Really, the free trial version of course is a way of getting a large test populatition to shake down the product, to get the product out and get acceptance in the community, to get the geeks familiar with it ahead of time so when the others in their company, friends and family get hit with the new version they will have a up and ready support community. All this microsoft gets for free. This was not a beta version but probably a shakedown version. So the treatment of the user, especiall un-scheduled shutdowns that could ruin a database, or a file or a directory or someones life work seems like a little on the unfeeling corporate 'we can do anything to you we want', spoiled child, I'm going to take my ball and go home, side. Go Microsoft with this new public relations campaign. Luckily I already have Ubantu dual booted (but then my copy is a paid copy of Windows 7).
Your kidding of course. Well on one level you may be right, like evolution, the principal works on everything, but the strange bedfellows might be a squirel and a squid. So the process of politics, (making comprimises to come to a concensus to get things done is the same, a messy business for sure) but what is being legistlated is very different. You would not see the Republican party trying to enact a program that would keep people from loosing their houses to businesses, or from starving or freezing to death. They would not support making regulations that would protect banks from say failing, or for regulating compainies so they did not cheat honest folk out of their money. They would be for privatizing almost everything, selling off the National Forests, giving away the oil reserves to oil companies, giving no-bid contracts to large companies that they owned stock in, start unneeded wars to churn the military industrial complex, deregulate energy companies and when they get caught cheating people out of money and fail, hire 90% of those exectutives into the government.
Lets not talk about the difference between message and reality with all the Family Values party member scandels in the last few years. The conservatives are master of message. To bad they are selling you a bill of goods, for their interests not yours.
I don't think you would find the Democratic party supporting or legislating any of those things. There is a stark difference in philosophy and approach, a stark difference in what is considered in the best interest of the country and its citizens.
Brother you have been sold a bill of goods by the Conservatives who know and have stated as a strategy, that they do better when voter turnout is low. They have you believing that your vote does not count because its all the same, Wake up, its not the same and your vote makes all the difference in the world. The whole world knows that, and even gave Obama a Nobel Peace prize because They know the difference.
Yes but what the f... does that have to do with doing a DOS attach. Definitely dark side thinking, as for Fight Club, it was a story, and an organization based on a seriously mentally ill, multiple personality, demagogue who preyed on peoples natural tendency to join groups and like Scientology was skilled at locking people into a group with secrecy, us vs them, reward/punishment, constructed self consistant delusional reality, group recognition etc... So if that is what your about, your brothers with Scientology. What a world, what a world!
You might want to rethink your whole membership thing, really.
I had one of my Chinese neices come visit for a summer a few years back. She spent a year studying in England as well. When she was asked recently if she would like to come to the USA or stay in China, she said without hesitation stay in China. Beijing is a very modern city now in just the last 20 years totally re-done. The little emperors (single child family children) know they have it good now. Not revolution for awhile I suspect. The countryside has been getting much better too, although still very third world but the transitions are amazing is such a short time. Not to condone the actions of the Chinese government but they are on an economic role.
It just occured to me that if you can identify those computures that have Bot nets running, you have to be able to identify what that bot net traffic is. Why not just filter that out?
I agree that the car analogy is has some merit. But is incomplete. It is more like someone is driving around with a car with a manufacturing flaw that is not obvious. You don't see that the brake is not working. When you brake everthing works fine, when you accelerate everthing if fine, maybe a little slow but fine. What you don't know is that someone is using part of your trunk to transport drugs, because the lock was made such that they could open it up and put it in, open it up and take it out without you being aware. You should not have to be an automotive expert to own and use a car, you should not have to be a security expert to own and use a PC on the internet. There are manufacturing defects that are being exploited. Just like the auto industry we have product recalls to fix problems.
Notifying someone that their PC has a problem, and there should be free fixes offered by the manufactures of the software and OS's that are at fault. Yes, even for older systems they no longer support. But cutting someone off the network seem Draconian and putting blame in the wrong place.
What should happen is when a Botnet, or the like, is found, the manufacture of the exploited software should be required to contact the individual and at no charge fix the problem within a reasonable time frame. That gets a little confused if the cuplrit is Open Source, but I think the Open Source community would step up and provide the fixes required and at no cost.
