In the event of a catastrophe, physical access to a neighborhood might be restricted by local authorities or by debris. In this situation, a drone could potentially help claims professionals serve customers in spite of those restrictions.
So we'll fly over your town to figure out insurance claims NOT we've programmed an AI to replace hordes of insurance adjusters
I love git as much as the next nerd
However, many centrally-managed hierarchical orgs do just fine with an SVN workflow. Something distributed like git or hg feels very alien to them. Forcing them to accept a workflow that grates against how their organization works is just inneficient. Just because a lot more people work on distributed teams in very different environments than the predominant environment 10 years ago doesn't mean that this group's toolchain is best for everyone
It is important to emphasize that there still have been only three patients. Over the past century, many attempts to harness the body’s immune system to fight cancer have shown initial success and subsequent failure.
Add a book on police murder investigations, then let your friends show up missing.
Its all circumstantial, I agree, but its a damn lot of circumstantial evidence. I think its completely reasonable a jury might convict on the evidence.
From the article:
"When police eventually located Hans Reiser's Honda CRX a few miles from his home, they found the interior waterlogged, the passenger seat missing, and two books on police murder investigations inside. They also found a sleeping-bag cover stained with a 6-inch wide blotch of Nina's dried blood. "
That plus his behavior is pretty damn near close to passing the reasonable doubt criteria. A 6-inch wide blotch is a pretty large one, I might add, not a simple cut.
Yes, I work at a company of mostly 20s and 30 somethings. We use C++ for everything.
C++ is huge. Nobody I know knows more than 50% of the language. Also, every C++ project I've looked at is very different. Projects run the gamut between stuff closer to C, with some inline assembly and a few C++ features rolled in, to crazy template metaprogramming, to gazillion-levels-of-inheritance MFC style programming. The huge feature set can be a benefit to the language. I can control/choose what features I use and what is not needed. I can choose to code to tight efficiency or code with more high-level OO design in mind. Its like a giant swiss army knife. Unfortunately its such a huge toolset, and there is a lot of inconsistency in the language, that so many people are intimidated and retreat to a more heavily managed sandbox like Java or C#.
I'm glad that all the fanboys have left the platform for the consoles. There's more games available for the PC than ever before and many absolutely free. Its just so easy to create PC games (as opposed to getting another platform's SDK) and now with the Interwebs its become so easy to distribute them and develop communities around them. They aren't blockbusters, they are more like indy films. Better yet, they're indy films where YOU can actually have fun participating to make them better.
I think the state of PC games is back in the hands of the game hobbyists, maybe more like the early days of PC gaming, rather than the big companies. To me thats a good thing.
Who is to be trusted with by biometric data? Who would have access? How would the software/authentication work? Who will write the software? Is it going to be proprietary? Will it be enabled in voting machines? Why should I trust the government agency/subcontractor to do all this correctly?
It seems that whoever controls this biometric data would have A LOT of power, especially if its integrated into every little device out there. Consider the potential lack of transparency in, say, an election. Could some government employee, maybe just above the average capabilities of a TSA employee, tamper with election results? Also, if my biometric info is linked to my credit card, how hard would it for that person to go on a shopping spree. How could I prove it wasn't me?
The whole thing wreaks...
You assume this article reflects everyone's point of view. The "environmentalist movement" is not the Borg Collective. All it takes is one individual to have a different point of view. I for one, consider myself to lean environmentalist and proudly use CFLs whereever I can. I know some people in environmental non-profits who lean the same way.
Everything is a trade-off in this game. There's no solution that equates to perfect ecological balance and me-me-me civilization coexisting. We have crops growing in places that would otherwise be deserts. We have filled in swamps and turned them into cities (London). Even tribal societies manage and change the environment in which they live. The management/alteration of our environment and the related consequences is a recurring theme throughout human history. Its something we will live with perpetually.
