First, you're missing a little thing called "courtesy". It doesn't really matter to the publisher if the book has real names or not, but the military potentially has a lot of security to lose. Getting approval is the responsible thing to do.
Second, there's the whole issue of national security. Leaking classified information is a crime, so the military has processes in place for publishers to make sure they're clear of any problems. The book passed a quick review, but then the government got worried. There's no way to force the publisher to destroy them, so the Pentagon is resorting to the normal civilian system called "commerce".
The first amendment is irrelevant. From TFA, the military's attempting to keep hidden the real names of intelligence officers involved with some actions. Any criticism of the military actions is still likely in the second edition, which is already approved. The first amendment does not grant the right to endanger others by means of speech. It grants the right to hold and express any opinions you want, and Congress will not render such expression illegal.
To my knowledge, police (actually the district attorneys working with the police) have always written the warrants. A judge just reviews them for a reasonable amount of fairness. Sure, there's the occasional overstepped boundary, but that's what lawsuits are for.
It's to prevent/reduce the lawyer-like arguments. The moment a set of guidelines becomes public, people start trying to find loopholes. Arguments about terminology, implementation, and technicalities ensue. Then the rules get updated to account for what's been argued already, which brings in a new set of loopholes. Soon, a whole new industry springs up around just knowing the rules, and the whole process grinds to an inefficient halt.
It's much easier to keep guidelines internal, and only release very general suggestions.
Not alone at all. So what if the advertisers track me? If I'm doing something I don't want to be connected to me, I can use Tor and a different browser, and consider myself sufficiently clear. Any ties to my normal habits will be sufficiently remote to not greatly affect my normal experience.
I, for one, welcome tracking and targeted advertising. As a true example, I recently realized that an uncomfortable number of my family games ended in arguments because of certain players screwing over other certain players. Not being much into non-video games, I started looking for things like "player-vs-world games" and "games like dungeons and dragons" (since that's the only not-usually-player-vs-player game I knew). After a few rounds of fruitless searches, a targeted ad showed me the magic term "cooperative game", and helped me in my quest.
Targeted ads aren't any different from having a friend who tells you about every new thing they try that they think you'll like. Yeah, they're a little creepy at times, but once in a while they're useful. I think that's worth having someone know that I'm looking for a new game.
Mr. Tsuneoka, the last thing we need is more confusion about the Internet, especially amongst new users. Please stop spreading misinformation, and apologize to those you've misled! In the future, give only meaningful, accurate information to help users understand what's going on. Explain that Twitter is a social network that allows users to reach many the general public, rather than just journalists. Help educate the world!
I just don't understand the hatred of NoSQL. Apparently the use of cheap terabyte drives is supposed to take care of storage problems, and replication for reliability. What about datasets in the tens or hundreds of terabytes? Heck, my project at my company has already used 15 terabytes, and I've barely started. My project also has some write speed requirements that can't be met by any SQL system. After much research, a distributed NoSQL solution works best.
My project also touches a MySQL server, that handles a lot of the read-intensive processes. Again, this is the result of a long research phase. Relational databases enforce the structure and consistency that works well with our application development, and it's faster to read than the NoSQL source.
Both solutions have their benefits, and both are appropriate for different circumstances. This also blows a hole in the "only one persistent store" idea. Systems should use the resources they need, and no more. It seems obvious to me.
I learned that the author has spent an hour working with NoSQL solutions and thinks he's an expert. But hey, let's go ahead and make more giant SQL databases for all situations. After all, those DBAs need jobs, too.
At work, I use a network monitor I wrote that displays network traffic as randomly-places rectangles. The number of rectangles per refresh cycle is proportional to the packet count (as reported by/proc/net/dev). The height is relative to the download rate, and the width is relative to the upload rate. At a glance, a trained eye can tell what kind of traffic is going through the system, and that can indicate what the machine's doing at that point. To the untrained eye, it just looks awesome, especially when projected onto a wall at the end of the office.
My experience is that Africa is concerned with looking modern more than actually being modern.
The average rural African citizen hears from the politicians that cell phones and internet are the indications of modern life, so they support the "ultracorrupt asshats" who promise to bring them such things. They manage to live their lives without decent infrastructure already, so why bother building more?
Clean water? There's a stream nearby that only has six ducks defecating next to it. That's good enough.