Put the blame and responsibility to fix things where they belong. Well actually, catching to Sons of Bitches that are running those nets is where most of the effort should go.
The major problem is to identify legitimate traffic vs. Botnet Traffic. We know there are filters that also catch the un-intended such as censorship black lists, no-fly lists, banned book lists. And if you look at the spam or the arms races or business, when a restriction is found, the criminal finds a way around it. In the meantime the fellow who's computer was taken over is taxed with the penalty of no connection and the time to fix it. This is a little like making a victim of a crime have to come in day after day and look at mug shots. Where the victim suffers not the criminal. Best of intentions aside, you have to look at where the costs are being placed. True the Bot nets effect businesses, some benefit, the ones who advertise with span and some that don't , their competitors or the general public that gets spam or the loaded email server owners. As for the DOS and other attacks, well thats just wrong.
What we really need is more clever anti crime hackers to ferret out these criminals, that is where the money should be going. Seems like this play is just a confession that they don't have effective ways of traking these things down yet.
There is an interesting issue here. "it's their call" may be true. There may be a line though that you can speak out against or a precedence that may be dangerous to democracy in India. Here we are talking about prior constraint which is a very dangerous precedent. Now for images and ideas surrounding human procreation. Which I contend is necessary for our continued existance.
A democratic system that controls information is probably not a real democratic system. Democratic systems require a free flow and competition of ideas, when you start to restrict one idea or one point of view you divert the core ideals.
It is interesting to note that there is so much internet traffic related to sex from India. That might suggest that this legistlation is not the will of the people really. Just like in the US which has a multi-billion dollar Adult Entertainment industry, if the matter were brought up for a vote (secret ballot of course) I would imagine that much of the prudery would be exposed for what it really is, Hypocracy.
But the issue here is control of information by those who think they know whats best for us. I say, No! They don't know and they should stay out of it.
That is if you want to continue to have real democracies in the world. Can you feel the tightning of the screws already.
Some good points which I generally agree with. A notable, recent exception to the generalization that it is impossible to get elected to high office without enoumous political contributions from corporate coffers is our current president. Most of his money for the campaign came from individual donors.
This has been the exception not the rule, but we can only hope that will change in the future.
Just think, if individuals thought that supporting a candidate financially was acually in their best interest then maybe candidates would rely less on corporate contributions, and as we know with free market competition is efficient so corporations will pass on those savings (the money they don't have to spend on political campaigns) to us by reduced prices and costs for things like health care, DVD's, insurance premiums, and soap.
No I'm not going to give you any of the stuff I'm smoking so don't ask.
I just wrote the President, I urge you to do the same. I think they deserve to get slashdotted in that way. Tell them what you think and that there Is interest in the topic and that you have an opinion. Then they have some more information on which to base a decision, especially when you think that this is an issue that effects all the people.
What I am concerned about is that this looks like an end run by another group that was seeking net non-neutrality. In this case the corporate owners of copyrights, here we know that it is not the singer song writter (like it ever was) that is being effected, or for that matter consulted. It appears as though big corporations, I suspect news and entertainment are a big part of it as well as software companies. That want to get a hand on the internet spigot to have prior-constraint control over information especiall information they feel they own. But then I suspect a handful of countries would love to have access to request internet connection be broken for filtered if they think the message is not what they want. That is being done in China now certainly and the some Middle Eastern countries. That is not a good trend. It would be like only being allowed to listen to Fox news all day, is it really fair and balanced and calling it news might be a stretch. And it is a small step from corporate control to a corporate state (or one that is corporate controlled).
The key here is the controls that are being hinted at may not be in the countries , or the worlds best interest. We need to know what they are contemplating before we as a people are committed to an action that effects our information infrastructure. We own it, not them. They forget that sometimes.
