I agree with you here. I was talking about the principle, not the severity of the faults. And probably this is the reason there is not much pressure to change this.
Of course there are exceptions. The space shuttle, nuclear reactors, even banks that move billions each day. These can have some pretty costly (in terms of both life and money) failures. But they are so few, they cannot pull the IT industry in this direction. They make great headlines and are then mostly forgotten.
from my experience: "The Fault, Horatio, Usually Lies Not In Our Code, But In Our Process"
Well all right, but the customer doesn't care. The company supplied a procuct that does not work as advertised. Yes probably in this case your Sian does not deserve blame but will tget blamed anyway. The world is unjust, true. But this still means that there was a problem (introduced by managers etc. who don't know and don't care)
How the company fares is the result of the market. If better companies exist it will sink. If not, it will survive. Sian's paycheck and continued misery will be assured. So will further security defects in future software.
On the other hand, for example, a security issue arising from plaintext transmission of sensitive data over the net, is not necessarily a defect. If the site in question was never designed to use SSL or another encryption mechanism, then it's a lack of a feature.
I disagree. What I would conclude in this case is that it is not the fault of the coder. It is the fault of the company that provided the software though.
Such a product would be designed in many stages. You would have an analysis, a design and an implementation phase, where coding is done (possibly in small iterative steps as in extreme programming, but all the steps are there). In this case the analysis, design or both are faulty. This is not the poor coders fault, but the coder was given defective specs, so the defect is there. The coder implemented correctly a defective system.
If the site in question is an online banking site, then it is a blatantly poor and inexcusable design shortcoming, but nontheless, not a defect. (Of course, if the site DID intend SSL to work properly, but for whatever reason there is a hole allowing to crack or circumvent the encryption, then it IS a defect).
Try telling the bank if it loses millions as a result that this was not a defect. This is a sure way for your company to lose all credibility.
If I'd built a car, I would be more than a little annoyed if I got the blame that someone had broken into it and run someone else over with it.
It depends. If the user left the car unlocked, then sure. If the car was stolen because it had a defective lock (either one you manufactured, or because one of your suppliers messed up) then yes, it is your fault.
I think it needs to be left to the market to decide what is acceptably secure software. Many Ford cars... were far too easy to break
A bit too simplistic, I think. Take prescription drugs. You want these tested and approved because the average buyer (patient or even doctor) is not qualified to judge their efficiency, so they cannot judge cost/benefit accurtely. They need standards to guide them. Similarly in software neither users or general IT professionals can judge the full security features of all available products. Again, they cannot judge cost/benefit accurtely, therefore they also need standards to guide them. Failure to meet these standards should then be considered a defect.
About the size of Africa. That's like saying you can drop by parachute in a random place in Africa, walk around a few miles, and find one or two diamonds. Except there are FAR FEWER diamonds than in real Afica.
Just because it looks small in the sky, it doesn't mean it's that small.
If not, it is not of much use knowing they could exist. After all the article says the meteorites would be small, fractured and covered by dust and later impacts. IMO expecting to stumble on them by accident on a return trip to the moon, as it says, is way too optimistic.
I would suggest your logic here is flawed or at the very least belies a bit of a gap in understanding how evolution works.
I have presented my arguments to back up my claim, which based on how evolution works. Let me try to help you understand it a bit.
Fact 1:Nature already produced another base
that is never used in DNA, uracil. Understanding
evolution would tell you this means that it did not do so, because there was no advantage in doing so.
Fact 2: The new bases are chemically variations of the old ones as mentioned in the New Scientist reference in the article. Makes sense too, otherwise they would not fit in the DNA
chain. This means that chemical accidents over billions of years have probably already produced these bases also, but they were never used. If they had any utility in producing better organisms they would have been used. Same as utacil that had
utility in RNA and was used there, but not in DNA
and was not used there.
Fact 3: The new Scientist article also mentons other applications: building nanostructures, comptuting etc. There the rules are different, and possibilities exist.
Conclusion: The classical biological cycle would probably not have any use for these new
bases, or they would be already in use. They are close enough to regular bases to be produced accidentally, and that is how evolution works. Again, this does not apply to nanotech. Rules are too different.
this is like giving artists new colors nobody can see are perhaps a bit closer.
Perhaps Rincewind doing a painting in octarine? (Pratchett reference, couldn't resist. Please ignore:-) But there have been new colors that are unused such as infared and UV. Artists don't use them. Why? They don't offer anything visible.
It seems far more likely that once life got going with all the support systems (RNA, tRNA, etc.) and current coding mechanisms that it would have been very difficult to "back up" and try something new.
