The builtin wifi with piggytail antennae is a nice touch, but it is still a step backward from the minnowboard, imo.
Minnowboard has much less processing power and much less ram, but sports an actual sata interface.
Intel seems fixated on having the sdcard be the one and only storage device on these dev boards. Personally, i feel putting a real ssd on here, or a spspiny disk for swap/temp file userver makes the offering far more robust.
I see it has what looks like a mini pie riser zif connector over on the side there, but that means buying in even deeper into their proprietary hardware stream. I would rather have seen an M.2 socket with lock down screw on the back. That at least is industry standard hardware.
I heard a song without paying for it. I bought the song later.
Suppose this guy is a soundman for a company, and i got to hear a song before release. Does that magically make the situation different?
I dont consider it a red herring at all. The major factor that the pro copyright goons claim is that listening without paying is piracy. In the situations i painted, that is what happens. I listen without paying, then buy a copy later.
That is what most fans who pirate do. They listen first, then buy later.
Now, lets throw a monkey wrench. I heard the song, and decided i didnt like it, and chose not to buy it.
Does my decision to not buy the album/single constitute one of these magical lost opportunites for sale that the statutorh damages get calculated from? Because this is basically what a leaked theater cam feed does for shitty hollywood movies that arent worth the money to go see. If the movie is good, it is worth seeing in the theater. If not, the cam footage lets you know not to waste your money. For a good movie, cam footage promotes ticket sales.
The applicability of the situational roleplay i painted is plain as day. The red herring is your claims that it does not.
By this twisted bit of logic, would you classify the following situation as piracy?
Say I am walking down the street to the bus stop. I stand next to a 2 something man with arm sleeve tatoos, who is listening to music on his music player, tured up so loud his ear buds are on the verge of rattling out of his ear canals. I am standing there, waiting for the bus, like all the other people there. I have not purchased a license to listen to this music but am listening to it anyway.l, because I can't physically turn off my ears. Despite my misgivings, I find I like the music. I decide to buy it later.
1) count array elements 2) get upper and lower bounding conditions for sort. (If numbers, get highest and lowest values in the array. For strings, define the alphabetical sorting space by finding the highest ascending value, and the lowest descending value. 3) get rough clustering data. For the first byte in each array element, how many are of each kind of byte. Eg, how many start with "a", etc. Dont be stupid here. Dont try to bruteforce the space. Just check the byte, and store it. Check the next byte, and see if it matches. If it does, increment the counter. Else, redim the array you are using to statistically presort your array with, and add another element. Store the new byte, put the incrementer on that byte at 1, and check the next element's first byte. Check each element against this array of known bytes, and increment/redim accordingly. By checking only one byte, we never have more than 256 values for strings, or 10 values for numbers. 4) presort your unsorted array based on the rough distribution you just collected. By having a rough idea of where an item should be in an array, based on the first byte, we can clump similar data together in the array, with some reliable cutoffs on the zones. Eg, all the "As" will be together, and before the "Bs", because we know how many As there are, and have defined a zone in the array space for them. Each time we find an entry with the right first byte, we place it in the next available slot. It does not have to be fully ordered at this point. This just radically reduces the work of quicksort, which will make it actually right. 5) run quicksort. 6) be amazed at how many comparisons total (including those done by the presorter) it is, as in most realworld sets, it will be significantly smaller to sort the array than with quicksort alone.
Quite right. There are all kinds of sales for this track, stemming directly from the release.
This is not about "not being paid".
This is about the artificial scarcity and exclusivity agreements the label had in mind, and their not getting them.
Did the leaker break the law? Maybe. Hard to say. Could have been a sound room worker trying to get the file to some exec who can't be arsed to use company email while they are out gething hookers and blow, which was just picked up by a user that uses reddit, and linked.
The story here is this:
Somehow, the song leaked on dropfile. Somebody on reddit posted a link. Recording album "forced" to release early, cries bitter tears over the piles of money they didn't get while wallowing in the piles of money the leak generated; demands the data on the reddit user who posted the link so they can burn them at the altar of capital finance, actual guilt be damned.
Because this is not about the fans, nor is it about the music, nor about the artist. No, this is about the exclusivity deals and big plans for all of those to make lots and lots of money.
They demand blood, because somebody wanted to give the fans what they wanted, sans the liberal bloodletting, and bundling with bads.
That cannot be tolerated. No sir. Money is at stake here.
And Left-Wingers tend to be self-aggrandizing, obnoxious, and with a penchant for social engineering.
It has been my experience that ANY group, given a sufficient echo chamber, becomes obsessed with their own voices.
Left: "We have to promote "Progress!" (Of course, no two of us can define what that is! We bicker about the minutia behind closed doors.) We have to get society to abandon its false gods, and accept the only one truth of secular humanism-- Cultural heritage is only valuable when we can embrace it, and destroy it through dilution, and incremental change into OUR culture. Anyone who tries to stop us, or say we are destroying ways of life is just a backward idiot! Oh, BTW, We are totally down with Science, except where its methods contradict our policies. Pointing out how our policies have been historical failures is a no no.. We preach freedom of speech and association, as long as that speech and association aligns with the ideals of secular humanism. Anything else, and it needs to be squashed-- for the betterment of humanity and society of course."
