Is the smart thermostat we see today the same one that was there yesterday?
I bet this can be demonstrated to be equivalent to the halting problem. The question should be really: here are the spcifications of a certain device (whether dictated by the manufacturer, or determined empirically): does the present device match them? With every query from here to eternity? Under all circumstances? That smells like the halting problem.
So, in other words, you can never be completely certain of the answer, only confident up to specific bounds. Maybe that's good enough, but $50K for that kind of work is not, and the amount of effort involved for the general case, is not. A good solution for the problem is going to be the sort of thing that would take a startup into a medium-to-large corporation.
But there are really much better ways to avoid the problem in the first place. I mean, to paraphrase a processor of mine, we don't need a microprocessor in every doorknob. Just don't use the damned things. Your fridge does not need to be on the net. Nor do your chairs. Nor each door in your house. Your washing machine works perfectly well without being on the net. So does your garage door. The risks of putting highly insecure interfaces on such items just does not justify the potential benefit.
That used to be a cartoon: "In a fit of manic brilliance, network engineer Joe Blow wires the shredder into the office network".
Nope. Telecommute to the Indian company and live a few miles from the client US company who could have hired you directly. Of course, you will have to adopt a pseudonym like Rajiv Virajnarianan.
That was an ancient Dilbert strip where Wally got laid off because his job was offshored, so he applied for a job with the offshoring company who hired him because his experience was so relevant to the job and let him telecommute full time, and gave him a cost of living boost in his salary for living in the US. And he didn't have to answer the phone 9-5 because that was nighttime in India.
I can have a comfortable chair because it doesn't have to conform to HR's ranking of who gets what kind of chair based on whether one is a manager or not (even to the point of whether it should be floral or plaid).
Holy shit is that a thing? What kind of a dead beat employer does that? I have the same chair as the top manager at my company and I think also the same one as the cleaner does in their break room.
Oh yeah. And not only does the quality of your chair rise with your status, at some level you earn the right to have a second chair in your cubicle, so that all those coworkers you are having those productive face to face discussions with which you need to be in the office for can have a place to sit without having to steal the chair from a coworker who had to go to the bathroom.
You are the reason the rest of us want to get out of the office. Your 5 second question costs us minutes or hours of productivity. Being forced to write out your question in words forces you to consider the problem from a different angle.
The real reason? Simple: people are lazy as shit. If you give them a chance to slack off, they will. And that's far more likely at home than at work where a pointy-haired boss can tell you something else that needs doing.
All the rest is just hand-wavy bullshit. And it's right. I personally think "working from home" is *never* as efficient as a dedicated, isolated workspace. If you do it, it should be a level of trust you EARN from a company, certainly not start with. Plus, I think if you work from home you should get paid less, because working from home is so desirable and convenient.
And I personally have the full choice of working from home, or at my office; I've worked for the firm for 23 years, they couldn't care less. But generally, I work from the office.
Working late is a sign of someone who doesn't have their shit together. I like someone who gets their shit done on time, but I prefer someone who does it during business hours. The people who send emails in the middle of the night are usually the ones who work on adrenalin and stress. I want the guy who does his time and then goes out and lives his life. not a "rockstar" who shows off by working all hours. Show up on time, do your work, and then get the fuck out of there.
I used to watch the contractor guys at a previous employer; they'd goof around all day throwing paper airplanes and stuff, then work all night. Needless to say, the contractor billed by the hour.
A good chair that won't flat your butt is a good $600!
Not everyone wants to pay for that when you have 3,000 employees
You have to file an accessibility/RSI/workplace injury type thing with HR, then they will get you $1,000 ergonomic chairs or anything else, no questions asked.
Because it's the thing that gets the right wing upset. He's a xenophobic serial liar with the attention span of a gnat who knows nothing about domestic or foreign issues and has no clue about what the president can or cannot do, whose entire business history comprises robbing his partners, investors, suppliers, and employees in order to inflate his own grandiose ego? Sure, why not. Uh oh, he's expressing an interest in sex which half the rightwingers privately share (the other half being gay or pedophiles)! Burn the witch! Freudian repression and projection personified by the very class of people in whom Freud couldn't help but observe it.
The flip side of the rightwing's obsession with Bill Clinton's sex life and their disappointed surprise when the public in general didn't seem to want to lynch Clinton over it.