Three basic errors in your reasoning
1. Evolution does not keep backups within organisms. An error produces a difference in a new organism and it either succeeds or (mostly) dies.
2. Evolution proceeds with unlikely events. It is the very unlikely but very fortunate errors that produce the new advantages that are multiplied over the generations and dominate. Easy of difficult does not enter into it.
3. The errors themselves are random. There are no "established" mechanisms that are exempt. The same is true for the very few fortunate errors. If they potentially exist they will happen, at any level, including the very basic support systems.
Evolutionary history is full of examples... for what a lifeform is doing at the moment something else would be a bit better (human eye and blind spot?)
Evolution is full of tradeoffs. The one blind spot (eliminated if you move your head a bit) allows the optic nerve to be in the retina rather than in some layer below making for a faster and more compact system. Other example: Most nasal problems are a consequence of improper draining of the nose. These appeared when humans first stood erect (stop thinking that, you know what I mean:-) But again a tradeoff. There are many other advantages to being erect though (oh, go ahead, think what you like...)
So, conclusion? If the new bases could have been used it would already have, by evolution. So they probably are not useful, in a biology and genetics context.
You mean to tell me that Amazon.com and iTunes Store would be more successful if they only carried the most popular 1% of their stock? How about *ANY* bookstore, not even just the online ones.
They probably get most of their revenue from something like the top 10% of their products. But it does wonders for marketing to be known as comprehensive or a one-stop shop to customers. They go there first instead of googling for the products. So by doing that they get more customers in the first place. Not to mention that they can give more, and broader, related recommendations and so make sales this way as well.
Nitpicking: iTunes does not need stock. Just one copy of each product. It does change the business model a lot, you know.
otherwise evolution would already be using them. After all nature has already produced uracil but does not use it in DNA. I don't see why it would not have produced and used these bases as well if they were useful.
So I don't think that there will be any breakthroughs in producing new proteins the classical way (DNA->RNA->mitochondria->proteins).
The sources also mention nanotech. This could be more promising, as the standard rules don't apply and any new material would multiply the available options.
Yes looking at places like this I had the impression that Sony supports this. If they only allow but do not support this then yes Sony is out of the loop.
This is a must, considering how stupid is running an unsecure Wifi net. But as someone said 16 steps? We are talking about gamers, not IT experts. Most will probably not know or ignore this
Terra Soft did good, but Sony needs to do a lot better. They must provide a good security solution, that most gamers can use, and not force using an unsecured Wifi, or they are asking for trouble.
THe 'Add/Remove Programs' in Ubuntu addresses some of this, but try installing an app that plays podcasts WITHOUT KNOWING that democracyplayer and VLC play podcasts. How about using Google? UI designers can't automate everything you know.
If any component of a program is GPLd, the whole program must be GPLd. So the manufacturer may avoid GPLing only independent programs (although they may use LGPLd libraries, whose source is given). If they use GPLd libraries the complete programs must be GPLd.
Because the GPL licence explicitly says it (because this is simple for each developer, but may be very hard for the used to track the correct sources).
So they either do it, or are in violation of the GPL.
The GPL exploits the copyright system to essentially do the opposite of what was intended, force people to release changes to intellectual property. One is allowed to modify the code without releasing source as long as they don't distribute the binaries. And lastly, copyrights are not necessarily evil but they are currently too powerful, and ownership is retained for far too long. Copyright was intended to promote innovation, not be some king of property (which is why it cannot be forever, and corporations need an endless series of Mickey Mouse laws). So the GPL actually brings back the spirit of copyright
For a FOSS license GPL seems to be very unfree - imposing restrictions or rules... just a crock of sh!t really.
GPL makes me angry.
MIT or BSD for the win. GPL for the sux. GPL cares for PEOPLE not companies. You can't pervert someones work meant to be used freely add a little bit extra and charge huge amounts of money. GPL makes sure that all downstream users are free and one developer can't trap his own users. Like Apple did, taking BSD, putting its own logos etc, and selling it as OSX.
You don't have to make available your own source code unless your code is a derivative of GPL code. If your code is a self contained stand alone application yes. Bout they do have to provide all code for: The kernel, the rest of the OS, all LGPLd libraries, all GPLd apps included, and any apps derivative of other existing GPLd apps.
But then the copyright info should clearly separate the open and closed source bits of the system. Which, from the description, it does not do.
