So you think because you disagree with my use of the word "strategies" where maybe I should have typed "services," "products," or "protocols" invalidates the entire rest of my statement?
I'd love to see you justify your apparently hyper-naive assumption of how having a mix of entirely separate OS and hardware compatibility issues to contend with would have "nothing to do with" the task of getting network time to properly sync up in the hypothetical world where NTP wasn't already the de-facto industry stanard but Microsoft's non-cooperation strategy still permeates everything.
Well, for starters, its not always drop-in compatible with existing clients and servers in the wild, and it lacks the necessary precision for doing any sort of work that that requires sub-second synchronization accuracy.
I got news for you; if NTP was non-free, it never would have been used outside of the lab where it was created. There would be 1000 competing network time sync strategies, Microsoft would blithely tell the whole world theirs is the best and universally compatible, while not actually being universally compatible with anything other than third-party malware, and it would be damned-near impossible for anyone without a Master's and 20 years of industry experience to succeed at establishing time synchronization across networks of machines supplied by a heterogeneous mix of OS and hardware vendors. You really want to take NTP and throw it in the same playpen where file-sharing and web-markup language standards got mangled? Really?
How is it possible that you can think this post out so well but still are naive enough to believe that being able to moderate where you posted under your own name would not create a system even more rife for abuse than it is currently? Normally I'd just assume you're dumb, but your post's content suggests you're capable of focused thought, so why are you so wrong about the slashdot moderation system? I can only assume the naivety is a facade and you actually have some clever, non-obvious ulterior motive for wanting to remove what little protection there is from conflicts-of-interest in the moderation system as it stands currently, since the obvious ulterior motive seems beneath you.
So, what is it, pray tell? I'm completely stumped. (Oh, by the way, you're not fooling anyone.)
Well, they're using newer, less stale packages still associated with Debian. If you mentally characterize Debian as "stale" though, then chances are these packages are still going to be too old for your taste.
Obviously (to us geeks, only) it was never about open standards, but Amazon and Microsoft in particular have put a lot of money into P.R. campaigns to imply to the public a number of things about the fundamentals of their "cloud" strategies that are the opposite of true. Its their M.O., really.
Exactly... I was thinking about the frequency of false positives in detection of copyrighted content in youtube videos, and subsequent instantaneous, automated, no-appeal takedowns. Now someone wants to give the same jackasses who wrote software that claims copyright ownership of recorded birdsong the legal authority to add lethal force to that software? Hellls no....
On the contrary, I read and view a lot of cyberpunk fiction and its clear to me this is a horrific idea. Its such a bad idea in fact, that I am having trouble imagining the idea is even solidly grounded in incompetence; I think it smells suspiciously of highly capable, methodical, malicious, perhaps even psychotic intent. But, giving them the benefit of the doubt that its not, then the problem clearly is that he hasn't read enough cyberpunk fiction to really envision just how quickly and how far this could escalate and spiral completely out of control.
Cruise missiles are not analogous. Land mines were banned. The rest of your argument fails to take into account liability for software/hardware faults. These things could get hacked or experience glitches that cause them to stray out of their designated zones and effectively go on a rampage. Sensors can become defective and cause false-positives on target identification. GPS signals can be spoofed. In a world where software developers are never punished for negligence, wireless network security is laughable, and government contracts are always awarded to the lowest bidder, there would be no accountability for this type of "oops." Make no mistake, I am not opposed to drones that operate only on targets manually designated by a human, and I am not opposed to non-military research into super-intelligent AI. Its the whole "give them autonomy and guns" (with or without intelligence) that I think is the mistake, and it SHOULD be banned for very similar justifications to the "Mine Ban Treaty."
I do also understand the tactical advantages you describe, they were not lost on me before, either. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.
Well it shouldn't be is what I'm saying, but we're in a situation right now where the creators of autonomous killing machines might not be held liable for "software glitches" that might cause mass killings of innocents in foreign countries. The ethics conversation needs to happen, but all this nonsense of whether or not "real" artificial intelligence is possible should not detract from or hamper discussion about the ethics of making any type of autonomous killing machine, whether its as intelligent as Skynet from Terminator, or only as clever as Mecha-Hitler from Wolfenstein 3D. The AI debate as a whole is simply a distraction that's preventing getting down to the ethics.
Even without super-intelligence, autonomous killing machines are already quite feasible with current technology and this is a really stupid attempt to deflect the public dialogue from the real issue which is that ethical legal frameworks guiding their design and creation are already sorely lacking.
We get old. We get smarter. We learn from our mistakes. Kids who haven't learned the same lessons yet are always ingrates when they disagree with you. It even happens to the best of us.
That is what it takes. Be ready to be reprimanded. Be ready to be fired and blamed for the problems you were trying to fix. Be ready for your former boss to immediately turn around and accept the credit for the fixes you worked so hard on in your free time. If you love the company that much, be ready to sacrifice your job to save it.
Just a word of personal advice though; don't do it. History is written by the winners.
Slashdot Mirror
So you think because you disagree with my use of the word "strategies" where maybe I should have typed "services," "products," or "protocols" invalidates the entire rest of my statement?
I'd love to see you justify your apparently hyper-naive assumption of how having a mix of entirely separate OS and hardware compatibility issues to contend with would have "nothing to do with" the task of getting network time to properly sync up in the hypothetical world where NTP wasn't already the de-facto industry stanard but Microsoft's non-cooperation strategy still permeates everything.
but sometimes that's still not enough, simply put
Well, for starters, its not always drop-in compatible with existing clients and servers in the wild, and it lacks the necessary precision for doing any sort of work that that requires sub-second synchronization accuracy.