The Talmudic law recognizes 6 distinct genders; just an example of a pretty conservative but intensely thought out analysis. And that's from a couple of thousand years ago before all the surgical and pharmaceutical things possible now. It's like saying all those racial gradations we use these days are silly, there's white and colored and that's it.
Just like people who stand up for Trump are just holding him back. If you ever want him to achieve equality you've got to let him fight his own battles.
Mention his abusive behavior? She accused him of raping her. Exactly what he was recorded bragging about doing to strangers. Just a coincidence I guess. Both of them just making small talk. Haha, life is funny, eh?
Assange is an admitted Hillary hater. His goal is not transparency and it has nothing to do with public service or the public good. The man's a walking colostomy bag.
Oh, be fair. Clinton wanted to kill Assange, and spend an entire meeting discussing how to do it.
Clinton never followed up the "drone strike" comment with "seriously", or anything to indicate that she was kidding - she just went on as if it was an option.
“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States.
Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton’s top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.”
Give Julian a break, Hillary Clinton conspired to kill him.
Assange is an admitted Hillary hater. His goal is not transparency and it has nothing to do with public service or the public good. The man's a walking colostomy bag.
Oh, be fair. Clinton wanted to kill Assange, and spend an entire meeting discussing how to do it.
Clinton never followed up the "drone strike" comment with "seriously", or anything to indicate that she was kidding - she just went on as if it was an option.
“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States.
Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton’s top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.”
Give Julian a break, Hillary Clinton conspired to kill him.
ironically, nobody can find where that was leaked.
and that's why he's better where he is than as president. same for warren. they're better as full time advocates for the progressive position than they would be trying to implement things with hundreds of unruly congressmen and senators, each with his or her own axe to grind. ideological purity is not a virtue in a president, and where found in a politician it should be conserved for its most effective use and not squandered.
What makes you think she did not have an equal number of equally qualified people giving her the opinions she followed? For instance, the entire Republican party which voted every year to reduce the security budget for foreign diplomatic posts? Do you think if she had decided to unilaterally somehow find a way around that, they would today be praising her wisdom? Or if she had placed her email on the state dept server, that would absolve her of being blamed for carelessness when it was indeed hacked? The fact is the hillary bashers begin with the conclusion that they don't like her and generate the evidence why a posteriori, and the proof of that is how they can flip their argument 180 degrees to cover whatever she does. She's a hardcore socialist, who's in the pocket of wall Street. She's a frail and confused old lady, who's also a criminal mastermind with an iron fist. Etc. just like Obama, the muslim socialist tool of wall Street who belongs to the white-hating church.
Research does not consist in memorizing every insane right-wing talking point so you can list them, outside the rightwing world where adhering to authoritative opinions passed down is the badge of all virtue. For the rest of us, it constitutes digging up facts not handed to you, and making up your own mind. Such as the extensive list of admiring comments about how Hillary is just wonderful made by every Republican up until she became the likely candidate after 2012, including trump. The same folks who now somberly toss around the words corrupt and criminal to impress the folks on whom calling names works.
At last, a reliable thinker. The fact is, Hillary has done more good for people in need, from 9/11 responders to veterans to impoverished children, than all the other candidates put together. And i say that as someone who likes Bernie and Stein. Even if somebody were to opine that they disagreed with Hillary but her intentions were good I'd at least think they were reasonable but misinformed. But this need to live in a black and white world where whoever you didn't like was the embodiment of evil, this susceptibility to tossing around meaningless adjectives like "corrupt", to parrot every charge leveled b against the candidate whose main failing is not being your favorite without noting that every one has been investigated and found basically trivial at worst; people just watch way too much TV drama.
Slashdot Mirror
Is the smart thermostat we see today the same one that was there yesterday?
I bet this can be demonstrated to be equivalent to the halting problem. The question should be really: here are the spcifications of a certain device (whether dictated by the manufacturer, or determined empirically): does the present device match them? With every query from here to eternity? Under all circumstances? That smells like the halting problem.
So, in other words, you can never be completely certain of the answer, only confident up to specific bounds. Maybe that's good enough, but $50K for that kind of work is not, and the amount of effort involved for the general case, is not. A good solution for the problem is going to be the sort of thing that would take a startup into a medium-to-large corporation.
