Their business is to supply power to you. You are going to pay. You will pay for the power, the poles, and the really big number that will arrive as you pay to bail them out from an unreasonable business situation and unrealistic legislative requirements that lock-in and amplifies the problem - but not with the people who create it.
As you are busy blaming them, are you happy to pay twice over for power? Are your legislators doing a good job for you?
Their salaries are no doubt still being paid because the impact of a loss of supply would bankrupt every business. Their culture is defined in no small part by the inflexibility of some of the technical limitations - so don't expect effective change while the actual issues are being denied.
Standard issue with electrical reticulation is that the general public are so uninformed as to be living in a land of comic book physics.
The industry is full of really responsible people invested in their business going well and delivering a service. The OP beautifully points out how a couple of inflexible limits: a requirement to provide power into dangerous places - uneconomically, liability through perverse legislation and the impact of climate change has come around to... severely bite the legislators in the ass, and the voting public and consumers.
While it may be fun to win over in some legal match its a zero sum game and hugely wasteful.
The code of conduct doesn't just land from Mars. It's the result of various people in the team agitating for change. The CoC might well be being promoted to give people who have a political agenda, not a coding agenda, the opportunity to gain more control.
Software rewards a high degree of discipline, a coherent technical approach. It's sometimes necessary to prune code contributions that are rubbish in spite of the fact that this might hurt someone's feelings of self-worth. When this happens its easier to blame another's bias than your own incompetence.
It would be interesting to know the level of code contribution, and its quality, from the promoters of the CoC.
Good chance that having had the skillz not to back up for three months he'll have rolled out the old defrag option first so that recovery is as smooth as silk.
The ones I particularly liked were Vilayanur S. Ramachandran: The Emerging Mind: 2003 and Trust and Transparency - Onora O'Neill: A Question of Trust: 2002.
I found it good interesting listening while driving.
Unless you have a production environment with a software product that breaks with Windows update turned on. In which case you have to take additional security and maintenance measures and have a team that is tasked with (and funded properly) to do testing and updates on a regular basis.
I'm not sure whether it is discomfort at the idea of having a computer call them silly, a deep belief that humanity is somehow special in a special way (carefully defined in undefinable terms) or just a deep and enduring lack of imagination. Between AlphaGo beating Lee Sodel, the cancer treatments being proposed by Watson and the rise of driver-less cars we are seeing many supposedly impossible roles being taken over by software.
The five assumptions noted basically are basically denial... reinforced with more denial. The evidence in a number of areas is in. Computers and software routinely appear in locations doing things predicted to be impossible. Computing capability keeps exceeding predictions.
Arguably the one valid assumption made is that intelligence is computable. If it is, the Church-Turing thesis gives the useful theoretical result that anything computable can be run on a UTM. It seems likely that what will end up happening is that the deniers keep arguing the point on what 'intelligence' is even after the AI they deny being possible has become bored with the discussion and moved on to more interesting pastimes.
So you are comfortable writing code when you 1: don't know the customer and 2: don't know what they want... after all this is just a management problem.
Tim Cook wants to have *all* children taught to approach a problem with an approach so well defined a computer can solve it. Just what we really need in the world today, as we continue to charge into uncharted territory, with society exploding and new jobs appearing by the second, and the novel challenges ahead as we experiment with our future, is a mindset mono-culture imposed on our children.
It's awesome to read the comments and see such a variety of reasons explaining why Tim Cook idea is a terrible one.
From 1959, a subtle but well defined and reasonably commonly understood test. There are not a whole lot of philosophical razors that have been this sharp for this long. And we are moving to what exactly? A gap for string theory to slip into. What else will slip into this gap? Could we ever trust scientists again?
A good portion of my current income comes from helping organisations simplify their data requirements to their needs, improving the performance of their systems as we go.
The market for this sort of work is growing. Excellent!
Odd, but it seems so. To some of the criticisms:
- it's 'different' I don't like it... get over it!
- we want to design by committee of thousands... really?
- it's not ready... if it was 'finished' you'd get 'no' say at all.
Even if the diesel is available the traffic snarls up bad.
If the data centre is inside a region badly hit the officials will close the area to everyone for their "safety" even if the building is safe.
Our IT support continued to work because it was in another city. The building in Chch our office was in had the MSB (a diesel was there too I think) in the basement, which flooded. No doubt that is where the rebuilt MSB (main switchboard) will go.
And god, it takes so long for anything to progress.
God will fix it. Up until that stage I thought (and still think) you have a good point. Funny thing is that efficiency improvements causing increased consumption is nothing new, so I am not sure why this is such a surprising conclusion. As for god, I think those of us who are here and can actually effect the physical world have a better shot.
I've heard this prediction so many times, it was silly the first time, it still is. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that part of my job involves placing computers in places where internet is not.