A sewage system? There's a nice ditch that's cleaned by floods at least once a year. That's good enough.
Televisions? Yes! America has them, and Barack Obama is going to buy one for every American! We need them, too!
As awful as it sounds, I think this will eventually lead to a fully modern infrastructure, but it'll be different from the Western norm. In Ghana, one of the largest employers is the telephone company, who builds cell towers in the middle of nowhere connected via satellite. That means a push for service roads, stable electricity, and a network of independent distributors of pay-as-you-go credits. It's certainly not fast, but the trickle-down economy is working a little.
(While volunteering in Ghana, I was actually told "You are American? You have Obama! He will buy a TV for all Americans!")
From what (little) I understand of the machines in the article, it seems the new machines have different capabilities than the old ones. In the pursuit of speed, the new machines lack the ability to make designs that are as intricate as the old ones can. While they're still just "lace" to the untrained eye, the old style is capable of producing a better product.
Compare board games of the 1950's-1970's with games of today: There are many cases where plastic pieces have been replaced with printed cardboard. Sure, the game's the same, but it's not the same quality.
The best computer example I can come up with is Pentium chips. They're faster than the old 486s, but not quite as good. Perhaps in time new lace machines will have both speed and ability, but I don't know enough about lace to predict anything.
Instead, the money will go to funding lobbyists pushing for privacy legislation. Remember the mantra: Privacy is sacred!
To use a website, you'll need to provide three forms of ID to prove you're not too young, a predator, or any other kind of objectionable person, but the company running the website won't be able to record that fact. You'll need to repeat the process every time you use the site. You can also forget storing preferences, or being able to post your own comments. It's all for privacy! Also note that all the ads on your favorite sites, since they won't be able to be targeted, will present a random selection of products for your consideration. While shopping for a new television, you'll get ads for healthy food for your pet gerbil! While browsing for something vague, like a new cooperative board game for your family, you'll get ads for condoms. I guess that's related...
Remember: Relevance is overrated! Only absolute privacy can protect us from those evil advertisers!
Saying a program "takes an extra week" implies that it's slower. Since time is a factor in the overall cost, it's less efficient with all other things being equal. Of course, memory use is another cost. I think we agree overall.
A good programmer knows that quicksort is very fast. A different good programmer knows that quicksort can take a lot of memory. A great programmer knows that the correct solution depends on what resource is more readily available. Great programmers must maintain at least two perspectives on all such problems. They must see the problem from a hardware side, knowing what hardware is available. They must also see the problem from an algorithm side, minimizing the number of operations.
Personally, I think it's also important to weigh the effects of "weird" implementations on code cleanliness, but that's off-topic.
This is why I think it's important that programmers work on old hardware for a little while. When they do go to modern hardware, there's still the idea in the back of their mind that everything has a cost. Yeah, now and then they'll worry about unrolling loops and the like, but as long as they eventually get the "less than 1 ms" realization like starglider29a mentioned, I think it's worth the extra effort to learn the old ways. When in the position where that tiny speed increase can save a significant about of time, they have the ability to make that change. Contrast this with a "pure hardware" programmer, who knows only that the current algorithm is already using very little memory. Also contrast it with the "pure algorithm" programmer, who knows that the current program solves the problem eventually.
There is a balance here, and a great programmer must be able to recognize all the issues at hand. That ability can only come from having a wide array of experience.
...in no way reflect actual damage being done to society
After the fact, of course. The Volstead Act passed with a 3-1 ratio. At the time it was passed, drinking was considered to be contributing to the downfall of society. The people "jailed for having a drink" were, by definition and standard of the time, not "law-abiding citizens".
It's okay, because they're not to me yet
How is this statement even relevant? I also have no objections to being tracked, myself. My opinion is that being tracked does not constitute any serious breach of privacy. Maybe if you'd read the rest of this thread instead of assuming malevolence, you'd understand a bit better.
I can already do this.
Yes, you can. Go for it. In fact, there are some people who do this all the time already. They're called "private investigators". The fact that there are people legally making money watching others doesn't bother me, either.
It's only a matter of money.
That's the whole point. The police departments don't have much money as it is. Why waste a human officer following a car, when technology could do it as well? Go ahead if you want. Stick a tracker on my car, and spend a few hundred dollars to see that I was late to work last Thursday. If your tracker were discovered, I might be a bit offended or confused, but it's certainly not news.