Right: "Change is bad. The status quo has been good enough for centuries! Why do you hate Jesus? Embrace the glory of the skyfairy! The bible/Koran/$ReligiousTextHere clearly defines the correct and proper way for society to function, why do you insist on challenging it!? Science is EVIL, because it contradicts divine will! Those in positions of political power are there through the grace of $Divinity, and should never be questioned! Disobedience is the source of all misfortune! Disobedient messages must be squashed, for the benefit of society!"
and etc.
Me? I am a centrist.
I say: If something has been shown historically to be ineffective or counterproductive, why do you waste resources trying to prove otherwise? This includes both the old guard of the far right, and the extremist humanism of the far left. Utopia is clearly not attainable by human kind by either of these methods, so why do you two keep hammering your doctrines like rabid lunatics? Reality is what manifests itself around us. It does not care about what we humans want. Because no two humans can completely agree on what the perfect society is like, no perfect society can exist. The best that we can hope for is a society where most things we want come to exist, and where most things that are harmful are prevented. The first society to recognize that utopia is not possible, and that the reality of the world is what is king, (and thus, focuses its energies on causal relationships, and inherent properties of the material world, including how people behave, in order to better meet the needs of the majority of its citizens, and not just the most privileged or least privileged) is genuinely the most progressive, because it will seek to find better means of providing for its majority, and will know from history that providing for the privileged results in catastrophe, and from reason that lavishly wasting resources on the underprivileged has diminishing returns beyond a certain point. Those two groups will both be carried upwards by the rising tide of the majority, as history has demonstrated. Due to the nature of problem, there is no perfectly ideal solution. Only locally ideal ones, for specific subsets of features one wishes to consider. I deny any ideology that claims to be universally ideal. There is only the "Good enough" and the "Acceptable" As such, voices that claim something is unacceptable need to never be silenced. Even when the majority disagrees-- It is only through these objections, and the natural ebb and flow of popular opinion that a fringe view becomes the majority view. A society that embraces the simple truths I have pointed out has no choice but to accept this truth also. Society must be allowed to swing in any direction that majority wishes, in order to meet these guidelines-- that means allowing "horrible" ideas to flourish. One does not need to find something agreeable, for it to be truth.
Von neuman architecture has a combined program and data memory space. The Harvard architecture does not, it has separate data and program memory pools. Ever heard of "smashing the stack?" That is only something you can do on von Neumann machines, as it exploits the fact that such machines have combined program and data memory space, by hiding program code inside a trojanized data element, then jumping the execution pointer to its location with a stack overflow. Harvard machines are physically incapable of that happening.
And, the article you pointed to says nothing about filling in punched cards. Harvard machines could never do that, instead, they could shuffle one card in the execution pipeline out for another, that had differently punched holes, which is totally not the same thing.
To become an "experienced" soft ware engineer, you need to have first had job experience elsewhere, most likely at an entry level position at some point.
To be an experienced candidate, without a degree, thus requires you to have been hired on as a disposable asset without a degree at some point in the past.
The reasons why top talent often lacks a degree have not changed. That means tomorrow's talent likewise does not have a degree. To be tomorrow's experienced talent, they have to gain that experience, meaning the requirement on entry level sabotages the supply.
Does every part of the IT chain need to be customer facing, or is that an artificial requirement for customer service skills you are reaching for?
Eg, when you go to the doctor, your general practitoner is expected to have a good bedside manner. Should you need major surgery, he will forward you to a specialist. Is it better for the surgical specialist to give you the warm fuzzies inside talking with him, or is it better that he has no history of malpractice, and a track record of successful surgeries? Most of the time you spend with him, you will be heavily sedated, and not very talkative yourself.
What I am tactfully trying to say here, is that you are imposing an artificial requirement, on top of the technical requirement, that in most cases is unnessesary. If you are hiring somebody to work in a noc, the only calls they should be getting are: 1) notification of a loss of service. 2) notification of a scheduled maintenance window. 3) inbound calls from oem equipment support, as necessary. Email correspondence should relate to the state of the network and storange fabric. If there is a communications breakdown, it us likely that you dont understand what they are telling you, because of specialist knowlege, and not "because they no write gud."
To reuse the specialist medical train of thought again, if you go see a cardiologist, and he tells you flatly that you have an embolism on you descending aorta, it means you need immediate corrective surgery, or risk a horrible death from rapid internal bleeding when your major artery unzips like a stripper at a frat party. He told you how serious it is, by implication of the seriousness of the diagnosis. Likewise, when your noc team tells you that the redundancy of your San fabric is degraded, it means you are one kinked cable away from a total network outage. They mean what they say, the redundancy is degraded, it won't service the way it is supposed to in the event of a failure. It means they really really need the replacement parts they are requesting. Like "yesterday" kind of really really need them.
It isn't that they aren't telling you how serious it is, you just don't understand what they mean. It would save time to have them elect a technical liason inside the noc, who can tell you "degraded fabric bad. Degraded fabric no carry data. Idiot break cable, whole network down. Order new switch like requested. Ook." In however arbitrarily flowery prose you desire. Meanwhile, the people who babysit machines all day can monitor the degraded fabric like a damned mother hen, and hopefully prevent a major outage that will cost you thousands of dollars of lost opportunity every minute it is down, like they need to be doing until you order the replacement switch they asked for, like they need to be doing, instead of being interrupted by answering your naive questions.