But there are really much better ways to avoid the problem in the first place. I mean, to paraphrase a processor of mine, we don't need a microprocessor in every doorknob. Just don't use the damned things. Your fridge does not need to be on the net. Nor do your chairs. Nor each door in your house. Your washing machine works perfectly well without being on the net. So does your garage door. The risks of putting highly insecure interfaces on such items just does not justify the potential benefit.
That used to be a cartoon: "In a fit of manic brilliance, network engineer Joe Blow wires the shredder into the office network".
If it comes from China and is a brand you never heard of. It's going to be a problem.
Or a famous quality brand name which you see sold new on Ebay for $3.50 from China with free shipping.
Move to India and work for US company
Nope. Telecommute to the Indian company and live a few miles from the client US company who could have hired you directly. Of course, you will have to adopt a pseudonym like Rajiv Virajnarianan.
That was an ancient Dilbert strip where Wally got laid off because his job was offshored, so he applied for a job with the offshoring company who hired him because his experience was so relevant to the job and let him telecommute full time, and gave him a cost of living boost in his salary for living in the US. And he didn't have to answer the phone 9-5 because that was nighttime in India.
I can have a comfortable chair because it doesn't have to conform to HR's ranking of who gets what kind of chair based on whether one is a manager or not (even to the point of whether it should be floral or plaid).
Holy shit is that a thing? What kind of a dead beat employer does that? I have the same chair as the top manager at my company and I think also the same one as the cleaner does in their break room.
Oh yeah. And not only does the quality of your chair rise with your status, at some level you earn the right to have a second chair in your cubicle, so that all those coworkers you are having those productive face to face discussions with which you need to be in the office for can have a place to sit without having to steal the chair from a coworker who had to go to the bathroom.
You are the reason the rest of us want to get out of the office. Your 5 second question costs us minutes or hours of productivity. Being forced to write out your question in words forces you to consider the problem from a different angle.
https://spin.atomicobject.com/...
The real reason? Simple: people are lazy as shit. If you give them a chance to slack off, they will. And that's far more likely at home than at work where a pointy-haired boss can tell you something else that needs doing.
All the rest is just hand-wavy bullshit. And it's right. I personally think "working from home" is *never* as efficient as a dedicated, isolated workspace. If you do it, it should be a level of trust you EARN from a company, certainly not start with. Plus, I think if you work from home you should get paid less, because working from home is so desirable and convenient.
And I personally have the full choice of working from home, or at my office; I've worked for the firm for 23 years, they couldn't care less. But generally, I work from the office.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini...
Working late is a sign of someone who doesn't have their shit together. I like someone who gets their shit done on time, but I prefer someone who does it during business hours. The people who send emails in the middle of the night are usually the ones who work on adrenalin and stress. I want the guy who does his time and then goes out and lives his life. not a "rockstar" who shows off by working all hours. Show up on time, do your work, and then get the fuck out of there.
I used to watch the contractor guys at a previous employer; they'd goof around all day throwing paper airplanes and stuff, then work all night. Needless to say, the contractor billed by the hour.
A good chair that won't flat your butt is a good $600!
Not everyone wants to pay for that when you have 3,000 employees
You have to file an accessibility/RSI/workplace injury type thing with HR, then they will get you $1,000 ergonomic chairs or anything else, no questions asked.
Because it's the thing that gets the right wing upset. He's a xenophobic serial liar with the attention span of a gnat who knows nothing about domestic or foreign issues and has no clue about what the president can or cannot do, whose entire business history comprises robbing his partners, investors, suppliers, and employees in order to inflate his own grandiose ego? Sure, why not. Uh oh, he's expressing an interest in sex which half the rightwingers privately share (the other half being gay or pedophiles)! Burn the witch!
Freudian repression and projection personified by the very class of people in whom Freud couldn't help but observe it.
The flip side of the rightwing's obsession with Bill Clinton's sex life and their disappointed surprise when the public in general didn't seem to want to lynch Clinton over it.
The Talmudic law recognizes 6 distinct genders; just an example of a pretty conservative but intensely thought out analysis. And that's from a couple of thousand years ago before all the surgical and pharmaceutical things possible now. It's like saying all those racial gradations we use these days are silly, there's white and colored and that's it.