To get back to the butterfly effect, actually came orignally I beleive from some simulations (and I believe it was a weather simulation) that was interrupted, probably a systems crash. The simlation was printing out reams and reams of paper and had run for a long time. The scientists decide to start the simlation up from a checkpoint from the printout, entered the data and started the simulation. They had started not from the end but from one of the previous checkpoints to be able to see that the simulation was entered correctly and continuing on. It was fine for awhile but started to diverge, then eventuall was totally different from the original result that was coming out. That seemed to fly in the face of logic and determainistic computing and simulation. They tracked it down to the fact that although they did print out the internal values to a great precision they did not print the numbers out to all the precision in that was held internally. So an infitesimal amount (not unlike the effect of a butterfy's wing) had a very dramatic effect on the simulation. And is also why we can't predict weather out more than a week or so with much accuracy.
Yes we are talking about unstable systems, weather, ocean currents etc. and you ask, what effect will a little fuzz on the bottom of the wind tunnel have, dramatic long term effect is the answer, and the other part is, we don't know what the effect will be exactly but that there will be an effect.
As to the putting up tall buildings willy nilly, yes you are right, and I say that greed and short sightedness is why that is true, and I believe they do have effects on weather patterns.
I was talking to about scale. If very large wind farms or wave energy retreaval farms are deployed they will have an effect.
Look at the desertification of Africa, due to changing weather. It is true that wind like water will take the path of least resistance. Add some resistance here and the presure at this point is a little greater and the wind pattern will be altered, which means weather patterns altered, which means a little more rain, a little less rain, a little colder, a little warmer, whatever, that effects plants, animals, crops.
I always like the Chinese grand plan that happened around 1960 I believe where the government decided that the birds were eating crops so mobilized the whole country to go out and bang pans so the birds would not be able to rest in the trees, hundreds of thousands if not millions of birds were killed as result and China had several years of famine, mainly because the birds actually ate the insects that ate the crops.
Or the Aswan Damn project that the US Corp of Engineers turned down but that the Russia took over. They damed up the Nile, it stopped flooding, but the farmland no longer got the enrichment of the silt that came down each year with the floods, so they needed fertilizer, and the dam silted up behind and needs to be continuously dredged. Another political short term thinking debacle.
Grand large scale schemes have to be looked at very carefully, especially ones that take energy from here and put it there. Its never free. The question is who really pays the price. I don't argue against technology just greedy short term thinking and the thinking that we get something for nothing.
Actually, the only ones that do know our identities are the government, and those illegal hacker types with control issues, (you know the ones, with Mommy issues). Just like guns, the three categories, the ubermeisters, the crooks, and the sheep. And those first two groups have struck up a deal. Did I mention that corporations are the negotiators. But seriously, there is a fine line between honest protest and targeted marketing for profit. In this case, a woman running for office and an attack on her family. Sounds like a profit motive, and if the attack were a cynical calculated political dirty trick, well that being exposed seems appropriate. Which would make it much more troubling than just bullying, a attempt to control our election process through swift boat type dirty tricks. I don't have a problem with that being exposed for what it is, and who was behind it.
Tech and posibilities asside, what are the impacts of energy solutions?
For the Sat solar type, it has to beam that energy back, with some cost to heating up the atmosphere, which will raise temperatures and change weather patterns, to what extent, the power levels would be enormous locally, I hope that they model that before the field a unit.
Lets look at wind turbine. They take energy from the wind, is that free, no, is there an effect yes, will it change wind patterns and weather patterns, yes. On the small scale we see now probably not too much, but consider the butterfly effect, we just don't know. If adopted on a large scale then yes probably dramatic effect. Probaly as much as the deforestation of the Amazon. Another massive global change that is not looked at for true cost.
Wave energy, well lets just see enough change to say shift the Gulf Stream and see what Europe has to say.
Nuclear, the waste and devistation of accidents. A risky venture at best. Sure you can find a gambler to lay off the bet but its only a matter of time before things go wrong or you run out of room to store things, or people willing to have that hot material in their back yard or ground water.
People are looking for free energy and worse yet free profit. So anything done on a large scale has to be looked at very closely, and like our new Global economy, Global effect needs to be taken into account. Maybe the UN and the World Court needs to get more involved.
I can hear the cries already from those entrepreneur's that want un-fettered, un-regulated access to profits at any cost to other people.