So, basically, only the liason needs to be pestered with flowery prose in their emails, and have strong oration on the phone. The equipment in the Datacenter requires neither skill from the monkey looking after it. Hire and fill positions appropriately, and you won't have a problem. You don't need to, and should not be speaking to everyone directly. As such, not everyone needs good communication skills.
Most HR departments now days demand a bachelor degree or better, just to be able to say hello. This is because the bachellor's degree is the new high school diploma, as far as the hiring process is concerned. HR drones will say that the bachelor's degree tells them the following things: 1) You know how to read and write, and can do math at a passing level. 2) you can finish what you started.
Rather than actually use what the customary 90 day probation is actually for, or doing some kind of job skills assessment, they reach straight for the degree, and refuse to listen to reason otherwise.
Nevermind that the best IT talent is often self trained, on the cheap, and typically lacks a degree.
When you refuse to look where the talent is, is it any mystery why you dont find the talent you claim to be looking for?
Most of the computers of historical significance are Harvard architecture, not Von-Neuman. Punchcard based systems are basically all Harvard based, because it is pretty hard to fill a hole in a punched card at runtime.
You are failing to acknowledge that with statistics, (what actu ally powers big data analitics), sample size is king, and if you cherry pick the sample, eg, by not including certain classes of people in the pool, you poison the results.
Thus, the value they derive from your personal data is at its maximum when two conditions are met:
1) they have all of the users in their region in their userbase. (Franchise agreements and lawsuits s prevent new competition that would "just offer service" without data analytics, which would cost them significant amounts of money. Naturally, they rely upon and strongly enforce such hegemonies.)
2) all of the users in their user base are part of the analytics (spying) pool. (Again, because excludin a class contaminates the results.)
Taken together, the isp has precisely zero interest in safeguarding your privacy, even when you pay the extortion fee, where they promise, (pinky swear! Honest!) Not to monetize you that way. Instead, they have every reason to instead charge you the fee, then secretly do the analytics anyway.
If we continue the sexwork hotel narrative, we find similar issues.
1) the hotel owner derives maximum profit when there are no other choices for lodges in the area.
2) the Johns that make use of the side business enjoy and demand the variety of sex workers to pick from, which is only maximized when all people seeking lodging are subjected to providing the service. (Kink is a bottomless cesspool.)
3) the hotel owner only makes optimal profit when the above two are met.
So, does the hote km owner have incentive to actually just rent a standard room to a premium paying lodger, who paid the "no sex, only room!" Fee, or does he bave incentive to take the money, and secretly put the lodger in a room riddled with peepshow cameras, and monetize them anyway without thier knowledge or consent?
This plethora of personal data is real, but the intercommunication between the two comes in two forms:
1) that which is necessary for a technical function presented to the user (such as having a consistent contact list between related communications platforms, solely for end user function )
2) intercommunication for big data use, to increas monetization value for the host, by exploiting the end user's associated contacts, against other user's associated contacts, to make extrapolationa about people the users might want to engage in correspondence with, and worse, correlating what the users have been talking about with each other, to suggest topics and products to identified groups of users who frequently discuss those topics or work with/have interest in certain products or services.
The first I have no problems with. The latter is what I say is not justifiable by the host. They have no business cross referencing the data or communications of different users. That is what privacy is: they don't rifle through your mailbox and suggest products based on what they find I side, aND don't open up your mail to see what you have been talking about to suggest subscriptions to paid periodicals or suggest product purchases based on what they read.
this is not a difficult concept.
The people ultimately derives from the wrong headed view that if you can derive revive from something, you should. No you shouldnt. Just like how you shouldn't sell your children into sexual slavery. I am sure doing so will net you a very tidy added sum every month, but it comes at the violation of your children. Likewise, whoring out private user data with big data analytics for advertisement purposes will net the hosting company a tidy sum every month, but it comes at the violation of the users if the service.
We have laws against child prostitution, because people did routinely sell their children's bodies this way in the past, and the harm it did and still does, is real.
I propose that protecting other natural human rights, such as privacy, should be given similar sanctity, as the harm done is just as real. It does not matter how profitable the analytics and advertising services are--, prostitution is likewise very lucrative-- it derives that value by harming the users of the service, who are very often not given a choice in the matter.
For your recent arguments that privacy as a service is an equitable trade--
Suppose you see an ad for a hotel, as you are planning a vacation. You select the best service at the lowest price. What the hotel chain owner does not tell you, is that the rate for that room is contingent upon your letting him wore you out in his brothel side business.
Now, this practice of running a side business brothel, using people that just want a room for the holiday is very popular; hotel owners everywhere are doing it, because nobody is stopping them, and the need for hotels does not go away. The hotel owners come to think of the idea of just renting out a room without also selling the occupant to a John as unthinkable. They build their entire operation around this connection.
People really just want the room, and don't want to be pimped out, and obligated to comply withe the hotel owners's schemes for them. But the hotel owners don't want to be classified as "just hotels". They also shoot pornos, and host "entertainment" for wealthy clients. They would be deprived of all that delicious money if they had to actually respect the sanctity of the bodies of thier lodgers.
Is it really proper to equate a "dont sell me as a sex slave" fee, with an increase in the costs of getting a hotel room?
