I found particularly interesting the fact that they're delving into more and more real-time scene generation (or at least parts of it). This will almost certainly require a beefy graphics card, and right now I'm trying to figure out if my current card will be able to cut it, if only on lower settings.
That's funny - half they time THEY don't even know. What they know is the text included on the slick four-color brochures that say pretty much nothing, but in an aesthetically-controlled manner. They could save themselves a lot of money and just send out flyers that say, "We sell stuff," and they'd be every bit as informative.
Let me know that you care that my time is valuable to me. Don't make me DIG for answers. If you're selling something, tell me what it is, because I'm not likely to waste my time trying to find out.
I have to disagree. Once upon a time, software companies sold software. Today, they don't sell software, they sell "solutions". In fact, EVERYONE sells "solutions". What's a solution, anyway? I can't think of a more vague description that completely removes any attempt at intelligent evaluation.
Using this kind of language allows marketing types to change their tune on que. A "solution" is abstract. An accounting application, on the other hand, is something I can start to evaluate.
But I am absolutely against recent "liberal" attempts to stifle Free Speech by restricting campaign contributions.
The problem is that it's not PEOPLE donating the money, it's large corporations. Corporations do not vote, and therefore, do not have a say in the election. Unfortunately, it's these very corporate contributions that seem to be a driving force in much of the legislative process. This leaves the citizens (remember them?) out in the cold. The fact that they vote is becoming more a formality than anything else- the typical politicans' priorities lie with those who fund his/her warchest.
If I'm not mistaken those orange areas denote areas of probability in which an electron in a given orbit will appear. The probability comes into play because electrons don't have "orbits" like planets have orbits, they have "areas" within which they vibrate randomly.
"There is an element of 'caveat emptor' -- buyer beware. Before buying any software an enterprise should check whether a vendor uses their own security software. They should also be accredited with a CMM [Capability Maturity Model] standard -- it's like a kitemark. CMM level three, four or five is an indication the software has been developed by quality developers," the BCS spokesperson said.
Um, aren't companies like Accenture CMM level 5? I eeem to recall a recent slashdot post mentioning several very costly failures.
Developers pay money, insurance companies get money, end users get screwed, politicians and executives get rich.
Don't forget the lawyers.
In fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the legal 'profession,' if I may call it that, has internalized a new method to justify its continued expansion...if things start getting tight, just lobby Congress (or your favorite bed-hopping political appointee) to push laws that would almost guarantee your 'profession,' if I may call it that, a fresh new source of revenue.
Funny you mention building codes....building codes, in many cases, are a bare minimum that must be met in order to pass inspection. As one inspector told me, codes offer no guarantee whatsoever against a shoddy product. As long as the codes are met, any other defects are between the contractor and buyer.
In fact, building codes and inspection have proven to become a double-edges sword. You see, cities WANT to evolve and expand (especially newer ones), because it increases their tax base. Anything that slows down this process does not "jive" with the overall objective, so inpections can become, let's say, somewhat 'patchy'.
That would be out-and-out censorship, as software is protected under copyright. I believe it is my right to express my creativity using program code. Whether anyone chooses to copy it to their computer, and initiate its execution is another matter entirely.
From the link you posted: Schmidt, the former chief security officer at Microsoft Corp., played a key role in drafting the Bush administration's "National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace,"
If we could hold our 'elected' politicians to the same standard, I dare say some in the whitehouse would be getting used to their new bright orange business attire about now.
I'm curious now - you know damned certain players <cough>Microsoft<cough> won't be held accountable, nor any of the biggies, like Accenture. If something comes up and starts to slow things down, I've heard about this green-colored grease that can work wonders in various political circles.
Um, maybe this isn't what you intended to say, but raster programs are very readily used to "create" stuff - I come from the Painter camp where raster-based creative work is very common. I suppose this might not be true if you're more accustomed to Photoshop, whose primary focus has been compositing and retouching.
The question is what constitutes a 'reasonable' search? That alone begs the question, "If i'm not an identified suspect as a party to a criminal act, does the government have reasonable grounds to observe me in ANY fashion?" I believe that the US courts have held that with respect to law enforcement, there must be a legitimate reason for any government entity to entangle itself within activities of a citizen's day-to-day life. Legitimate reason arises when one is a suspect of a criminal act that has been committed, or one's actions are a very clear indication that a crime is about to be committed. Downloading a file, talking on a telephone, walking in a public park, or onto a public transit system do not qualify in any sense. Therefore, any effort to observe the citizenry at large to determine if they *might* be doing something illegal, is completely unreasonable.
I'm willing to bet that a signficant number of people don't even know about the electoral college, how it works, and how their vote relates to the overall process ANYWAY.