I know lets just do some genetic engineering of all the animals and plants on earth so they feel right at home with global warming.
On a happy note, there may be one redemption for Satelite based power generation. Lets put up enough Satelite arrays to block incoming solar energy to cut down the global warming, two birds with one stone, cooler climate and cheap power. Oh wait all the plants will die, then the oceans, then the animals, then us.. Well you can't have everything. Lets try anyway, what do we have to loose?
True, but the counter argument played out by the owners of patents and copyrights is that innovation would be dead if there was not stringent FBI level enforcement of I.P. including stringent fines and jail time. Well I guess that followed after those were commodized such that the owners of those properties were not the innovators for the most part, and the innovators are not the major benefactors of their innovation. Altruism is not dead, idea's don't have to always be owned and sold. I think we should go back to copyright only 35 years, then public domain. Afterall Steamboat Willy is now in public domain isn't he.
Obviously they have developed hacking technology to break open all these systems to get at their logs to determain if they have been hacked. Well they will be blacklisting themselves later this afternoon.
One of the arguments for being able to trust Open Source software is that it is essentially in one place with everyone looking at it and keeping it honest. That is somewhat the case with a few central authorities. If there is a problem then it will get noticed and corrected sooner than later.
A good example of the system you propose is Bernie Madoff. I circle of people thought he was trusted. That opionion of trust from people who should have known, propogated to more and more people funneling funds into his pocket. In your scheme there is the same depth of informal checking and oversight as in the Madoff situation. A small circle of people and word of mouth. With a CA there are millions of people using and testing. And here is an example of a problem found with will be a problem solved.
Yes you can say the car was stolen. There are parts of the country that don't lock their doors and leave keys in there ignition. Thats a good thing, it says people are relatively honest in those parts. Should you suddenly be an accomplis a theft if someone steals your car. I think not unless you hand them the key and say steal it. And no leaving your keys in the ignition is Not handing to them, its showing some amount of trust. That justification is a spin done by theives to justify their actions. Well they left the door open so they were handing my their silverware, or she did not have a chastity belt on so its her fault. All that is spin and should be avoided. Computers that come off the shelf in stores should not be hijacked. Consumers should not be responsible for someone coming into their home and stealing use of their computers. Its a crime, and should be thought of as such and systems should be strengthened for protection and investigation and prosecutions done to find and punish this type of crime.
For number crunching Fortran is superior. C++ for example can be as quick but takes careful programming and deep knowledge of the language and the implications of the use of structures to not poison the compliers ability to optimize some calculation. If you are going for heads down number crunching then Fortran is the language. The language has enough restrictions that the compiler can optimize in most cases. In fact doing your own hand optimizaitions can be detrimental.
As to advanced algorithms, advanced algorithms that revolve around data structures yes, but advanced algorithms revolving around numerical analysis probably no. Most of us don't work in that numerical, matrix algebra world. It is specialized and advanced. We tend to not appreciate that body of algorithms as much.
I would vote for at least 3 fundemental languages with at least 2 not OOP for having a good base for being a Programmer. At least 3 language well enough to do problem solving and an introduction to several others.
The important concepts are the value of specialization and the value of appropriateness. The right tool for the job. There are different problem domains with different types of problems. If you use the wrong language to program one, you probably will end up emulating language provided features of the appropriate language to get the job done anyway. The familiarity with the different problem domains gives you more conceptual tools to frame the solution of a problem and maybe, just maybe the guts to use a different tool or language from time to time when appropriate.
I should imagine that some French Government organization will be caught downloading allegedly illegal content. Then, of course, the government will have to follow the letter of the law and cut off its own Internet Service. That should be fun to watch. Or, someone will get fired, internet service will not be suspended and they will reference Nixon's famous quote, about if they do it its not illegal, or they will reference Bush, who followed Nixon's fine example of little emperorism.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, the free trial version of course is a way of getting a large test populatition to shake down the product, to get the product out and get acceptance in the community, to get the geeks familiar with it ahead of time so when the others in their company, friends and family get hit with the new version they will have a up and ready support community. All this microsoft gets for free. This was not a beta version but probably a shakedown version. So the treatment of the user, especiall un-scheduled shutdowns that could ruin a database, or a file or a directory or someones life work seems like a little on the unfeeling corporate 'we can do anything to you we want', spoiled child, I'm going to take my ball and go home, side. Go Microsoft with this new public relations campaign. Luckily I already have Ubantu dual booted (but then my copy is a paid copy of Windows 7).