They complied with a lawful court order issued as a result of due process. You don't have to agree with it, but its legal. The US is a nation of laws, not a nation driven by the whims of precocious fan-boys. What would you have them do? Throw abandon to the wind and defy it? The company might get shut down which would threaten their employees and customers. I don't see any other plausible action here. I would only hope my employer would have as much sense in such a case.
Indeed, good point. Any metric can be used to the savvy developers advantage. Some people track how many bugs a piece of software has after a release... We just group similar bugs into one bug. When you know the rules, you can use them to our advantage.
I believe Fred Brooks points this out in the Mythical Man Month.
Would this discourage contributers to open source projects? Now if I put on my resume that I've contributed to an open source project, somebody is going to want to look me up. I have to deal with all that baggage when I just wanted something to do in my spare time.
Also, I really am not sure I feel comfortable being given an absolute rank. People always bring different skill/approaches to different jobs and I don't think you can arguably say one is better than another. I've worked in teams where everyone respects the different capabilities and limitations of each member. Its sort of like arguing there is an absolute thing known as "intelligence". Is there really such a thing or do we just all bring different skills/perspectives/approaches to the problems we solve? I'd prefer to think the latter, that everyone contributes what they can but has their own limitations. Talking about absolute "intelligence" or "value" seems condescending and elitist.
Meanwhile, every tech place I know can't hire fast enough. The good candidates are getting soaked up by the market fast. Wasn't there a stat recently that computer people are in higher demand than during the tech boom? But maybe its just a localized phenomena where I live.
One day won't there be little nanobots floating around with 512 bytes of memory and a 1 mhz processor that need to buzz around your body and eat up your precancerous cells? I imagine as things get smaller, the miniturization fronteir of computing nescesitates limitations in computing power and memory. This may necesitate a new generation of assembly programmers. Even today in the minituarization/embeddedness/realtimeyness world where many enjoy programming away in plain old C (like me) that knowing assembly is useful. First to look at the compiler's output and figure out what the hell its doing, second to just have a plain basic understanding (not necesarilly a detailed one) of what your C statements/operations/etc is probably turning into in assembly instructions.
Another question, would assembly be more popular if it wasn't such a nightmare to write for Intel's x86 architecture? If we all had nice Motorolla PCs, would assembly be really cool?
Computer Science suffers from its history of being portrayed by its practitioners as this mystical dark art. I beleive it has gotten to the point that those with the purse strings have become fed up with the sort of ivory tower attitude we software folks tout around.
On that point, this ivory tower attitude means that we have way too many technologies out there. Everyone wants to create a new paradigm, language, experience, whatever that is *the* Silver Bullet. Programmers want to demonstrate their ability to reinvent the world with software. Someone or some group comes up with pratice/paradigm/language / religion X and must defend X until their dying breath. Meanwhile all their work has, when all is said and done, only created typically 2% signal and 98% noise. The non-experts (customers bosses, etc) get easily confused, and cannot differentiate between signal and noise. They get jazzed up about some idiotic thing or easily seduced by a zealot of technology X. Meanwhile what they really have is their head full of buzzwords and half-thoughts meant to sell X.
There's so much different stuff out there that how could anybody keep up? Some folks here have complained about how kids coming out of college aren't "up to date". What they really mean is they don't know technology X. Well I have a CS degree and odds are I have never seen technology X. I could spend a lifetime and never truly be "up to date" in Computer Science. The true test of someone with a degree (**especially** in CS) is not to know technology X, but to be able to learn about and evaluate technology X to do something useful based on a customer/end-user/someone's need.