Went searching for comments on this absurdity, where else would one find a reference but here at good ol'/. http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/30/2146250
Both high voltage AC and high voltage DC lines would work in terms of reinforcing the network. This is not where the criticism presented in the article is aimed at. It's borrowing off an idea poorly expressed in Hot Flat and Stupid in a book by Thomas Friedman that there should be smart "green" electrons. This totally fails to address a key point about electricity and network security which is the point at which the network passes from 100.000% load to 100.001% load... something you all experienced a few years ago when the US power system went DARK. An overloaded electricity system does clog up and gently reduce capacity like - say - you local water supply. IT JUST TURNS OFF and the cascade effect takes down the rest of the network.
The very real benefit of a strong network is that once you have it in place, then you can put your green energy into it. And parking photovoltaics on your house, calling the power green and ignoring the mining and energy costs associated with building them is not *really* green, just *feel good* green.
[/rant]
Bandwidth costs!
Cables (copper or fibre - who cares which tech) cost.
Businesses expect to make an income against their expenditure.
I see from one Australian source that approx 3% users are v. high bandwidth users.
If 3% are driving the investment costs (and they are) they need to pay. For the rest, a cap they never reach really is effectively unlimited.
What's the problem?
How different is the email from a phone call? For one thing, the other business you are dealing with will have a copy, do you want them to have the only copy?
Personally I run an empty inbox (actually an empty PST file would be more accurate). I forward to a procmail robot on a file server which permanently archives to the job folder.
If I really wanted to keep something though, I'd print to a pdf creator (one that looks like a windows printer). Seems the nicest way to minimise the workload and to maximise the continuity of appearance.
Actually, when you realise what sort of horrors are present in a house you realise that the author of the linked document is drawing a false analogy.
Both in houses, and in software, various shortcuts are taken for pragmatic reasons, and these are often because the shortcuts do not undermine what is the primary function of the "house" or the "software".
For example, the concrete floor in my house is lousy rubbishy stuff. Probably doesn't meet the codes, yet except when the carpet layer has a hard time laying I never notice, nor really am I too concerned, about the failure to meet some "ideal" standard.
So in doing research in this area, a reality check is required and the article you have chosen to refer to starts out with a poor example to prove a point... I am not convinced.
Slashdot Mirror
Their business is to supply power to you. You are going to pay. You will pay for the power, the poles, and the really big number that will arrive as you pay to bail them out from an unreasonable business situation and unrealistic legislative requirements that lock-in and amplifies the problem - but not with the people who create it.
As you are busy blaming them, are you happy to pay twice over for power?
Are your legislators doing a good job for you?
Their salaries are no doubt still being paid because the impact of a loss of supply would bankrupt every business. Their culture is defined in no small part by the inflexibility of some of the technical limitations - so don't expect effective change while the actual issues are being denied.
Standard issue with electrical reticulation is that the general public are so uninformed as to be living in a land of comic book physics.
The industry is full of really responsible people invested in their business going well and delivering a service. The OP beautifully points out how a couple of inflexible limits: a requirement to provide power into dangerous places - uneconomically, liability through perverse legislation and the impact of climate change has come around to ... severely bite the legislators in the ass, and the voting public and consumers.
While it may be fun to win over in some legal match its a zero sum game and hugely wasteful.
From http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
Lifecycle emissions (gCO2eq/kWh)
Nuclear, 12
Coal, 820
Also worth considering the volume. Nuclear waste volume is much lower per tonne than for coal.
Too easy to define BS as being the exact equivalent to hype.
The code of conduct doesn't just land from Mars. It's the result of various people in the team agitating for change. The CoC might well be being promoted to give people who have a political agenda, not a coding agenda, the opportunity to gain more control.
Software rewards a high degree of discipline, a coherent technical approach. It's sometimes necessary to prune code contributions that are rubbish in spite of the fact that this might hurt someone's feelings of self-worth. When this happens its easier to blame another's bias than your own incompetence.
It would be interesting to know the level of code contribution, and its quality, from the promoters of the CoC.
Old, basic and obviously forgotten.
Good chance that having had the skillz not to back up for three months he'll have rolled out the old defrag option first so that recovery is as smooth as silk.
Admittedly a radio show (which I am loosely calling a documentary) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programme...
The ones I particularly liked were Vilayanur S. Ramachandran: The Emerging Mind: 2003 and Trust and Transparency - Onora O'Neill: A Question of Trust: 2002.
I found it good interesting listening while driving.
Unless you have a production environment with a software product that breaks with Windows update turned on. In which case you have to take additional security and maintenance measures and have a team that is tasked with (and funded properly) to do testing and updates on a regular basis.
I'm not sure whether it is discomfort at the idea of having a computer call them silly, a deep belief that humanity is somehow special in a special way (carefully defined in undefinable terms) or just a deep and enduring lack of imagination. Between AlphaGo beating Lee Sodel, the cancer treatments being proposed by Watson and the rise of driver-less cars we are seeing many supposedly impossible roles being taken over by software.