I got news for you; if NTP was non-free, it never would have been used outside of the lab where it was created. There would be 1000 competing network time sync strategies, Microsoft would blithely tell the whole world theirs is the best and universally compatible, while not actually being universally compatible with anything other than third-party malware, and it would be damned-near impossible for anyone without a Master's and 20 years of industry experience to succeed at establishing time synchronization across networks of machines supplied by a heterogeneous mix of OS and hardware vendors. You really want to take NTP and throw it in the same playpen where file-sharing and web-markup language standards got mangled? Really?
How is it possible that you can think this post out so well but still are naive enough to believe that being able to moderate where you posted under your own name would not create a system even more rife for abuse than it is currently? Normally I'd just assume you're dumb, but your post's content suggests you're capable of focused thought, so why are you so wrong about the slashdot moderation system? I can only assume the naivety is a facade and you actually have some clever, non-obvious ulterior motive for wanting to remove what little protection there is from conflicts-of-interest in the moderation system as it stands currently, since the obvious ulterior motive seems beneath you.
So, what is it, pray tell? I'm completely stumped. (Oh, by the way, you're not fooling anyone.)
Oh yea, and I totally can't imagine why anyone might become frustrated enough with what passes for "being helpful" in #debian to fork it. /sarcasm
Well, they're using newer, less stale packages still associated with Debian. If you mentally characterize Debian as "stale" though, then chances are these packages are still going to be too old for your taste.
I'm pretty sure this and most the rest of his philanthropic gestures are his wife's ideas.
Obviously (to us geeks, only) it was never about open standards, but Amazon and Microsoft in particular have put a lot of money into P.R. campaigns to imply to the public a number of things about the fundamentals of their "cloud" strategies that are the opposite of true. Its their M.O., really.
I just don't turn my lights on. That's even more efficient than LED!
Exactly... I was thinking about the frequency of false positives in detection of copyrighted content in youtube videos, and subsequent instantaneous, automated, no-appeal takedowns. Now someone wants to give the same jackasses who wrote software that claims copyright ownership of recorded birdsong the legal authority to add lethal force to that software? Hellls no....
On the contrary, I read and view a lot of cyberpunk fiction and its clear to me this is a horrific idea. Its such a bad idea in fact, that I am having trouble imagining the idea is even solidly grounded in incompetence; I think it smells suspiciously of highly capable, methodical, malicious, perhaps even psychotic intent. But, giving them the benefit of the doubt that its not, then the problem clearly is that he hasn't read enough cyberpunk fiction to really envision just how quickly and how far this could escalate and spiral completely out of control.
Sure man, you can have first dibs on a rogue flash ad sending lethal voltage to your brain implants too.
... this isn't going to end well.
Cruise missiles are not analogous. Land mines were banned. The rest of your argument fails to take into account liability for software/hardware faults. These things could get hacked or experience glitches that cause them to stray out of their designated zones and effectively go on a rampage. Sensors can become defective and cause false-positives on target identification. GPS signals can be spoofed. In a world where software developers are never punished for negligence, wireless network security is laughable, and government contracts are always awarded to the lowest bidder, there would be no accountability for this type of "oops." Make no mistake, I am not opposed to drones that operate only on targets manually designated by a human, and I am not opposed to non-military research into super-intelligent AI. Its the whole "give them autonomy and guns" (with or without intelligence) that I think is the mistake, and it SHOULD be banned for very similar justifications to the "Mine Ban Treaty."
I do also understand the tactical advantages you describe, they were not lost on me before, either. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.
Well it shouldn't be is what I'm saying, but we're in a situation right now where the creators of autonomous killing machines might not be held liable for "software glitches" that might cause mass killings of innocents in foreign countries. The ethics conversation needs to happen, but all this nonsense of whether or not "real" artificial intelligence is possible should not detract from or hamper discussion about the ethics of making any type of autonomous killing machine, whether its as intelligent as Skynet from Terminator, or only as clever as Mecha-Hitler from Wolfenstein 3D. The AI debate as a whole is simply a distraction that's preventing getting down to the ethics.
Even without super-intelligence, autonomous killing machines are already quite feasible with current technology and this is a really stupid attempt to deflect the public dialogue from the real issue which is that ethical legal frameworks guiding their design and creation are already sorely lacking.
Eh.... probably not, actually.
But these two from yesterday definitely were:
On Linux, $550 Radeon R9 Fury Competes With $200~350 NVIDIA GPUs
Windows 10 App For Xbox One Could Render Steam Machines Useless
You guys are fucking hilarious.
We get old. We get smarter. We learn from our mistakes. Kids who haven't learned the same lessons yet are always ingrates when they disagree with you. It even happens to the best of us.
"Free" as in speech.
Flash video?? Too bad... am I wrong or does Slashdot really not support HTML5 video yet?
... knowing that everything will work as expected.
Enjoy that free Win10 upgrade. I hope nothing goes wrong...
Linux+Nvidia is cheaper than Windows+anything.
That is what it takes. Be ready to be reprimanded. Be ready to be fired and blamed for the problems you were trying to fix. Be ready for your former boss to immediately turn around and accept the credit for the fixes you worked so hard on in your free time. If you love the company that much, be ready to sacrifice your job to save it.
Just a word of personal advice though; don't do it. History is written by the winners.