In the end we programmers are and should be engineers (not scientists, not salespeople) that must take choose a technology and make it work for somebody. Sometimes this means absolutely no programming, other times it involves quite a bit. Sometimes the simpliest thing is to write a C program, sometimes its a little php script, sometimes its a bash script. In any case, to gain a reputation as a discipline of engineers, we must get over ourselves as inventors of a new Tron-like world, the zealots must be ignored, and rational evaluation of technologies to create real-world tools for real people must be first on the list. Maybe one day anyone will be able to just point and click and create any tool that they think of, until then I highly doubt the need for programmers will go anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
So we'll fly over your town to figure out insurance claims NOT we've programmed an AI to replace hordes of insurance adjusters
I love git as much as the next nerd However, many centrally-managed hierarchical orgs do just fine with an SVN workflow. Something distributed like git or hg feels very alien to them. Forcing them to accept a workflow that grates against how their organization works is just inneficient. Just because a lot more people work on distributed teams in very different environments than the predominant environment 10 years ago doesn't mean that this group's toolchain is best for everyone
Add a book on police murder investigations, then let your friends show up missing.
Its all circumstantial, I agree, but its a damn lot of circumstantial evidence. I think its completely reasonable a jury might convict on the evidence.
From the article: "When police eventually located Hans Reiser's Honda CRX a few miles from his home, they found the interior waterlogged, the passenger seat missing, and two books on police murder investigations inside. They also found a sleeping-bag cover stained with a 6-inch wide blotch of Nina's dried blood. " That plus his behavior is pretty damn near close to passing the reasonable doubt criteria. A 6-inch wide blotch is a pretty large one, I might add, not a simple cut.
Yes, I work at a company of mostly 20s and 30 somethings. We use C++ for everything. C++ is huge. Nobody I know knows more than 50% of the language. Also, every C++ project I've looked at is very different. Projects run the gamut between stuff closer to C, with some inline assembly and a few C++ features rolled in, to crazy template metaprogramming, to gazillion-levels-of-inheritance MFC style programming. The huge feature set can be a benefit to the language. I can control/choose what features I use and what is not needed. I can choose to code to tight efficiency or code with more high-level OO design in mind. Its like a giant swiss army knife. Unfortunately its such a huge toolset, and there is a lot of inconsistency in the language, that so many people are intimidated and retreat to a more heavily managed sandbox like Java or C#.
I'm glad that all the fanboys have left the platform for the consoles. There's more games available for the PC than ever before and many absolutely free. Its just so easy to create PC games (as opposed to getting another platform's SDK) and now with the Interwebs its become so easy to distribute them and develop communities around them. They aren't blockbusters, they are more like indy films. Better yet, they're indy films where YOU can actually have fun participating to make them better.
I think the state of PC games is back in the hands of the game hobbyists, maybe more like the early days of PC gaming, rather than the big companies. To me thats a good thing.
Who is to be trusted with by biometric data? Who would have access? How would the software/authentication work? Who will write the software? Is it going to be proprietary? Will it be enabled in voting machines? Why should I trust the government agency/subcontractor to do all this correctly? It seems that whoever controls this biometric data would have A LOT of power, especially if its integrated into every little device out there. Consider the potential lack of transparency in, say, an election. Could some government employee, maybe just above the average capabilities of a TSA employee, tamper with election results? Also, if my biometric info is linked to my credit card, how hard would it for that person to go on a shopping spree. How could I prove it wasn't me? The whole thing wreaks...
You assume this article reflects everyone's point of view. The "environmentalist movement" is not the Borg Collective. All it takes is one individual to have a different point of view. I for one, consider myself to lean environmentalist and proudly use CFLs whereever I can. I know some people in environmental non-profits who lean the same way.
Everything is a trade-off in this game. There's no solution that equates to perfect ecological balance and me-me-me civilization coexisting. We have crops growing in places that would otherwise be deserts. We have filled in swamps and turned them into cities (London). Even tribal societies manage and change the environment in which they live. The management/alteration of our environment and the related consequences is a recurring theme throughout human history. Its something we will live with perpetually.
They complied with a lawful court order issued as a result of due process. You don't have to agree with it, but its legal. The US is a nation of laws, not a nation driven by the whims of precocious fan-boys. What would you have them do? Throw abandon to the wind and defy it? The company might get shut down which would threaten their employees and customers. I don't see any other plausible action here. I would only hope my employer would have as much sense in such a case.