Your kidding of course. Well on one level you may be right, like evolution, the principal works on everything, but the strange bedfellows might be a squirel and a squid. So the process of politics, (making comprimises to come to a concensus to get things done is the same, a messy business for sure) but what is being legistlated is very different. You would not see the Republican party trying to enact a program that would keep people from loosing their houses to businesses, or from starving or freezing to death. They would not support making regulations that would protect banks from say failing, or for regulating compainies so they did not cheat honest folk out of their money. They would be for privatizing almost everything, selling off the National Forests, giving away the oil reserves to oil companies, giving no-bid contracts to large companies that they owned stock in, start unneeded wars to churn the military industrial complex, deregulate energy companies and when they get caught cheating people out of money and fail, hire 90% of those exectutives into the government.
Lets not talk about the difference between message and reality with all the Family Values party member scandels in the last few years. The conservatives are master of message. To bad they are selling you a bill of goods, for their interests not yours.
I don't think you would find the Democratic party supporting or legislating any of those things. There is a stark difference in philosophy and approach, a stark difference in what is considered in the best interest of the country and its citizens.
Brother you have been sold a bill of goods by the Conservatives who know and have stated as a strategy, that they do better when voter turnout is low. They have you believing that your vote does not count because its all the same, Wake up, its not the same and your vote makes all the difference in the world. The whole world knows that, and even gave Obama a Nobel Peace prize because They know the difference.
Whatever you do dont waste your vote.
Yes but what the f... does that have to do with doing a DOS attach. Definitely dark side thinking, as for Fight Club, it was a story, and an organization based on a seriously mentally ill, multiple personality, demagogue who preyed on peoples natural tendency to join groups and like Scientology was skilled at locking people into a group with secrecy, us vs them, reward/punishment, constructed self consistant delusional reality, group recognition etc... So if that is what your about, your brothers with Scientology. What a world, what a world!
You might want to rethink your whole membership thing, really.
I agree, while old its a hell of a language.
I had one of my Chinese neices come visit for a summer a few years back. She spent a year studying in England as well. When she was asked recently if she would like to come to the USA or stay in China, she said without hesitation stay in China. Beijing is a very modern city now in just the last 20 years totally re-done. The little emperors (single child family children) know they have it good now. Not revolution for awhile I suspect. The countryside has been getting much better too, although still very third world but the transitions are amazing is such a short time. Not to condone the actions of the Chinese government but they are on an economic role.
It just occured to me that if you can identify those computures that have Bot nets running, you have to be able to identify what that bot net traffic is. Why not just filter that out?
I agree that the car analogy is has some merit. But is incomplete. It is more like someone is driving around with a car with a manufacturing flaw that is not obvious. You don't see that the brake is not working. When you brake everthing works fine, when you accelerate everthing if fine, maybe a little slow but fine. What you don't know is that someone is using part of your trunk to transport drugs, because the lock was made such that they could open it up and put it in, open it up and take it out without you being aware. You should not have to be an automotive expert to own and use a car, you should not have to be a security expert to own and use a PC on the internet. There are manufacturing defects that are being exploited. Just like the auto industry we have product recalls to fix problems.
Notifying someone that their PC has a problem, and there should be free fixes offered by the manufactures of the software and OS's that are at fault. Yes, even for older systems they no longer support. But cutting someone off the network seem Draconian and putting blame in the wrong place.
What should happen is when a Botnet, or the like, is found, the manufacture of the exploited software should be required to contact the individual and at no charge fix the problem within a reasonable time frame. That gets a little confused if the cuplrit is Open Source, but I think the Open Source community would step up and provide the fixes required and at no cost.