Doesn't that mean that every GPL-project needs to be very very careful and make backups of the source code of all releases, however old? Source must be provided for 3 years after you stop providing binaries. And you don't have to do this from your website. You can simply say "email for source of older versions" or something.
Not that many people would want source for the older versions. But that is the legal requirement.
I think, though, it's poor form for commercial entities to go ahead designing and releasing GPL based software without thinking ahead and accepting that they have to supply source code to their paying customers. But they got all that code for free from the OS community. Ethically at least, doesn't that mean they should give something back (becauses legally they do as long they use GPL'd or other copylefted software as a start).
Or do you prefer what Apple did? They got BSD, made it less stable and secure, plastered their UI, locked it and are selling it as OSX. Is that better?
I have always felt that NCPs ask something for nothing. They stop former employees from using their skills even for anyone other the former employer, without compensating them for it.
Unless they infring on intellectual property or company secrets of their employer they should be able to use their skills as they see fit. And insisting on such clauses as a condition of hiring is little more than blackmail.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course there are exceptions. The space shuttle, nuclear reactors, even banks that move billions each day. These can have some pretty costly (in terms of both life and money) failures. But they are so few, they cannot pull the IT industry in this direction. They make great headlines and are then mostly forgotten.
from my experience: "The Fault, Horatio, Usually Lies Not In Our Code, But In Our Process"
Well all right, but the customer doesn't care. The company supplied a procuct that does not work as advertised. Yes probably in this case your Sian does not deserve blame but will tget blamed anyway. The world is unjust, true. But this still means that there was a problem (introduced by managers etc. who don't know and don't care)
How the company fares is the result of the market. If better companies exist it will sink. If not, it will survive. Sian's paycheck and continued misery will be assured. So will further security defects in future software.
On the other hand, for example, a security issue arising from plaintext transmission of sensitive data over the net, is not necessarily a defect. If the site in question was never designed to use SSL or another encryption mechanism, then it's a lack of a feature.
I disagree. What I would conclude in this case is that it is not the fault of the coder. It is the fault of the company that provided the software though.
Such a product would be designed in many stages. You would have an analysis, a design and an implementation phase, where coding is done (possibly in small iterative steps as in extreme programming, but all the steps are there). In this case the analysis, design or both are faulty. This is not the poor coders fault, but the coder was given defective specs, so the defect is there. The coder implemented correctly a defective system.
If the site in question is an online banking site, then it is a blatantly poor and inexcusable design shortcoming, but nontheless, not a defect. (Of course, if the site DID intend SSL to work properly, but for whatever reason there is a hole allowing to crack or circumvent the encryption, then it IS a defect).
Try telling the bank if it loses millions as a result that this was not a defect. This is a sure way for your company to lose all credibility.
If I'd built a car, I would be more than a little annoyed if I got the blame that someone had broken into it and run someone else over with it.
It depends. If the user left the car unlocked, then sure. If the car was stolen because it had a defective lock (either one you manufactured, or because one of your suppliers messed up) then yes, it is your fault.
I think it needs to be left to the market to decide what is acceptably secure software. Many Ford cars ... were far too easy to break
A bit too simplistic, I think. Take prescription drugs. You want these tested and approved because the average buyer (patient or even doctor) is not qualified to judge their efficiency, so they cannot judge cost/benefit accurtely. They need standards to guide them. Similarly in software neither users or general IT professionals can judge the full security features of all available products. Again, they cannot judge cost/benefit accurtely, therefore they also need standards to guide them. Failure to meet these standards should then be considered a defect.
That's what inventors of the Internet are supposed to do. He's as likely to succeed as he is in filtering all P2P, and its far more glamorous anyway.
It's a small world.. err.. moon, after all.
About the size of Africa. That's like saying you can drop by parachute in a random place in Africa, walk around a few miles, and find one or two diamonds. Except there are FAR FEWER diamonds than in real Afica.
Just because it looks small in the sky, it doesn't mean it's that small.
If not, it is not of much use knowing they could exist. After all the article says the meteorites would be small, fractured and covered by dust and later impacts. IMO expecting to stumble on them by accident on a return trip to the moon, as it says, is way too optimistic.
I would suggest your logic here is flawed or at the very least belies a bit of a gap in understanding how evolution works.
I have presented my arguments to back up my claim, which based on how evolution works. Let me try to help you understand it a bit.
Fact 1:Nature already produced another base that is never used in DNA, uracil. Understanding evolution would tell you this means that it did not do so, because there was no advantage in doing so.