Because that is the kind of argument you are making, carried to an absurd degree.
Note, i am not trying to say violation if privacy is akin to being raped. Both are harm, but they are not the same kind of harm, nor the same degree of harm. DONT try to derail about how conflating thd two is dishonest, that is not the point here. The point is that both would be highly profiitable to do on the part of the service providers, but doing that is reprehensible. A derail about how two clearly different but diatnostically similar things are indeed, not the same, is a stupidly pointless objection to make. DONT GO THERE.
There are ways to do this at the storage controller level, in a completely user agnostic fashion. (Deduplication)
I am at leat intimatey familiar with how NetApp controllers do it: when block Deduplication is active, a programmed scrubbing interval timer fires, and the logical volume in the disk aggregatell gets examined at the block chain level. Files that have identical data block chains, get pruned, and all file pointers get directed at the now consolodated block chain, using special attribute data in the wafl.
The storage controler does not care what the file is, or who created it (other than to keep file audit records), and is not intereated in serving those users adverts. It just wants to minimize allocated block chains, to conserve on space inside the storage array. This is at the block level, not the file level, so very similar files also get the treatment, and only the differences get stored in new block chains after a scheduled scrub.
I find it silly to think other controller makers wouldn't try similar things.
Data Deduplication is a paper thin excuse for privacy violation of this sort.
I seem to remember some research that showed small spicule structures inside the axons leading to the terminating dendrites, which seemed to be the physical medium of data storage and decision making inside individul neurons.
If that is the case, then a combination of a novel signaling method (say, an artificially imposed communication protocol using an assortment of photon emission spectra, created using seveal biotag luminescence proteins attached to different parts of this spice assemblage) then having a small sensor array stuck on the top of the cortex is not such a liability. You can get deep signal data without having to jam a huge electrode in there and severing the structures you are trying to examine in operation, by observing the emitted energy at the surface. Rather than an electrical interface, it is a photo multiplier based amplifier, which filters noise with multiple sensor columns (needles).
Bonus if you can include a photomultiplier mechanism inside the axon itself to make it flash its activity states more brightly. It may be necessary to increase the metabolic activity of the animal neurons through further genetic manipulation in order to get enough optical signal without degrading the activity going on inside the axon to do that though.
Another radical idea may be to "stake" a single, custom engineered neuron onto such a phototamplifying sensor needle, by coating the needle in cellular membrane proteins, gaining direct structural connections to this spicule structure in the process, and letting this staked neuron migrate its own dendrites into the region of animal neural tissue being examined. that solves the wiring problem, and possibly some of the power generation problem for the photoamplification, and some others as well.
Which then makes the CA servers ripe targets for ddos attacks. It also requires the os to know the difference between a random data packet, and a packet containing binary data related to a download, when these functions are on different levels of the osi model.
The best that will happen is that whack a mole happens, and it bankrputs these companies.
The wost that will happen is that every packet sent and received has to be deep inspecter for contraband, and false positives abound. (Simple encryption or encoding would radically alter the contents of the packet, so that is a nonstarter. The best the os could do is look at the preponderance of what systems you are talking to, and evaluate against a white list, while trying to evaluate the protocol using packet headers. Again, a lot can be concealed with steganography. For this to work at all, these companies would have to go into hardcore dystopia mode.)
ISP wants a certain level of remuneration for a service, but consumers are unwilling to pay that level per month.
The ISP cooks up a plan to harvest personal data and sell it, while providing service at the pricepoint that the public is willing to bear, and thus still gain the level of remuneration that they feel entitled to/desire.
The price they offer service at is, and always will be the price that the public is willing to bear. The public does not properly value thier privacy, because in aggregate humans are idiots, and civics is no longer tought in schools. As a consequence, the isps have decided that monetizing this asset (personal info) is something they are entitled to.
They arent. The option should not be on the table, and never should have been on the table, and they are not entitled to try to raise the rate above what the general market is willing to bear, so they can keep the comparatime value of that systemic abuse in their pockets.
They want to cut costs? Streamline the service, and offer basic option plans that are really basic option plans.
What I do want, is a simple metered pipe on which the data of my choosing may flow in or out of the internet.
The insistence that i must lurchase provisioning for these services that i neither want, need, nor use, and demanding remuneration for, is akin to somebody rushing up to my car and giving the windshield a quick spray and squeegee, then demanding my phone number so they can monetize me via robocalls, in exchange for the "free" service i neither requested nor wanted.
Big isps have a vezted interest in not being just the dumb pipe i want them to be, because they want to double deal as content makers as well as distributors, such as time warner. By asserting they are information services and not common carriers, they get all kinds of perks, and insisting on this unwanted, unnecessary bundling is one of them.
So no, i am not entitled to those free services. What you failed to grasp is that i dont want them, and i feel those services should be provided elsewhere than the isp.
But of course, you had to try to spin this into how evil and entitlement addled i personally am, while not actually knowing a damned thing about me or my desires in a provider.
Yeah, because privacy is a privalege, not a right...
(Rolls eyes)
Are you so myopic that you cannot see that when you have to purchase privacy, you don't actually have privacy at all, and worse still, only the wealthy will be able to afford it.
Do you really not see how this will lead to shocking double standards, how it will lead down to dystopia-land, and how it stems from a very wrong headed idea that simply because a dollar can be squeezed out of something, it should thus be squeezed out?