Put the blame and responsibility to fix things where they belong. Well actually, catching to Sons of Bitches that are running those nets is where most of the effort should go.
The major problem is to identify legitimate traffic vs. Botnet Traffic. We know there are filters that also catch the un-intended such as censorship black lists, no-fly lists, banned book lists. And if you look at the spam or the arms races or business, when a restriction is found, the criminal finds a way around it. In the meantime the fellow who's computer was taken over is taxed with the penalty of no connection and the time to fix it. This is a little like making a victim of a crime have to come in day after day and look at mug shots. Where the victim suffers not the criminal. Best of intentions aside, you have to look at where the costs are being placed. True the Bot nets effect businesses, some benefit, the ones who advertise with span and some that don't , their competitors or the general public that gets spam or the loaded email server owners. As for the DOS and other attacks, well thats just wrong.
What we really need is more clever anti crime hackers to ferret out these criminals, that is where the money should be going. Seems like this play is just a confession that they don't have effective ways of traking these things down yet.
There is an interesting issue here. "it's their call" may be true. There may be a line though that you can speak out against or a precedence that may be dangerous to democracy in India. Here we are talking about prior constraint which is a very dangerous precedent. Now for images and ideas surrounding human procreation. Which I contend is necessary for our continued existance.
A democratic system that controls information is probably not a real democratic system. Democratic systems require a free flow and competition of ideas, when you start to restrict one idea or one point of view you divert the core ideals.
It is interesting to note that there is so much internet traffic related to sex from India. That might suggest that this legistlation is not the will of the people really. Just like in the US which has a multi-billion dollar Adult Entertainment industry, if the matter were brought up for a vote (secret ballot of course) I would imagine that much of the prudery would be exposed for what it really is, Hypocracy.
But the issue here is control of information by those who think they know whats best for us. I say, No! They don't know and they should stay out of it.
That is if you want to continue to have real democracies in the world. Can you feel the tightning of the screws already.
Some good points which I generally agree with. A notable, recent exception to the generalization that it is impossible to get elected to high office without enoumous political contributions from corporate coffers is our current president. Most of his money for the campaign came from individual donors.
This has been the exception not the rule, but we can only hope that will change in the future.
Just think, if individuals thought that supporting a candidate financially was acually in their best interest then maybe candidates would rely less on corporate contributions, and as we know with free market competition is efficient so corporations will pass on those savings (the money they don't have to spend on political campaigns) to us by reduced prices and costs for things like health care, DVD's, insurance premiums, and soap.
No I'm not going to give you any of the stuff I'm smoking so don't ask.
I just wrote the President, I urge you to do the same. I think they deserve to get slashdotted in that way. Tell them what you think and that there Is interest in the topic and that you have an opinion. Then they have some more information on which to base a decision, especially when you think that this is an issue that effects all the people.
What I am concerned about is that this looks like an end run by another group that was seeking net non-neutrality. In this case the corporate owners of copyrights, here we know that it is not the singer song writter (like it ever was) that is being effected, or for that matter consulted. It appears as though big corporations, I suspect news and entertainment are a big part of it as well as software companies. That want to get a hand on the internet spigot to have prior-constraint control over information especiall information they feel they own. But then I suspect a handful of countries would love to have access to request internet connection be broken for filtered if they think the message is not what they want. That is being done in China now certainly and the some Middle Eastern countries. That is not a good trend. It would be like only being allowed to listen to Fox news all day, is it really fair and balanced and calling it news might be a stretch. And it is a small step from corporate control to a corporate state (or one that is corporate controlled).
The key here is the controls that are being hinted at may not be in the countries , or the worlds best interest. We need to know what they are contemplating before we as a people are committed to an action that effects our information infrastructure. We own it, not them. They forget that sometimes.
You make some interesting points.