If they bring out a drug dog and get probable cause to search the vehicle, they catch a drug possession. Good. That's their job, remember?
Let's assume that the supposed drugs really aren't. Maybe it's just a long-lost bag of sugar, but I get searched anyway. Now I should go on the offensive, tracking back the breach of procedure up to and including the possibility of suing the department. Such an oversight process exists for a reason.
Regarding IDs, given that several jurisdictions include laws requiring you to identify yourself to law enforcement officers upon request, that's not surprising at all. By refusing to identify yourself, you break the law right there, in front of an officer. That's pretty good probable cause to check for anything else you might be doing wrong.
Since when is anonymity a basic human right?
Since when is it considered normal to assume that officers are out to screw you?
Nope. It's called investigating. It's their job. Interestingly, there are individuals who also have the job of investigating, but they do it as a private enterprise rather than a public service. They're called "private investigators", and they can stalk you without a warrant, too.
Eventually, someone like that will be in power again; I think these tools are too powerful to give them.
I think the appropriate solution is not to forbid the use of such tools, but prevent "them" from having them. My half-baked solution is to require warrants for a wider range of police activity involving anyone running for (or holding) public office. With regards to this issue, the standard may raise from "the public could observe" to "the public is likely to observe"
Dinner in a restaurant with an oil executive? Fine to watch.
A visit to a brothel out of town? Not acceptable.
The even better solution is to keep people like that out of office, which means that voter apathy must be fought tooth and nail.
Off-topic, I find that emoticons destroy the effectiveness of satire. "A Modest Proposal" wouldn't have been nearly as effective under the title "A Modest Proposal:)".
Frankly, I've never considered Dykstra's opinions to be anything particularly notable. His algorithms are great, but he seemed to be stuck on the notion that humans are incapable of handling multiple perspectives on a single problem.
Slashdot Mirror
First, you're missing a little thing called "courtesy". It doesn't really matter to the publisher if the book has real names or not, but the military potentially has a lot of security to lose. Getting approval is the responsible thing to do.
Second, there's the whole issue of national security. Leaking classified information is a crime, so the military has processes in place for publishers to make sure they're clear of any problems. The book passed a quick review, but then the government got worried. There's no way to force the publisher to destroy them, so the Pentagon is resorting to the normal civilian system called "commerce".
It's not a big deal.
Or, he'll change the names like the military wants, and release a second edition, like he already has.
The first amendment is irrelevant. From TFA, the military's attempting to keep hidden the real names of intelligence officers involved with some actions. Any criticism of the military actions is still likely in the second edition, which is already approved. The first amendment does not grant the right to endanger others by means of speech. It grants the right to hold and express any opinions you want, and Congress will not render such expression illegal.
This makes me sad that I've already commented here.
In one comment, you've summed up the whole rationale behind copyright. My own opinions of copyright aside, this was a nice comment.
To my knowledge, police (actually the district attorneys working with the police) have always written the warrants. A judge just reviews them for a reasonable amount of fairness. Sure, there's the occasional overstepped boundary, but that's what lawsuits are for.
Try telling that to the people who try to find them.
It's to prevent/reduce the lawyer-like arguments. The moment a set of guidelines becomes public, people start trying to find loopholes. Arguments about terminology, implementation, and technicalities ensue. Then the rules get updated to account for what's been argued already, which brings in a new set of loopholes. Soon, a whole new industry springs up around just knowing the rules, and the whole process grinds to an inefficient halt.
It's much easier to keep guidelines internal, and only release very general suggestions.
Not alone at all. So what if the advertisers track me? If I'm doing something I don't want to be connected to me, I can use Tor and a different browser, and consider myself sufficiently clear. Any ties to my normal habits will be sufficiently remote to not greatly affect my normal experience.
I, for one, welcome tracking and targeted advertising. As a true example, I recently realized that an uncomfortable number of my family games ended in arguments because of certain players screwing over other certain players. Not being much into non-video games, I started looking for things like "player-vs-world games" and "games like dungeons and dragons" (since that's the only not-usually-player-vs-player game I knew). After a few rounds of fruitless searches, a targeted ad showed me the magic term "cooperative game", and helped me in my quest.
Targeted ads aren't any different from having a friend who tells you about every new thing they try that they think you'll like. Yeah, they're a little creepy at times, but once in a while they're useful. I think that's worth having someone know that I'm looking for a new game.