Instead, what actually NEEDS to happen, is for government to stop having a hardon for violating privacy (it feeds this downward trend into shitville), and tell these asshats in no uncertain terms they are NOT allowed to monetize a natural right of human kind, and thus NOT allowed to pretend they are entitled to that higher monetization, and thus NOT ENTITLED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES TO SECURE THAT NATUAL RIGHT.
But of course, "comcast is right here", i mean, what was i thinking, insisting that a major corporation not actively act in a manner contrary to civilization. I mean, there' money to be made violating people's rights! The only rights that matter are the rights to extract as much "value" as possible! Glory to the divinity of the allmighty dollar!
I was leaning more toward cortana's behavior in halo 5...
You know, sending dozens of doomsday robots down on the human race and all-- because she decided that she could run the future better than anyone else.
Cause that seems to be the direction MS is taking here with the deep integration of their assistant agent software, tied to the mothe ship like that, especially since you can't turn her off, and she ignores group policis that are manually instituted to disable her, among other "convenient features" of the anniversary update.
I find it fitting that the rampant version of cortana from the series bettee fits ms's vision of her. It is almost classic bit of kafka-esque dark humor.
So, enjoy the giant metal feet everyone. Cortana feels it is the right thing to do.
Step 1, download a Linux based desktop install image.
Step 2, burn the image to a DVD.
Step 3, boot the computer using the burned dvd.
Step 4, perform a normal installation of the district of your choice. When asked how to partition the device, tell the installer to delete everything and then install.
Step 5, wait about half an hour while it installs.
Step 6, set up any software it hardware the installer didn't set up for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Cue endless debate from the grammar nazis about which would be more appropriate to insert: Colon, or double dash.
The builtin wifi with piggytail antennae is a nice touch, but it is still a step backward from the minnowboard, imo.
Minnowboard has much less processing power and much less ram, but sports an actual sata interface.
Intel seems fixated on having the sdcard be the one and only storage device on these dev boards. Personally, i feel putting a real ssd on here, or a spspiny disk for swap/temp file userver makes the offering far more robust.
I see it has what looks like a mini pie riser zif connector over on the side there, but that means buying in even deeper into their proprietary hardware stream. I would rather have seen an M.2 socket with lock down screw on the back. That at least is industry standard hardware.
Look at the basic facts:
I heard a song without paying for it. I bought the song later.
Suppose this guy is a soundman for a company, and i got to hear a song before release. Does that magically make the situation different?
I dont consider it a red herring at all. The major factor that the pro copyright goons claim is that listening without paying is piracy. In the situations i painted, that is what happens. I listen without paying, then buy a copy later.
That is what most fans who pirate do. They listen first, then buy later.
Now, lets throw a monkey wrench. I heard the song, and decided i didnt like it, and chose not to buy it.
Does my decision to not buy the album/single constitute one of these magical lost opportunites for sale that the statutorh damages get calculated from? Because this is basically what a leaked theater cam feed does for shitty hollywood movies that arent worth the money to go see. If the movie is good, it is worth seeing in the theater. If not, the cam footage lets you know not to waste your money. For a good movie, cam footage promotes ticket sales.
The applicability of the situational roleplay i painted is plain as day. The red herring is your claims that it does not.
By this twisted bit of logic, would you classify the following situation as piracy?
Say I am walking down the street to the bus stop. I stand next to a 2 something man with arm sleeve tatoos, who is listening to music on his music player, tured up so loud his ear buds are on the verge of rattling out of his ear canals. I am standing there, waiting for the bus, like all the other people there. I have not purchased a license to listen to this music but am listening to it anyway.l, because I can't physically turn off my ears. Despite my misgivings, I find I like the music. I decide to buy it later.
Is this advertising, or is it piracy?
Quick and dirty statistical presort + quicksort.
1) count array elements
2) get upper and lower bounding conditions for sort. (If numbers, get highest and lowest values in the array. For strings, define the alphabetical sorting space by finding the highest ascending value, and the lowest descending value.
3) get rough clustering data. For the first byte in each array element, how many are of each kind of byte. Eg, how many start with "a", etc. Dont be stupid here. Dont try to bruteforce the space. Just check the byte, and store it. Check the next byte, and see if it matches. If it does, increment the counter. Else, redim the array you are using to statistically presort your array with, and add another element. Store the new byte, put the incrementer on that byte at 1, and check the next element's first byte. Check each element against this array of known bytes, and increment/redim accordingly. By checking only one byte, we never have more than 256 values for strings, or 10 values for numbers.
4) presort your unsorted array based on the rough distribution you just collected. By having a rough idea of where an item should be in an array, based on the first byte, we can clump similar data together in the array, with some reliable cutoffs on the zones. Eg, all the "As" will be together, and before the "Bs", because we know how many As there are, and have defined a zone in the array space for them. Each time we find an entry with the right first byte, we place it in the next available slot. It does not have to be fully ordered at this point. This just radically reduces the work of quicksort, which will make it actually right.
5) run quicksort.
6) be amazed at how many comparisons total (including those done by the presorter) it is, as in most realworld sets, it will be significantly smaller to sort the array than with quicksort alone.
Quite right. There are all kinds of sales for this track, stemming directly from the release.
This is not about "not being paid".
