I guess it's like a movie franchise or a series of novels. The first one was popular. So, write a second story with similar characters.
You can check find part I here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N2RWMMW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1 and here: https://www.packtpub.com/hardware-and-creative/python-secret-agents
Part II will be available soon. New missions. New ways to gather and analyze intelligence information assets.
I should probably read some Ian Fleming or Robert Ludlum boos to get some ideas for more exciting missions.
I'm more a fan of John le Carré stories which are less high-tech and more about ordinary selling out.
I'm also a fan of the history of Agent Garbo and Operation Mincement. These are things that are really interesting uses of data, intelligence, and misdirection.
Showing posts with label python for secret agents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label python for secret agents. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Going to PyCon 2015
In Montreal! How cool is that?
I'll be working for my current employer, also a sponsor, to locate Python talent.
I'll have a few copies of my books that I can give away.
Most importantly, the promotional code PYCON_LOTT gives 50% off my Packt titles and runs from April 7th to April 14th.
I'll be working for my current employer, also a sponsor, to locate Python talent.
I'll have a few copies of my books that I can give away.
Most importantly, the promotional code PYCON_LOTT gives 50% off my Packt titles and runs from April 7th to April 14th.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Webcast Wednesday
Be there: http://www.oreilly.com/pub/e/3255
Of course, I've got too many slides. 58 slides for a 60 minute presentation. That's really about 2 hours of material. Unless people have questions, then it's a half-day seminar.
Seriously.
I think I've gone waaaay too far on this. But it's my first one, and I'd hate to burn through all eight slides, take a few questions and be done too soon.
If this goes well, perhaps I'll see if I can come up with other 1-hour topics.
I worry a great deal about rehashing the obvious.
On the other hand, I'm working with a room full of newbies, and I think I could spend several hours on each of their questions.
And straightening out their confusions.
Case in point.Not directly related to the webcast.
One of my colleagues had seen a webcast which described Python's &, |, and ~ operators, comparing them with and, or and not.
I'm not 100% sure, but... I think that this podcast -- I'm getting this second-hand; it's just hearsay -- showed that there's an important equivalence between and and &.
This is true, but hopelessly obscure. Since & has a higher priority than the comparison operators, there will be serious confusion when one fails to parenthesize properly.
Examples like this abound:
Further, the fact that & can't short-circuit had become confusing to the colleague. I figured out some of what was going on when trying to field some seemingly irrelevant questions on "Why are some operators more efficient?" and "How do you know which to use?"
Um. That's not really the point. There's no confusion if you set the bit-fiddling operators aside.
The point is that and, or, not, and the if-else conditional expression live in their own domain of boolean values. The fact that &, |, ^, and ~ will also operate on boolean values is a kind of weird duplication, not a useful feature. The arithmetic operators also work on booleans. Weirdly.
The Python rules are the rules; it makes sense for True&True to yield True. Results depend on the operands. It would be wrong in that sense for True&True to be 1. But it would also fit the concept of these operators a little better if they always coerced bool to int. This happens for * and +: True+True == 2.
Why can't it be true for & and |? It would reduce potential confusion.
I'm sure the person who implemented __and__(), __or__(), __xor__(), and __invert__() was happy to create a parallel universe between and and &. I'm not sure I agree.
And perhaps I should have a webcast on Python logic. It seems like a rehash of fundamentals to me. But I have colleagues confused by fundamentals. So perhaps I'm way wrong about what's fundamental and what's useful information.
Of course, I've got too many slides. 58 slides for a 60 minute presentation. That's really about 2 hours of material. Unless people have questions, then it's a half-day seminar.
Seriously.
I think I've gone waaaay too far on this. But it's my first one, and I'd hate to burn through all eight slides, take a few questions and be done too soon.
If this goes well, perhaps I'll see if I can come up with other 1-hour topics.
I worry a great deal about rehashing the obvious.
On the other hand, I'm working with a room full of newbies, and I think I could spend several hours on each of their questions.
And straightening out their confusions.
Case in point.
One of my colleagues had seen a webcast which described Python's &, |, and ~ operators, comparing them with and, or and not.
I'm not 100% sure, but... I think that this podcast -- I'm getting this second-hand; it's just hearsay -- showed that there's an important equivalence between and and &.
This is true, but hopelessly obscure. Since & has a higher priority than the comparison operators, there will be serious confusion when one fails to parenthesize properly.
Examples like this abound:
>>> 3 == 3 & 4 < 5
False
>>> (3 == 3) & (4 < 5)
True
Further, the fact that & can't short-circuit had become confusing to the colleague. I figured out some of what was going on when trying to field some seemingly irrelevant questions on "Why are some operators more efficient?" and "How do you know which to use?"
Um. That's not really the point. There's no confusion if you set the bit-fiddling operators aside.
The point is that and, or, not, and the if-else conditional expression live in their own domain of boolean values. The fact that &, |, ^, and ~ will also operate on boolean values is a kind of weird duplication, not a useful feature. The arithmetic operators also work on booleans. Weirdly.
The Python rules are the rules; it makes sense for True&True to yield True. Results depend on the operands. It would be wrong in that sense for True&True to be 1. But it would also fit the concept of these operators a little better if they always coerced bool to int. This happens for * and +: True+True == 2.
Why can't it be true for & and |? It would reduce potential confusion.
I'm sure the person who implemented __and__(), __or__(), __xor__(), and __invert__() was happy to create a parallel universe between and and &. I'm not sure I agree.
And perhaps I should have a webcast on Python logic. It seems like a rehash of fundamentals to me. But I have colleagues confused by fundamentals. So perhaps I'm way wrong about what's fundamental and what's useful information.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Packt Deals
Okay. This seems shameless. But.
Here's the link http://bit.ly/1zg0mpA straight to my book information page on www.PacktPub.com.
Here's the link http://bit.ly/1zg0mpA straight to my book information page on www.PacktPub.com.
I'm slowly coming to grips with the reality of marketing.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Hard Copy Books
I've now got my actual souvenir hard-copies of my two Packt books
https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/mastering-object-oriented-python
https://www.packtpub.com/hardware-and-creative/python-secret-agents
So far, so good. I've got one more title in the works. After that, I think I'll have to take a small break and do some development work and learn more new stuff.
I've been advised to square away my Amazon.com author's page.
http://amazon.com/author/steven_f_lott
I think this will work to help folks post questions, comments, and suggestions.
https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/mastering-object-oriented-python
https://www.packtpub.com/hardware-and-creative/python-secret-agents
So far, so good. I've got one more title in the works. After that, I think I'll have to take a small break and do some development work and learn more new stuff.
I've been advised to square away my Amazon.com author's page.
http://amazon.com/author/steven_f_lott
I think this will work to help folks post questions, comments, and suggestions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)