Mr. Tsuneoka, the last thing we need is more confusion about the Internet, especially amongst new users. Please stop spreading misinformation, and apologize to those you've misled! In the future, give only meaningful, accurate information to help users understand what's going on. Explain that Twitter is a social network that allows users to reach many the general public, rather than just journalists. Help educate the world!
I just don't understand the hatred of NoSQL. Apparently the use of cheap terabyte drives is supposed to take care of storage problems, and replication for reliability. What about datasets in the tens or hundreds of terabytes? Heck, my project at my company has already used 15 terabytes, and I've barely started. My project also has some write speed requirements that can't be met by any SQL system. After much research, a distributed NoSQL solution works best.
My project also touches a MySQL server, that handles a lot of the read-intensive processes. Again, this is the result of a long research phase. Relational databases enforce the structure and consistency that works well with our application development, and it's faster to read than the NoSQL source.
Both solutions have their benefits, and both are appropriate for different circumstances. This also blows a hole in the "only one persistent store" idea. Systems should use the resources they need, and no more. It seems obvious to me.
I learned that the author has spent an hour working with NoSQL solutions and thinks he's an expert. But hey, let's go ahead and make more giant SQL databases for all situations. After all, those DBAs need jobs, too.
I don't have any screenshots available offhand, but I have source. It's in C++, and I'm very definitely not a C++ guy, but it works.
My general experience applies generally. My specific example from Ghana is specific.
At work, I use a network monitor I wrote that displays network traffic as randomly-places rectangles. The number of rectangles per refresh cycle is proportional to the packet count (as reported by /proc/net/dev). The height is relative to the download rate, and the width is relative to the upload rate. At a glance, a trained eye can tell what kind of traffic is going through the system, and that can indicate what the machine's doing at that point. To the untrained eye, it just looks awesome, especially when projected onto a wall at the end of the office.
My experience is that Africa is concerned with looking modern more than actually being modern.
The average rural African citizen hears from the politicians that cell phones and internet are the indications of modern life, so they support the "ultracorrupt asshats" who promise to bring them such things. They manage to live their lives without decent infrastructure already, so why bother building more?
Clean water? There's a stream nearby that only has six ducks defecating next to it. That's good enough.
A sewage system? There's a nice ditch that's cleaned by floods at least once a year. That's good enough.
Televisions? Yes! America has them, and Barack Obama is going to buy one for every American! We need them, too!
As awful as it sounds, I think this will eventually lead to a fully modern infrastructure, but it'll be different from the Western norm. In Ghana, one of the largest employers is the telephone company, who builds cell towers in the middle of nowhere connected via satellite. That means a push for service roads, stable electricity, and a network of independent distributors of pay-as-you-go credits. It's certainly not fast, but the trickle-down economy is working a little.
(While volunteering in Ghana, I was actually told "You are American? You have Obama! He will buy a TV for all Americans!")
So its a binary data format battle.
From what (little) I understand of the machines in the article, it seems the new machines have different capabilities than the old ones. In the pursuit of speed, the new machines lack the ability to make designs that are as intricate as the old ones can. While they're still just "lace" to the untrained eye, the old style is capable of producing a better product.
Compare board games of the 1950's-1970's with games of today: There are many cases where plastic pieces have been replaced with printed cardboard. Sure, the game's the same, but it's not the same quality.
The best computer example I can come up with is Pentium chips. They're faster than the old 486s, but not quite as good. Perhaps in time new lace machines will have both speed and ability, but I don't know enough about lace to predict anything.
Instead, the money will go to funding lobbyists pushing for privacy legislation. Remember the mantra: Privacy is sacred!
To use a website, you'll need to provide three forms of ID to prove you're not too young, a predator, or any other kind of objectionable person, but the company running the website won't be able to record that fact. You'll need to repeat the process every time you use the site. You can also forget storing preferences, or being able to post your own comments. It's all for privacy! Also note that all the ads on your favorite sites, since they won't be able to be targeted, will present a random selection of products for your consideration. While shopping for a new television, you'll get ads for healthy food for your pet gerbil! While browsing for something vague, like a new cooperative board game for your family, you'll get ads for condoms. I guess that's related...
Remember: Relevance is overrated! Only absolute privacy can protect us from those evil advertisers!