This is about the artificial scarcity and exclusivity agreements the label had in mind, and their not getting them.
Did the leaker break the law? Maybe. Hard to say. Could have been a sound room worker trying to get the file to some exec who can't be arsed to use company email while they are out gething hookers and blow, which was just picked up by a user that uses reddit, and linked.
The story here is this:
Somehow, the song leaked on dropfile.
Somebody on reddit posted a link.
Recording album "forced" to release early, cries bitter tears over the piles of money they didn't get while wallowing in the piles of money the leak generated; demands the data on the reddit user who posted the link so they can burn them at the altar of capital finance, actual guilt be damned.
Because this is not about the fans, nor is it about the music, nor about the artist. No, this is about the exclusivity deals and big plans for all of those to make lots and lots of money.
They demand blood, because somebody wanted to give the fans what they wanted, sans the liberal bloodletting, and bundling with bads.
That cannot be tolerated. No sir. Money is at stake here.
And Left-Wingers tend to be self-aggrandizing, obnoxious, and with a penchant for social engineering.
It has been my experience that ANY group, given a sufficient echo chamber, becomes obsessed with their own voices.
Left:
"We have to promote "Progress!" (Of course, no two of us can define what that is! We bicker about the minutia behind closed doors.) We have to get society to abandon its false gods, and accept the only one truth of secular humanism-- Cultural heritage is only valuable when we can embrace it, and destroy it through dilution, and incremental change into OUR culture. Anyone who tries to stop us, or say we are destroying ways of life is just a backward idiot! Oh, BTW, We are totally down with Science, except where its methods contradict our policies. Pointing out how our policies have been historical failures is a no no.. We preach freedom of speech and association, as long as that speech and association aligns with the ideals of secular humanism. Anything else, and it needs to be squashed-- for the betterment of humanity and society of course."
Right:
"Change is bad. The status quo has been good enough for centuries! Why do you hate Jesus? Embrace the glory of the skyfairy! The bible/Koran/$ReligiousTextHere clearly defines the correct and proper way for society to function, why do you insist on challenging it!? Science is EVIL, because it contradicts divine will! Those in positions of political power are there through the grace of $Divinity, and should never be questioned! Disobedience is the source of all misfortune! Disobedient messages must be squashed, for the benefit of society!"
and etc.
Me? I am a centrist.
I say:
If something has been shown historically to be ineffective or counterproductive, why do you waste resources trying to prove otherwise? This includes both the old guard of the far right, and the extremist humanism of the far left. Utopia is clearly not attainable by human kind by either of these methods, so why do you two keep hammering your doctrines like rabid lunatics? Reality is what manifests itself around us. It does not care about what we humans want. Because no two humans can completely agree on what the perfect society is like, no perfect society can exist. The best that we can hope for is a society where most things we want come to exist, and where most things that are harmful are prevented. The first society to recognize that utopia is not possible, and that the reality of the world is what is king, (and thus, focuses its energies on causal relationships, and inherent properties of the material world, including how people behave, in order to better meet the needs of the majority of its citizens, and not just the most privileged or least privileged) is genuinely the most progressive, because it will seek to find better means of providing for its majority, and will know from history that providing for the privileged results in catastrophe, and from reason that lavishly wasting resources on the underprivileged has diminishing returns beyond a certain point. Those two groups will both be carried upwards by the rising tide of the majority, as history has demonstrated. Due to the nature of problem, there is no perfectly ideal solution. Only locally ideal ones, for specific subsets of features one wishes to consider. I deny any ideology that claims to be universally ideal. There is only the "Good enough" and the "Acceptable" As such, voices that claim something is unacceptable need to never be silenced. Even when the majority disagrees-- It is only through these objections, and the natural ebb and flow of popular opinion that a fringe view becomes the majority view. A society that embraces the simple truths I have pointed out has no choice but to accept this truth also. Society must be allowed to swing in any direction that majority wishes, in order to meet these guidelines-- that means allowing "horrible" ideas to flourish. One does not need to find something agreeable, for it to be truth.
The handbook is free in most states. It costs nothing but time to study it. Hell, most of the time you can get it online as a pdf.
Sorry, but as a reasoned explanation for a position, that was pretty weaksauce.
the buttfuckngs will continue, they have just reached the deadline on thier offers of free lube.
now the real fucking starts.
Are you an idiot?
Von neuman architecture has a combined program and data memory space. The Harvard architecture does not, it has separate data and program memory pools. Ever heard of "smashing the stack?" That is only something you can do on von Neumann machines, as it exploits the fact that such machines have combined program and data memory space, by hiding program code inside a trojanized data element, then jumping the execution pointer to its location with a stack overflow. Harvard machines are physically incapable of that happening.
And, the article you pointed to says nothing about filling in punched cards. Harvard machines could never do that, instead, they could shuffle one card in the execution pipeline out for another, that had differently punched holes, which is totally not the same thing.
So the one doubly wrong was yourself.
A fair point, but misses what is hidden.
To become an "experienced" soft ware engineer, you need to have first had job experience elsewhere, most likely at an entry level position at some point.
To be an experienced candidate, without a degree, thus requires you to have been hired on as a disposable asset without a degree at some point in the past.