While I think true representation would be a good thing, I'm not sure it change things much. You'd still have the same kinds of people running for office, you'd still have incredible barriers to entry, campaigns involving absurd amounts of money, the unending self-interest that characterizes most politicians, etc. These are systemic problems that have evolved over years of neglect, and in my opinion, there are only two ways to clean it up:
1. Thoroughly clean house over the next few election cycles 2. JUST SAY NO to federal money
I'd say the second task is probably one of the most influential factors in terms of why certain people, depsite the damage they inflict on the overall system of democracy, keep getting back into office. Like overcoming a bad crack habit, it will also be the most difficult.
Like so many other "discoverable" attributes, this could easily backfire. If an employer/insurer is ever in such a position to perform a blood test of any kind, there's not a whole lot sitting between your sample, and them acquiring a lot of extra information about you.
People always used bridges as a comparison- I don't think that's fair. Bridges have one very clear, very defined, unwavering purpose: to span a distance between two points. Once the bridge is built, it's done. There is no "Bridge v2.0", and the only real thing that can change within its environment can only happen as a result of a major event, such as an earthquake, a flood, or destruction via explosives. Software, on the other hand, is quite dynamic. After the initial development process (which is quite malleable in and of itself), users expect subsequent improvement. In the mean time, the original software may have been re-installed on a different machine, with different drivers, and god knows what else. You've got all these dynamics coming into play that can change the original environment quite dramatically.
I'm not advocating that software testing should be any less important, and perhaps perhaps there should be more empahsis on testing. But in the end, all a test tells you is that given a defined set of conditions as input, the result either does or does not fall within the scope of acceptable output. Considering the dynamic nature of software, I'd think that it's quite easy for that "defined set of conditions" to inadvertently exclude unforseen circumstances.
I think you're confusing value with supply and demand. Value isn't always created by supply and demand...in many cases, it created by simple human desire. This desire would exist or not, with or without the legislation you speak of.
If 10,000 people decide that they like listening to a certain song, no law will change this. The law might change the availability of the song, or the terms under which its enjoyment might be offered, but it won't change the fact that 10,000 people have decided that they like it.
This guy works for Microsoft, and had released an article with a rather defensive tone to it. I laughed the same way when I heard Mrs. Bush chastising the American public for picking on her husband.
That article you linked is kind of interesting. He starts off by talking about how no great hackers would willingly work on NT (because it isn't a good development platform), but then later on, goes on about how good a place Microsoft is to work (presumably because it avoids the use of cubicles). Now, if Microsoft can afford to put all of its great minds to wokr in offices, why haven't they been able to come up with stuff that is more palatable to 'great hackers' than NT? You'd think just the opposite would be true.
I in no way intend this to detract from the notion that creative, productive people need reasonable working conditions IF a company wants to assure maximum ROI. Constant distractions, interruptions, etc. are a death knell for creative thinking...yes, you can still crank code, but there's a huge difference between cranking and creativity. The creativity comes in where you need to come up with an elegant solution to a complex problem. When programmers are allowed to operate "in the zone," these things tend to happen with greater frequency. Without this, finding the same solution can become a mind-numbing and dreaded chore. So, as a company, what do you want? Programmers who embrace working on challenges, or programmers who try to avoid chores altogether (by using less-than-optimal substitutes)?
Interesting point. But if you read about the failure at Three-mile Island, it was an interesting combination of design oversight and human error (most likely caused by the factors brought on by the design oversight). What's even more interesting is how all these events "connected" with one another- in ways that you might not normally expect (the designers sure didn't).
I will grant you that all of this was directly associated with the operation of the reactor itself, but even if you're talking about something that deals with infrastructural support, it can play its own part. What if, for example, the system was reporting incorrect information due to some kind of file corruption? Or what if a key maintenance/test record had been inadvertently lost due to a software failure, causing plant operators/maintenance engineers to repeat something unecessarily, or initiate an investigation into a problem that may never have existed? I'd opine that *anything* associated with the day-to-day operation of a nuclear power plant needs to a very high degree of reliability.
This is just as much an indictment of.Net as it is of the development process itself. The conditions at TMI were notoriously similar to the manner in which unforseen circumstances can work their way into the design of a software application.
So what are you saying? Are you suggesting that because Bush may have had has his own personal reasons for invading a foreign country without cause, that we're supposed to sit back and not ask any questions? That would be quite unpatriotic. The price of freedom IS eternal vigilence, and if that means demanding some accountability from the purported leader of the country, then that's what it means.
Slashdot Mirror
I watched those- awesome stuff.
I found particularly interesting the fact that they're delving into more and more real-time scene generation (or at least parts of it). This will almost certainly require a beefy graphics card, and right now I'm trying to figure out if my current card will be able to cut it, if only on lower settings.