Just like people who stand up for Trump are just holding him back. If you ever want him to achieve equality you've got to let him fight his own battles.
Women should be flattered when a great man like Trump grabs their pussy. He wouldn't do that if they were chubbos.
I think you don't understand the meaning of "without a doubt".
Mention his abusive behavior? She accused him of raping her. Exactly what he was recorded bragging about doing to strangers. Just a coincidence I guess. Both of them just making small talk. Haha, life is funny, eh?
I think you're confused about the meaning of "*actually*"
Mr. Trump, I believe your handlers have requested that you stop posting this stuff until after the campaign.
Assange is an admitted Hillary hater. His goal is not transparency and it has nothing to do with public service or the public good. The man's a walking colostomy bag.
Oh, be fair. Clinton wanted to kill Assange, and spend an entire meeting discussing how to do it.
Clinton never followed up the "drone strike" comment with "seriously", or anything to indicate that she was kidding - she just went on as if it was an option.
“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States.
Also, the meeting prompted one of her staffers to write a followup memo with the subject "legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks"
Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton’s top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.”
Give Julian a break, Hillary Clinton conspired to kill him.
"True Pundit’s unconfirmed report alleges "
Assange is an admitted Hillary hater. His goal is not transparency and it has nothing to do with public service or the public good. The man's a walking colostomy bag.
Oh, be fair. Clinton wanted to kill Assange, and spend an entire meeting discussing how to do it.
Clinton never followed up the "drone strike" comment with "seriously", or anything to indicate that she was kidding - she just went on as if it was an option.
“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States.
Also, the meeting prompted one of her staffers to write a followup memo with the subject "legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks"
Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton’s top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.”
Give Julian a break, Hillary Clinton conspired to kill him.
ironically, nobody can find where that was leaked.
and that's why he's better where he is than as president. same for warren. they're better as full time advocates for the progressive position than they would be trying to implement things with hundreds of unruly congressmen and senators, each with his or her own axe to grind.
ideological purity is not a virtue in a president, and where found in a politician it should be conserved for its most effective use and not squandered.
A presidential candidate speaking to wall st. execs praises them and asks for donations!! did not expect that!
What makes you think she did not have an equal number of equally qualified people giving her the opinions she followed? For instance, the entire Republican party which voted every year to reduce the security budget for foreign diplomatic posts? Do you think if she had decided to unilaterally somehow find a way around that, they would today be praising her wisdom? Or if she had placed her email on the state dept server, that would absolve her of being blamed for carelessness when it was indeed hacked? The fact is the hillary bashers begin with the conclusion that they don't like her and generate the evidence why a posteriori, and the proof of that is how they can flip their argument 180 degrees to cover whatever she does. She's a hardcore socialist, who's in the pocket of wall Street. She's a frail and confused old lady, who's also a criminal mastermind with an iron fist. Etc.
just like Obama, the muslim socialist tool of wall Street who belongs to the white-hating church.
Research does not consist in memorizing every insane right-wing talking point so you can list them, outside the rightwing world where adhering to authoritative opinions passed down is the badge of all virtue. For the rest of us, it constitutes digging up facts not handed to you, and making up your own mind. Such as the extensive list of admiring comments about how Hillary is just wonderful made by every Republican up until she became the likely candidate after 2012, including trump. The same folks who now somberly toss around the words corrupt and criminal to impress the folks on whom calling names works.
At last, a reliable thinker. The fact is, Hillary has done more good for people in need, from 9/11 responders to veterans to impoverished children, than all the other candidates put together. And i say that as someone who likes Bernie and Stein.
Even if somebody were to opine that they disagreed with Hillary but her intentions were good I'd at least think they were reasonable but misinformed. But this need to live in a black and white world where whoever you didn't like was the embodiment of evil, this susceptibility to tossing around meaningless adjectives like "corrupt", to parrot every charge leveled b against the candidate whose main failing is not being your favorite without noting that every one has been investigated and found basically trivial at worst; people just watch way too much TV drama.
Oh heck, there are lots of rent an evil places.
Seeing trump and Clinton as similar in any way other than carbon based organisms is prima facie evidence that your opinions are unreliable.