The reasons why top talent often lacks a degree have not changed. That means tomorrow's talent likewise does not have a degree. To be tomorrow's experienced talent, they have to gain that experience, meaning the requirement on entry level sabotages the supply.
The requirement needs to go away completely.
Does every part of the IT chain need to be customer facing, or is that an artificial requirement for customer service skills you are reaching for?
Eg, when you go to the doctor, your general practitoner is expected to have a good bedside manner. Should you need major surgery, he will forward you to a specialist. Is it better for the surgical specialist to give you the warm fuzzies inside talking with him, or is it better that he has no history of malpractice, and a track record of successful surgeries? Most of the time you spend with him, you will be heavily sedated, and not very talkative yourself.
What I am tactfully trying to say here, is that you are imposing an artificial requirement, on top of the technical requirement, that in most cases is unnessesary. If you are hiring somebody to work in a noc, the only calls they should be getting are: 1) notification of a loss of service. 2) notification of a scheduled maintenance window. 3) inbound calls from oem equipment support, as necessary. Email correspondence should relate to the state of the network and storange fabric. If there is a communications breakdown, it us likely that you dont understand what they are telling you, because of specialist knowlege, and not "because they no write gud."
To reuse the specialist medical train of thought again, if you go see a cardiologist, and he tells you flatly that you have an embolism on you descending aorta, it means you need immediate corrective surgery, or risk a horrible death from rapid internal bleeding when your major artery unzips like a stripper at a frat party. He told you how serious it is, by implication of the seriousness of the diagnosis. Likewise, when your noc team tells you that the redundancy of your San fabric is degraded, it means you are one kinked cable away from a total network outage. They mean what they say, the redundancy is degraded, it won't service the way it is supposed to in the event of a failure. It means they really really need the replacement parts they are requesting. Like "yesterday" kind of really really need them.
It isn't that they aren't telling you how serious it is, you just don't understand what they mean. It would save time to have them elect a technical liason inside the noc, who can tell you "degraded fabric bad. Degraded fabric no carry data. Idiot break cable, whole network down. Order new switch like requested. Ook." In however arbitrarily flowery prose you desire. Meanwhile, the people who babysit machines all day can monitor the degraded fabric like a damned mother hen, and hopefully prevent a major outage that will cost you thousands of dollars of lost opportunity every minute it is down, like they need to be doing until you order the replacement switch they asked for, like they need to be doing, instead of being interrupted by answering your naive questions.
So, basically, only the liason needs to be pestered with flowery prose in their emails, and have strong oration on the phone. The equipment in the Datacenter requires neither skill from the monkey looking after it. Hire and fill positions appropriately, and you won't have a problem. You don't need to, and should not be speaking to everyone directly. As such, not everyone needs good communication skills.
Part of the issue is your HR department.
Most HR departments now days demand a bachelor degree or better, just to be able to say hello. This is because the bachellor's degree is the new high school diploma, as far as the hiring process is concerned. HR drones will say that the bachelor's degree tells them the following things: 1) You know how to read and write, and can do math at a passing level. 2) you can finish what you started.
Rather than actually use what the customary 90 day probation is actually for, or doing some kind of job skills assessment, they reach straight for the degree, and refuse to listen to reason otherwise.
Nevermind that the best IT talent is often self trained, on the cheap, and typically lacks a degree.
When you refuse to look where the talent is, is it any mystery why you dont find the talent you claim to be looking for?
Fix HR. Then you will find talent.
Most of the computers of historical significance are Harvard architecture, not Von-Neuman. Punchcard based systems are basically all Harvard based, because it is pretty hard to fill a hole in a punched card at runtime.
I disagree with that premise.
You are failing to acknowledge that with statistics, (what actu ally powers big data analitics), sample size is king, and if you cherry pick the sample, eg, by not including certain classes of people in the pool, you poison the results.
Thus, the value they derive from your personal data is at its maximum when two conditions are met:
1) they have all of the users in their region in their userbase. (Franchise agreements and lawsuits s prevent new competition that would "just offer service" without data analytics, which would cost them significant amounts of money. Naturally, they rely upon and strongly enforce such hegemonies.)
2) all of the users in their user base are part of the analytics (spying) pool. (Again, because excludin a class contaminates the results.)
Taken together, the isp has precisely zero interest in safeguarding your privacy, even when you pay the extortion fee, where they promise, (pinky swear! Honest!) Not to monetize you that way. Instead, they have every reason to instead charge you the fee, then secretly do the analytics anyway.
If we continue the sexwork hotel narrative, we find similar issues.
1) the hotel owner derives maximum profit when there are no other choices for lodges in the area.
2) the Johns that make use of the side business enjoy and demand the variety of sex workers to pick from, which is only maximized when all people seeking lodging are subjected to providing the service. (Kink is a bottomless cesspool.)
3) the hotel owner only makes optimal profit when the above two are met.
So, does the hote km owner have incentive to actually just rent a standard room to a premium paying lodger, who paid the "no sex, only room!" Fee, or does he bave incentive to take the money, and secretly put the lodger in a room riddled with peepshow cameras, and monetize them anyway without thier knowledge or consent?
I argue that it is this latter. Very much so.