That's funny - half they time THEY don't even know. What they know is the text included on the slick four-color brochures that say pretty much nothing, but in an aesthetically-controlled manner. They could save themselves a lot of money and just send out flyers that say, "We sell stuff," and they'd be every bit as informative.
Let me know that you care that my time is valuable to me. Don't make me DIG for answers. If you're selling something, tell me what it is, because I'm not likely to waste my time trying to find out.
"smart" means that it knows what you want to do, whether you want to do it or not.
I have to disagree. Once upon a time, software companies sold software. Today, they don't sell software, they sell "solutions". In fact, EVERYONE sells "solutions". What's a solution, anyway? I can't think of a more vague description that completely removes any attempt at intelligent evaluation.
Using this kind of language allows marketing types to change their tune on que. A "solution" is abstract. An accounting application, on the other hand, is something I can start to evaluate.
Oh man, I totally agree. Or some scumbag who lies about nation-building and large government spending.
But I am absolutely against recent "liberal" attempts to stifle Free Speech by restricting campaign contributions.
The problem is that it's not PEOPLE donating the money, it's large corporations. Corporations do not vote, and therefore, do not have a say in the election. Unfortunately, it's these very corporate contributions that seem to be a driving force in much of the legislative process. This leaves the citizens (remember them?) out in the cold. The fact that they vote is becoming more a formality than anything else- the typical politicans' priorities lie with those who fund his/her warchest.
If I'm not mistaken those orange areas denote areas of probability in which an electron in a given orbit will appear. The probability comes into play because electrons don't have "orbits" like planets have orbits, they have "areas" within which they vibrate randomly.
"There is an element of 'caveat emptor' -- buyer beware. Before buying any software an enterprise should check whether a vendor uses their own security software. They should also be accredited with a CMM [Capability Maturity Model] standard -- it's like a kitemark. CMM level three, four or five is an indication the software has been developed by quality developers," the BCS spokesperson said.
Um, aren't companies like Accenture CMM level 5? I eeem to recall a recent slashdot post mentioning several very costly failures.
Developers pay money, insurance companies get money, end users get screwed, politicians and executives get rich.
Don't forget the lawyers.
In fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the legal 'profession,' if I may call it that, has internalized a new method to justify its continued expansion...if things start getting tight, just lobby Congress (or your favorite bed-hopping political appointee) to push laws that would almost guarantee your 'profession,' if I may call it that, a fresh new source of revenue.
Funny you mention building codes....building codes, in many cases, are a bare minimum that must be met in order to pass inspection. As one inspector told me, codes offer no guarantee whatsoever against a shoddy product. As long as the codes are met, any other defects are between the contractor and buyer.
In fact, building codes and inspection have proven to become a double-edges sword. You see, cities WANT to evolve and expand (especially newer ones), because it increases their tax base. Anything that slows down this process does not "jive" with the overall objective, so inpections can become, let's say, somewhat 'patchy'.
That would be out-and-out censorship, as software is protected under copyright. I believe it is my right to express my creativity using program code. Whether anyone chooses to copy it to their computer, and initiate its execution is another matter entirely.
From the link you posted: Schmidt, the former chief security officer at Microsoft Corp., played a key role in drafting the Bush administration's "National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace,"
If we could hold our 'elected' politicians to the same standard, I dare say some in the whitehouse would be getting used to their new bright orange business attire about now.
I'm curious now - you know damned certain players <cough>Microsoft<cough> won't be held accountable, nor any of the biggies, like Accenture. If something comes up and starts to slow things down, I've heard about this green-colored grease that can work wonders in various political circles.
Um, maybe this isn't what you intended to say, but raster programs are very readily used to "create" stuff - I come from the Painter camp where raster-based creative work is very common. I suppose this might not be true if you're more accustomed to Photoshop, whose primary focus has been compositing and retouching.
The question is what constitutes a 'reasonable' search? That alone begs the question, "If i'm not an identified suspect as a party to a criminal act, does the government have reasonable grounds to observe me in ANY fashion?" I believe that the US courts have held that with respect to law enforcement, there must be a legitimate reason for any government entity to entangle itself within activities of a citizen's day-to-day life. Legitimate reason arises when one is a suspect of a criminal act that has been committed, or one's actions are a very clear indication that a crime is about to be committed. Downloading a file, talking on a telephone, walking in a public park, or onto a public transit system do not qualify in any sense. Therefore, any effort to observe the citizenry at large to determine if they *might* be doing something illegal, is completely unreasonable.
I'm willing to bet that a signficant number of people don't even know about the electoral college, how it works, and how their vote relates to the overall process ANYWAY.