To get back to the butterfly effect, actually came orignally I beleive from some simulations (and I believe it was a weather simulation) that was interrupted, probably a systems crash. The simlation was printing out reams and reams of paper and had run for a long time. The scientists decide to start the simlation up from a checkpoint from the printout, entered the data and started the simulation. They had started not from the end but from one of the previous checkpoints to be able to see that the simulation was entered correctly and continuing on. It was fine for awhile but started to diverge, then eventuall was totally different from the original result that was coming out. That seemed to fly in the face of logic and determainistic computing and simulation. They tracked it down to the fact that although they did print out the internal values to a great precision they did not print the numbers out to all the precision in that was held internally. So an infitesimal amount (not unlike the effect of a butterfy's wing) had a very dramatic effect on the simulation. And is also why we can't predict weather out more than a week or so with much accuracy.
Yes we are talking about unstable systems, weather, ocean currents etc. and you ask, what effect will a little fuzz on the bottom of the wind tunnel have, dramatic long term effect is the answer, and the other part is, we don't know what the effect will be exactly but that there will be an effect.
As to the putting up tall buildings willy nilly, yes you are right, and I say that greed and short sightedness is why that is true, and I believe they do have effects on weather patterns.
I was talking to about scale. If very large wind farms or wave energy retreaval farms are deployed they will have an effect.
Look at the desertification of Africa, due to changing weather. It is true that wind like water will take the path of least resistance. Add some resistance here and the presure at this point is a little greater and the wind pattern will be altered, which means weather patterns altered, which means a little more rain, a little less rain, a little colder, a little warmer, whatever, that effects plants, animals, crops.
I always like the Chinese grand plan that happened around 1960 I believe where the government decided that the birds were eating crops so mobilized the whole country to go out and bang pans so the birds would not be able to rest in the trees, hundreds of thousands if not millions of birds were killed as result and China had several years of famine, mainly because the birds actually ate the insects that ate the crops.
Or the Aswan Damn project that the US Corp of Engineers turned down but that the Russia took over. They damed up the Nile, it stopped flooding, but the farmland no longer got the enrichment of the silt that came down each year with the floods, so they needed fertilizer, and the dam silted up behind and needs to be continuously dredged. Another political short term thinking debacle.
Grand large scale schemes have to be looked at very carefully, especially ones that take energy from here and put it there. Its never free. The question is who really pays the price. I don't argue against technology just greedy short term thinking and the thinking that we get something for nothing.
Actually, the only ones that do know our identities are the government, and those illegal hacker types with control issues, (you know the ones, with Mommy issues). Just like guns, the three categories, the ubermeisters, the crooks, and the sheep. And those first two groups have struck up a deal. Did I mention that corporations are the negotiators. But seriously, there is a fine line between honest protest and targeted marketing for profit. In this case, a woman running for office and an attack on her family. Sounds like a profit motive, and if the attack were a cynical calculated political dirty trick, well that being exposed seems appropriate. Which would make it much more troubling than just bullying, a attempt to control our election process through swift boat type dirty tricks. I don't have a problem with that being exposed for what it is, and who was behind it.
A few notes in response.
Tech and posibilities asside, what are the impacts of energy solutions?
For the Sat solar type, it has to beam that energy back, with some cost to heating up the atmosphere, which will raise temperatures and change weather patterns, to what extent, the power levels would be enormous locally, I hope that they model that before the field a unit.
Lets look at wind turbine. They take energy from the wind, is that free, no, is there an effect yes, will it change wind patterns and weather patterns, yes. On the small scale we see now probably not too much, but consider the butterfly effect, we just don't know. If adopted on a large scale then yes probably dramatic effect. Probaly as much as the deforestation of the Amazon. Another massive global change that is not looked at for true cost.
Wave energy, well lets just see enough change to say shift the Gulf Stream and see what Europe has to say.
Nuclear, the waste and devistation of accidents. A risky venture at best. Sure you can find a gambler to lay off the bet but its only a matter of time before things go wrong or you run out of room to store things, or people willing to have that hot material in their back yard or ground water.
People are looking for free energy and worse yet free profit. So anything done on a large scale has to be looked at very closely, and like our new Global economy, Global effect needs to be taken into account. Maybe the UN and the World Court needs to get more involved.
I can hear the cries already from those entrepreneur's that want un-fettered, un-regulated access to profits at any cost to other people.
I know lets just do some genetic engineering of all the animals and plants on earth so they feel right at home with global warming.