The five assumptions noted basically are basically denial ... reinforced with more denial. The evidence in a number of areas is in. Computers and software routinely appear in locations doing things predicted to be impossible. Computing capability keeps exceeding predictions.
Arguably the one valid assumption made is that intelligence is computable. If it is, the Church-Turing thesis gives the useful theoretical result that anything computable can be run on a UTM. It seems likely that what will end up happening is that the deniers keep arguing the point on what 'intelligence' is even after the AI they deny being possible has become bored with the discussion and moved on to more interesting pastimes.
So you are comfortable writing code when you 1: don't know the customer and 2: don't know what they want ... after all this is just a management problem.
No, I've set space key to contract to tabs so I can retain the joy of meaningless button pressing.
Oh right ... that describes this whole response.
Tim Cook wants to have *all* children taught to approach a problem with an approach so well defined a computer can solve it. Just what we really need in the world today, as we continue to charge into uncharted territory, with society exploding and new jobs appearing by the second, and the novel challenges ahead as we experiment with our future, is a mindset mono-culture imposed on our children.
It's awesome to read the comments and see such a variety of reasons explaining why Tim Cook idea is a terrible one.
From 1959, a subtle but well defined and reasonably commonly understood test. There are not a whole lot of philosophical razors that have been this sharp for this long. And we are moving to what exactly? A gap for string theory to slip into. What else will slip into this gap? Could we ever trust scientists again?
A good portion of my current income comes from helping organisations simplify their data requirements to their needs, improving the performance of their systems as we go.
The market for this sort of work is growing. Excellent!
Odd, but it seems so. ... get over it! ... really? ... if it was 'finished' you'd get 'no' say at all.
To some of the criticisms:
- it's 'different' I don't like it
- we want to design by committee of thousands
- it's not ready
Even if the diesel is available the traffic snarls up bad. If the data centre is inside a region badly hit the officials will close the area to everyone for their "safety" even if the building is safe. Our IT support continued to work because it was in another city. The building in Chch our office was in had the MSB (a diesel was there too I think) in the basement, which flooded. No doubt that is where the rebuilt MSB (main switchboard) will go. And god, it takes so long for anything to progress.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html and http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm and the crucial test, this article fails on my personal, does it sound like bull meter.
God will fix it. Up until that stage I thought (and still think) you have a good point. Funny thing is that efficiency improvements causing increased consumption is nothing new, so I am not sure why this is such a surprising conclusion. As for god, I think those of us who are here and can actually effect the physical world have a better shot.
I've heard this prediction so many times, it was silly the first time, it still is. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that part of my job involves placing computers in places where internet is not. Went searching for comments on this absurdity, where else would one find a reference but here at good ol' /. http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/30/2146250
Both high voltage AC and high voltage DC lines would work in terms of reinforcing the network. This is not where the criticism presented in the article is aimed at. It's borrowing off an idea poorly expressed in Hot Flat and Stupid in a book by Thomas Friedman that there should be smart "green" electrons. This totally fails to address a key point about electricity and network security which is the point at which the network passes from 100.000% load to 100.001% load ... something you all experienced a few years ago when the US power system went DARK. An overloaded electricity system does clog up and gently reduce capacity like - say - you local water supply. IT JUST TURNS OFF and the cascade effect takes down the rest of the network.
The very real benefit of a strong network is that once you have it in place, then you can put your green energy into it. And parking photovoltaics on your house, calling the power green and ignoring the mining and energy costs associated with building them is not *really* green, just *feel good* green.
[/rant]
Bandwidth costs! Cables (copper or fibre - who cares which tech) cost. Businesses expect to make an income against their expenditure. I see from one Australian source that approx 3% users are v. high bandwidth users. If 3% are driving the investment costs (and they are) they need to pay. For the rest, a cap they never reach really is effectively unlimited. What's the problem?
My thoughts also, perhaps a UV programmable EPROM would also work.
How different is the email from a phone call? For one thing, the other business you are dealing with will have a copy, do you want them to have the only copy? Personally I run an empty inbox (actually an empty PST file would be more accurate). I forward to a procmail robot on a file server which permanently archives to the job folder. If I really wanted to keep something though, I'd print to a pdf creator (one that looks like a windows printer). Seems the nicest way to minimise the workload and to maximise the continuity of appearance.
Actually, when you realise what sort of horrors are present in a house you realise that the author of the linked document is drawing a false analogy. Both in houses, and in software, various shortcuts are taken for pragmatic reasons, and these are often because the shortcuts do not undermine what is the primary function of the "house" or the "software". For example, the concrete floor in my house is lousy rubbishy stuff. Probably doesn't meet the codes, yet except when the carpet layer has a hard time laying I never notice, nor really am I too concerned, about the failure to meet some "ideal" standard. So in doing research in this area, a reality check is required and the article you have chosen to refer to starts out with a poor example to prove a point ... I am not convinced.