for the link, it's a good read and definitely something to think about either way.
Unless you're working for yourself on your own product it's hard to find something you're 100% passionate about. But the funny thing about that is working for yourself is one of the hardest things you can ever strive to do. It is even harder when you get married and have kids because your free time evaporates to zero. Now is the time to go for independence if you can do it
Gmail is a significant enough profit center that it's unlikely to ever be under threat. Reader didn't directly contribute to the bottom line (and arguably led to fewer ad views).
It is a lot easier for people to protest by not doing anything than actually putting effort into it. Switching from Gmail to some other provider involves a lot of friction. Not using a newly released product (assuming this will be one) is fairly easy.
Such things are hard to judge. I have a feeling that a lot of people (a lot more than usual anyway) have recently transferred their email from an @gmail.com address to a Google hosted custom domain.
Yeah, it's best to get one of the more "open" devices if you want support from the community for a long time, and it helps if it's higher end, too, but even if it's low-end it should at least be a popular one.
For example, Galaxy Ace and LG Optimus One were very popular, and they're getting even the latest version of Android for them with CM. And last I checked JB was very fast on them. I also have JB on my own HTC Legend, which was also one of the most locked down phones ever. I went through a lot of trouble, and even had it "bricked" (not final) while trying to unlock it. But now I run a JB CM10 rom on it pretty well.
Not sure what that has to do with it, unless it was just a general complaint that no one develops anything for your phone. If the kernel for your device has been released, you can build vanilla AOSP fairly easy by pulling the general AOSP source matching your latest OTA and also pulling the proprietary drivers from your phone and building the kernel.
There's some guides out there on how to do it, but would have to look around for something specific.
Of course that also means you have to have an unlocked bootloader as well or the above is kind of moot.
It was more of a general complaint. I have a Kyocera Rise, and it's locked down pretty well. The fact that it's a fairly unpopular budget phone doesn't help.
The kernel was released... But I don't think I have the patience to try porting something myself.
See, that's why I don't like these lynch mobs that form. He wasn't "defending her" as much as empathizing with her role and duties and using grown-up language to debate grown-up topics like a bunch of goddamn grown-ups.
If treating her like an adult instead of calling for her immediate resignation is defending her then I'm not sure what to say... how can you have sane debates with ideologues?
FWIW I have quibbles with the letter (e.g. it's entirely within the purview of USSS to investigate "computer crimes" due to historical circumstances) but those are just quibbles, minor areas of disagreements where sane people simply might not agree.
I agree that I expect approximately zero to come of his letter, as least as far as concrete action is concerned. But, his letter is exactly the kind of thing that is needed to appeal to those who really can make a big difference in how computer crimes are treated (as opposed to pitchforks and shrieking).
> But, his letter is exactly the kind of thing that is needed to appeal to those who really can make a big difference in how computer crimes are treated (as opposed to pitchforks and shrieking).
I actually disagree completely. Ortiz is a US Attorney. Her office is entirely aware of the legal issues. Trying to calmly inform them is a ridiculous waste of time.
For some reason she decided to launch a hyper agressive prosecution against Swartz. I'm guessing she wanted a big public win to help her political career, and she figured an introverted nerd was an easy target.
Under those circumstances pitchforks and shrieking are the only thing that can stop this from happening in the future.
> I actually disagree completely. Ortiz is a US Attorney. Her office is entirely aware of the legal issues.
Well for starters, legal issues are not computer code, even the law is open to interpretation. Even trained experts in the law are known to disagree as to its meaning, especially for laws as intentionally vague as CFAA.
However, even assuming their expertise in the law, the U.S. Attorney's office are not automatically experts at the technology and what the use of the technology means (as we are so often reminded here on HN).
Is Andrew Payne naive enough to think he is providing a U.S. Attorney information that she didn't already have? Providing the Chief of the "Cyber Crimes" unit information he didn't already have?
That is why this letter is bunk. Federal Attorney's and Prosecutors are NOT naive to cyber crime, law, punishment, etc. They've been to law school, studied case law, prosecuted cases, worked with law enforcement.
As taxpayers, we all have the right to express our opinions about how our tax money is being spent. That's what this letter is about -- and very well done, too, I think -- not providing information that Ortiz might have somehow overlooked. Yes, it does summarize the facts of the case as Payne sees them, but that's just for context.
If you are trying to write something to modify someone's behavior, attacking them is a self-defeating approach. This letter walked the fine line between encouraging all of the actions that we want encouraged, while giving its recipient the feeling that the author is truly on her side.
This would be a good example to study in case at some future date you need to write a persuasive letter to someone who did something that you don't like.
Sure, but designing around the inherent riskiness of user behavior/forgetfulness is an important part of security systems. Users want to be protected, not for blame to be shifted to them.