While I think true representation would be a good thing, I'm not sure it change things much. You'd still have the same kinds of people running for office, you'd still have incredible barriers to entry, campaigns involving absurd amounts of money, the unending self-interest that characterizes most politicians, etc. These are systemic problems that have evolved over years of neglect, and in my opinion, there are only two ways to clean it up:
1. Thoroughly clean house over the next few election cycles
2. JUST SAY NO to federal money
I'd say the second task is probably one of the most influential factors in terms of why certain people, depsite the damage they inflict on the overall system of democracy, keep getting back into office. Like overcoming a bad crack habit, it will also be the most difficult.
Like so many other "discoverable" attributes, this could easily backfire. If an employer/insurer is ever in such a position to perform a blood test of any kind, there's not a whole lot sitting between your sample, and them acquiring a lot of extra information about you.
People always used bridges as a comparison- I don't think that's fair. Bridges have one very clear, very defined, unwavering purpose: to span a distance between two points. Once the bridge is built, it's done. There is no "Bridge v2.0", and the only real thing that can change within its environment can only happen as a result of a major event, such as an earthquake, a flood, or destruction via explosives. Software, on the other hand, is quite dynamic. After the initial development process (which is quite malleable in and of itself), users expect subsequent improvement. In the mean time, the original software may have been re-installed on a different machine, with different drivers, and god knows what else. You've got all these dynamics coming into play that can change the original environment quite dramatically.
I'm not advocating that software testing should be any less important, and perhaps perhaps there should be more empahsis on testing. But in the end, all a test tells you is that given a defined set of conditions as input, the result either does or does not fall within the scope of acceptable output. Considering the dynamic nature of software, I'd think that it's quite easy for that "defined set of conditions" to inadvertently exclude unforseen circumstances.
I think you're confusing value with supply and demand. Value isn't always created by supply and demand...in many cases, it created by simple human desire. This desire would exist or not, with or without the legislation you speak of.
If 10,000 people decide that they like listening to a certain song, no law will change this. The law might change the availability of the song, or the terms under which its enjoyment might be offered, but it won't change the fact that 10,000 people have decided that they like it.
This guy works for Microsoft, and had released an article with a rather defensive tone to it. I laughed the same way when I heard Mrs. Bush chastising the American public for picking on her husband.
Legislating to create value where there is otherwise none is an abuse of law and government, plain and simple. This is obviously not "theft".
Clarify then, if you will. If it has no value, why would people be interested in aquiring it? If people want it, it quite obviously has value.
Wow...if that isn't self-serving, I don't know what is.
That article you linked is kind of interesting. He starts off by talking about how no great hackers would willingly work on NT (because it isn't a good development platform), but then later on, goes on about how good a place Microsoft is to work (presumably because it avoids the use of cubicles). Now, if Microsoft can afford to put all of its great minds to wokr in offices, why haven't they been able to come up with stuff that is more palatable to 'great hackers' than NT? You'd think just the opposite would be true.
I in no way intend this to detract from the notion that creative, productive people need reasonable working conditions IF a company wants to assure maximum ROI. Constant distractions, interruptions, etc. are a death knell for creative thinking...yes, you can still crank code, but there's a huge difference between cranking and creativity. The creativity comes in where you need to come up with an elegant solution to a complex problem. When programmers are allowed to operate "in the zone," these things tend to happen with greater frequency. Without this, finding the same solution can become a mind-numbing and dreaded chore. So, as a company, what do you want? Programmers who embrace working on challenges, or programmers who try to avoid chores altogether (by using less-than-optimal substitutes)?
Interesting point. But if you read about the failure at Three-mile Island, it was an interesting combination of design oversight and human error (most likely caused by the factors brought on by the design oversight). What's even more interesting is how all these events "connected" with one another- in ways that you might not normally expect (the designers sure didn't).
.Net as it is of the development process itself. The conditions at TMI were notoriously similar to the manner in which unforseen circumstances can work their way into the design of a software application.
I will grant you that all of this was directly associated with the operation of the reactor itself, but even if you're talking about something that deals with infrastructural support, it can play its own part. What if, for example, the system was reporting incorrect information due to some kind of file corruption? Or what if a key maintenance/test record had been inadvertently lost due to a software failure, causing plant operators/maintenance engineers to repeat something unecessarily, or initiate an investigation into a problem that may never have existed? I'd opine that *anything* associated with the day-to-day operation of a nuclear power plant needs to a very high degree of reliability.
This is just as much an indictment of
So what are you saying? Are you suggesting that because Bush may have had has his own personal reasons for invading a foreign country without cause, that we're supposed to sit back and not ask any questions? That would be quite unpatriotic. The price of freedom IS eternal vigilence, and if that means demanding some accountability from the purported leader of the country, then that's what it means.
If you don't know how it works, learn, but don't pretend you know how it works.