On a happy note, there may be one redemption for Satelite based power generation. Lets put up enough Satelite arrays to block incoming solar energy to cut down the global warming, two birds with one stone, cooler climate and cheap power. Oh wait all the plants will die, then the oceans, then the animals, then us.. Well you can't have everything. Lets try anyway, what do we have to loose?
Hear Hear,
True, but the counter argument played out by the owners of patents and copyrights is that innovation would be dead if there was not stringent FBI level enforcement of I.P. including stringent fines and jail time. Well I guess that followed after those were commodized such that the owners of those properties were not the innovators for the most part, and the innovators are not the major benefactors of their innovation. Altruism is not dead, idea's don't have to always be owned and sold. I think we should go back to copyright only 35 years, then public domain. Afterall Steamboat Willy is now in public domain isn't he.
I'm up to Wife 2.0 some bug fixes for sure but new random features were introduced. I should have waited for the next maint release. sigh.
Who funded this study again?
Too loud and screechy. and silly costumes
Obviously they have developed hacking technology to break open all these systems to get at their logs to determain if they have been hacked. Well they will be blacklisting themselves later this afternoon.
One of the arguments for being able to trust Open Source software is that it is essentially in one place with everyone looking at it and keeping it honest. That is somewhat the case with a few central authorities. If there is a problem then it will get noticed and corrected sooner than later.
A good example of the system you propose is Bernie Madoff. I circle of people thought he was trusted. That opionion of trust from people who should have known, propogated to more and more people funneling funds into his pocket. In your scheme there is the same depth of informal checking and oversight as in the Madoff situation. A small circle of people and word of mouth. With a CA there are millions of people using and testing. And here is an example of a problem found with will be a problem solved.
Yes you can say the car was stolen. There are parts of the country that don't lock their doors and leave keys in there ignition. Thats a good thing, it says people are relatively honest in those parts. Should you suddenly be an accomplis a theft if someone steals your car. I think not unless you hand them the key and say steal it. And no leaving your keys in the ignition is Not handing to them, its showing some amount of trust. That justification is a spin done by theives to justify their actions. Well they left the door open so they were handing my their silverware, or she did not have a chastity belt on so its her fault. All that is spin and should be avoided. Computers that come off the shelf in stores should not be hijacked. Consumers should not be responsible for someone coming into their home and stealing use of their computers. Its a crime, and should be thought of as such and systems should be strengthened for protection and investigation and prosecutions done to find and punish this type of crime.
For number crunching Fortran is superior. C++ for example can be as quick but takes careful programming and deep knowledge of the language and the implications of the use of structures to not poison the compliers ability to optimize some calculation. If you are going for heads down number crunching then Fortran is the language. The language has enough restrictions that the compiler can optimize in most cases. In fact doing your own hand optimizaitions can be detrimental.
As to advanced algorithms, advanced algorithms that revolve around data structures yes, but advanced algorithms revolving around numerical analysis probably no. Most of us don't work in that numerical, matrix algebra world. It is specialized and advanced. We tend to not appreciate that body of algorithms as much.
I would vote for at least 3 fundemental languages with at least 2 not OOP for having a good base for being a Programmer. At least 3 language well enough to do problem solving and an introduction to several others.
The important concepts are the value of specialization and the value of appropriateness. The right tool for the job. There are different problem domains with different types of problems. If you use the wrong language to program one, you probably will end up emulating language provided features of the appropriate language to get the job done anyway. The familiarity with the different problem domains gives you more conceptual tools to frame the solution of a problem and maybe, just maybe the guts to use a different tool or language from time to time when appropriate.
I should imagine that some French Government organization will be caught downloading allegedly illegal content. Then, of course, the government will have to follow the letter of the law and cut off its own Internet Service. That should be fun to watch. Or, someone will get fired, internet service will not be suspended and they will reference Nixon's famous quote, about if they do it its not illegal, or they will reference Bush, who followed Nixon's fine example of little emperorism.
I am going to patent the use of the forehead tattoo screen Indian poker app. Well of course when you loose the big L appears.