Fact 2: The new bases are chemically variations of the old ones as mentioned in the New Scientist reference in the article. Makes sense too, otherwise they would not fit in the DNA chain. This means that chemical accidents over billions of years have probably already produced these bases also, but they were never used. If they had any utility in producing better organisms they would have been used. Same as utacil that had utility in RNA and was used there, but not in DNA and was not used there.
Fact 3: The new Scientist article also mentons other applications: building nanostructures, comptuting etc. There the rules are different, and possibilities exist.
Conclusion: The classical biological cycle would probably not have any use for these new bases, or they would be already in use. They are close enough to regular bases to be produced accidentally, and that is how evolution works. Again, this does not apply to nanotech. Rules are too different.
this is like giving artists new colors nobody can see are perhaps a bit closer.
Perhaps Rincewind doing a painting in octarine? (Pratchett reference, couldn't resist. Please ignore :-) But there have been new colors that are unused such as infared and UV. Artists don't use them. Why? They don't offer anything visible.
It seems far more likely that once life got going with all the support systems (RNA, tRNA, etc.) and current coding mechanisms that it would have been very difficult to "back up" and try something new.
Three basic errors in your reasoning
1. Evolution does not keep backups within organisms. An error produces a difference in a new organism and it either succeeds or (mostly) dies.
2. Evolution proceeds with unlikely events. It is the very unlikely but very fortunate errors that produce the new advantages that are multiplied over the generations and dominate. Easy of difficult does not enter into it.
3. The errors themselves are random. There are no "established" mechanisms that are exempt. The same is true for the very few fortunate errors. If they potentially exist they will happen, at any level, including the very basic support systems.
Evolutionary history is full of examples ... for what a lifeform is doing at the moment something else would be a bit better (human eye and blind spot?)
Evolution is full of tradeoffs. The one blind spot (eliminated if you move your head a bit) allows the optic nerve to be in the retina rather than in some layer below making for a faster and more compact system. Other example: Most nasal problems are a consequence of improper draining of the nose. These appeared when humans first stood erect (stop thinking that, you know what I mean :-) But again a tradeoff. There are many other advantages to being erect though (oh, go ahead, think what you like ...)
So, conclusion? If the new bases could have been used it would already have, by evolution. So they probably are not useful, in a biology and genetics context.
You mean to tell me that Amazon.com and iTunes Store would be more successful if they only carried the most popular 1% of their stock? How about *ANY* bookstore, not even just the online ones.
They probably get most of their revenue from something like the top 10% of their products. But it does wonders for marketing to be known as comprehensive or a one-stop shop to customers. They go there first instead of googling for the products. So by doing that they get more customers in the first place. Not to mention that they can give more, and broader, related recommendations and so make sales this way as well.
Nitpicking: iTunes does not need stock. Just one copy of each product. It does change the business model a lot, you know.
So I don't think that there will be any breakthroughs in producing new proteins the classical way (DNA->RNA->mitochondria->proteins).
The sources also mention nanotech. This could be more promising, as the standard rules don't apply and any new material would multiply the available options.
Yes looking at places like this I had the impression that Sony supports this. If they only allow but do not support this then yes Sony is out of the loop.
The latest Internet Explorer beta now uses the great firewall of China as a proxy (enabled by default)
Terra Soft did good, but Sony needs to do a lot better. They must provide a good security solution, that most gamers can use, and not force using an unsecured Wifi, or they are asking for trouble.
Clock A strikes the hour. 10 seconds later clock B does.
1 hour later: Clock A chimes the hour. 10 seconds later clock B does.
2 hours later: ....
Does clock A cause clock B to strike? We have correlation and temporal shift so obviously yes. Or not?
If any component of a program is GPLd, the whole program must be GPLd. So the manufacturer may avoid GPLing only independent programs (although they may use LGPLd libraries, whose source is given). If they use GPLd libraries the complete programs must be GPLd.
So they either do it, or are in violation of the GPL.
But then the copyright info should clearly separate the open and closed source bits of the system. Which, from the description, it does not do.
Not that many people would want source for the older versions. But that is the legal requirement.
Or do you prefer what Apple did? They got BSD, made it less stable and secure, plastered their UI, locked it and are selling it as OSX. Is that better?
Unless they infring on intellectual property or company secrets of their employer they should be able to use their skills as they see fit. And insisting on such clauses as a condition of hiring is little more than blackmail.
There are many approaches to AI that don't try to emulate the human brain.
You can emulate the human brain but try to produce something other than intelligent behavior (say a non-linear controller)
It would help (both you and DARPA I suppose) if you knew what you wanted to do and got the terminology right first.