</sarcasm>
Saying a program "takes an extra week" implies that it's slower. Since time is a factor in the overall cost, it's less efficient with all other things being equal. Of course, memory use is another cost. I think we agree overall.
A good programmer knows that quicksort is very fast. A different good programmer knows that quicksort can take a lot of memory. A great programmer knows that the correct solution depends on what resource is more readily available. Great programmers must maintain at least two perspectives on all such problems. They must see the problem from a hardware side, knowing what hardware is available. They must also see the problem from an algorithm side, minimizing the number of operations.
Personally, I think it's also important to weigh the effects of "weird" implementations on code cleanliness, but that's off-topic.
This is why I think it's important that programmers work on old hardware for a little while. When they do go to modern hardware, there's still the idea in the back of their mind that everything has a cost. Yeah, now and then they'll worry about unrolling loops and the like, but as long as they eventually get the "less than 1 ms" realization like starglider29a mentioned, I think it's worth the extra effort to learn the old ways. When in the position where that tiny speed increase can save a significant about of time, they have the ability to make that change. Contrast this with a "pure hardware" programmer, who knows only that the current algorithm is already using very little memory. Also contrast it with the "pure algorithm" programmer, who knows that the current program solves the problem eventually.
There is a balance here, and a great programmer must be able to recognize all the issues at hand. That ability can only come from having a wide array of experience.
...in no way reflect actual damage being done to society
After the fact, of course. The Volstead Act passed with a 3-1 ratio. At the time it was passed, drinking was considered to be contributing to the downfall of society. The people "jailed for having a drink" were, by definition and standard of the time, not "law-abiding citizens".
It's okay, because they're not to me yet
How is this statement even relevant? I also have no objections to being tracked, myself. My opinion is that being tracked does not constitute any serious breach of privacy. Maybe if you'd read the rest of this thread instead of assuming malevolence, you'd understand a bit better.
I can already do this.
Yes, you can. Go for it. In fact, there are some people who do this all the time already. They're called "private investigators". The fact that there are people legally making money watching others doesn't bother me, either.
It's only a matter of money.
That's the whole point. The police departments don't have much money as it is. Why waste a human officer following a car, when technology could do it as well? Go ahead if you want. Stick a tracker on my car, and spend a few hundred dollars to see that I was late to work last Thursday. If your tracker were discovered, I might be a bit offended or confused, but it's certainly not news.
If it's slower and uses more resources, it's not really more efficient, is it?
If you want anonymity, go back to 4chan. Here, anonymity is considered cowardice. That's why you're an Anonymous Coward.
If they bring out a drug dog and get probable cause to search the vehicle, they catch a drug possession. Good. That's their job, remember?
Let's assume that the supposed drugs really aren't. Maybe it's just a long-lost bag of sugar, but I get searched anyway. Now I should go on the offensive, tracking back the breach of procedure up to and including the possibility of suing the department. Such an oversight process exists for a reason.
Regarding IDs, given that several jurisdictions include laws requiring you to identify yourself to law enforcement officers upon request, that's not surprising at all. By refusing to identify yourself, you break the law right there, in front of an officer. That's pretty good probable cause to check for anything else you might be doing wrong.
Since when is anonymity a basic human right?
Since when is it considered normal to assume that officers are out to screw you?
Nope. It's called investigating. It's their job. Interestingly, there are individuals who also have the job of investigating, but they do it as a private enterprise rather than a public service. They're called "private investigators", and they can stalk you without a warrant, too.
Eventually, someone like that will be in power again; I think these tools are too powerful to give them.
I think the appropriate solution is not to forbid the use of such tools, but prevent "them" from having them. My half-baked solution is to require warrants for a wider range of police activity involving anyone running for (or holding) public office. With regards to this issue, the standard may raise from "the public could observe" to "the public is likely to observe"
Dinner in a restaurant with an oil executive? Fine to watch.
A visit to a brothel out of town? Not acceptable.
The even better solution is to keep people like that out of office, which means that voter apathy must be fought tooth and nail.
Off-topic, I find that emoticons destroy the effectiveness of satire. "A Modest Proposal" wouldn't have been nearly as effective under the title "A Modest Proposal :)".
Frankly, I've never considered Dykstra's opinions to be anything particularly notable. His algorithms are great, but he seemed to be stuck on the notion that humans are incapable of handling multiple perspectives on a single problem.