Indeed, good point. Any metric can be used to the savvy developers advantage. Some people track how many bugs a piece of software has after a release... We just group similar bugs into one bug. When you know the rules, you can use them to our advantage.
I believe Fred Brooks points this out in the Mythical Man Month.
Would this discourage contributers to open source projects? Now if I put on my resume that I've contributed to an open source project, somebody is going to want to look me up. I have to deal with all that baggage when I just wanted something to do in my spare time. Also, I really am not sure I feel comfortable being given an absolute rank. People always bring different skill/approaches to different jobs and I don't think you can arguably say one is better than another. I've worked in teams where everyone respects the different capabilities and limitations of each member. Its sort of like arguing there is an absolute thing known as "intelligence". Is there really such a thing or do we just all bring different skills/perspectives/approaches to the problems we solve? I'd prefer to think the latter, that everyone contributes what they can but has their own limitations. Talking about absolute "intelligence" or "value" seems condescending and elitist.
I know that many of the folks in Richmond are web programmer people... Rumors have it that they are being outsourced to India.
Meanwhile, every tech place I know can't hire fast enough. The good candidates are getting soaked up by the market fast. Wasn't there a stat recently that computer people are in higher demand than during the tech boom? But maybe its just a localized phenomena where I live.
One day won't there be little nanobots floating around with 512 bytes of memory and a 1 mhz processor that need to buzz around your body and eat up your precancerous cells? I imagine as things get smaller, the miniturization fronteir of computing nescesitates limitations in computing power and memory. This may necesitate a new generation of assembly programmers. Even today in the minituarization/embeddedness/realtimeyness world where many enjoy programming away in plain old C (like me) that knowing assembly is useful. First to look at the compiler's output and figure out what the hell its doing, second to just have a plain basic understanding (not necesarilly a detailed one) of what your C statements/operations/etc is probably turning into in assembly instructions.
Another question, would assembly be more popular if it wasn't such a nightmare to write for Intel's x86 architecture? If we all had nice Motorolla PCs, would assembly be really cool?
Computer Science suffers from its history of being portrayed by its practitioners as this mystical dark art. I beleive it has gotten to the point that those with the purse strings have become fed up with the sort of ivory tower attitude we software folks tout around. On that point, this ivory tower attitude means that we have way too many technologies out there. Everyone wants to create a new paradigm, language, experience, whatever that is *the* Silver Bullet. Programmers want to demonstrate their ability to reinvent the world with software. Someone or some group comes up with pratice /paradigm /language / religion X and must defend X until their dying breath. Meanwhile all their work has, when all is said and done, only created typically 2% signal and 98% noise. The non-experts (customers bosses, etc) get easily confused, and cannot differentiate between signal and noise. They get jazzed up about some idiotic thing or easily seduced by a zealot of technology X. Meanwhile what they really have is their head full of buzzwords and half-thoughts meant to sell X.
There's so much different stuff out there that how could anybody keep up? Some folks here have complained about how kids coming out of college aren't "up to date". What they really mean is they don't know technology X. Well I have a CS degree and odds are I have never seen technology X. I could spend a lifetime and never truly be "up to date" in Computer Science. The true test of someone with a degree (**especially** in CS) is not to know technology X, but to be able to learn about and evaluate technology X to do something useful based on a customer/end-user/someone's need.
In the end we programmers are and should be engineers (not scientists, not salespeople) that must take choose a technology and make it work for somebody. Sometimes this means absolutely no programming, other times it involves quite a bit. Sometimes the simpliest thing is to write a C program, sometimes its a little php script, sometimes its a bash script. In any case, to gain a reputation as a discipline of engineers, we must get over ourselves as inventors of a new Tron-like world, the zealots must be ignored, and rational evaluation of technologies to create real-world tools for real people must be first on the list. Maybe one day anyone will be able to just point and click and create any tool that they think of, until then I highly doubt the need for programmers will go anywhere.