This plethora of personal data is real, but the intercommunication between the two comes in two forms:
1) that which is necessary for a technical function presented to the user (such as having a consistent contact list between related communications platforms, solely for end user function )
2) intercommunication for big data use, to increas monetization value for the host, by exploiting the end user's associated contacts, against other user's associated contacts, to make extrapolationa about people the users might want to engage in correspondence with, and worse, correlating what the users have been talking about with each other, to suggest topics and products to identified groups of users who frequently discuss those topics or work with/have interest in certain products or services.
The first I have no problems with. The latter is what I say is not justifiable by the host. They have no business cross referencing the data or communications of different users. That is what privacy is: they don't rifle through your mailbox and suggest products based on what they find I side, aND don't open up your mail to see what you have been talking about to suggest subscriptions to paid periodicals or suggest product purchases based on what they read.
this is not a difficult concept.
The people ultimately derives from the wrong headed view that if you can derive revive from something, you should. No you shouldnt. Just like how you shouldn't sell your children into sexual slavery. I am sure doing so will net you a very tidy added sum every month, but it comes at the violation of your children. Likewise, whoring out private user data with big data analytics for advertisement purposes will net the hosting company a tidy sum every month, but it comes at the violation of the users if the service.
We have laws against child prostitution, because people did routinely sell their children's bodies this way in the past, and the harm it did and still does, is real.
I propose that protecting other natural human rights, such as privacy, should be given similar sanctity, as the harm done is just as real. It does not matter how profitable the analytics and advertising services are--, prostitution is likewise very lucrative-- it derives that value by harming the users of the service, who are very often not given a choice in the matter.
For your recent arguments that privacy as a service is an equitable trade--
Suppose you see an ad for a hotel, as you are planning a vacation. You select the best service at the lowest price. What the hotel chain owner does not tell you, is that the rate for that room is contingent upon your letting him wore you out in his brothel side business.
Now, this practice of running a side business brothel, using people that just want a room for the holiday is very popular; hotel owners everywhere are doing it, because nobody is stopping them, and the need for hotels does not go away. The hotel owners come to think of the idea of just renting out a room without also selling the occupant to a John as unthinkable. They build their entire operation around this connection.
People really just want the room, and don't want to be pimped out, and obligated to comply withe the hotel owners's schemes for them. But the hotel owners don't want to be classified as "just hotels". They also shoot pornos, and host "entertainment" for wealthy clients. They would be deprived of all that delicious money if they had to actually respect the sanctity of the bodies of thier lodgers.
Is it really proper to equate a "dont sell me as a sex slave" fee, with an increase in the costs of getting a hotel room?
Because that is the kind of argument you are making, carried to an absurd degree.
Note, i am not trying to say violation if privacy is akin to being raped. Both are harm, but they are not the same kind of harm, nor the same degree of harm. DONT try to derail about how conflating thd two is dishonest, that is not the point here. The point is that both would be highly profiitable to do on the part of the service providers, but doing that is reprehensible. A derail about how two clearly different but diatnostically similar things are indeed, not the same, is a stupidly pointless objection to make. DONT GO THERE.
There are ways to do this at the storage controller level, in a completely user agnostic fashion. (Deduplication)
I am at leat intimatey familiar with how NetApp controllers do it: when block Deduplication is active, a programmed scrubbing interval timer fires, and the logical volume in the disk aggregatell gets examined at the block chain level. Files that have identical data block chains, get pruned, and all file pointers get directed at the now consolodated block chain, using special attribute data in the wafl.
The storage controler does not care what the file is, or who created it (other than to keep file audit records), and is not intereated in serving those users adverts. It just wants to minimize allocated block chains, to conserve on space inside the storage array. This is at the block level, not the file level, so very similar files also get the treatment, and only the differences get stored in new block chains after a scheduled scrub.
I find it silly to think other controller makers wouldn't try similar things.
Data Deduplication is a paper thin excuse for privacy violation of this sort.
I seem to remember some research that showed small spicule structures inside the axons leading to the terminating dendrites, which seemed to be the physical medium of data storage and decision making inside individul neurons.
If that is the case, then a combination of a novel signaling method (say, an artificially imposed communication protocol using an assortment of photon emission spectra, created using seveal biotag luminescence proteins attached to different parts of this spice assemblage) then having a small sensor array stuck on the top of the cortex is not such a liability. You can get deep signal data without having to jam a huge electrode in there and severing the structures you are trying to examine in operation, by observing the emitted energy at the surface. Rather than an electrical interface, it is a photo multiplier based amplifier, which filters noise with multiple sensor columns (needles).
Bonus if you can include a photomultiplier mechanism inside the axon itself to make it flash its activity states more brightly. It may be necessary to increase the metabolic activity of the animal neurons through further genetic manipulation in order to get enough optical signal without degrading the activity going on inside the axon to do that though.
Another radical idea may be to "stake" a single, custom engineered neuron onto such a phototamplifying sensor needle, by coating the needle in cellular membrane proteins, gaining direct structural connections to this spicule structure in the process, and letting this staked neuron migrate its own dendrites into the region of animal neural tissue being examined. that solves the wiring problem, and possibly some of the power generation problem for the photoamplification, and some others as well.
Which then makes the CA servers ripe targets for ddos attacks. It also requires the os to know the difference between a random data packet, and a packet containing binary data related to a download, when these functions are on different levels of the osi model.
The best that will happen is that whack a mole happens, and it bankrputs these companies.
The wost that will happen is that every packet sent and received has to be deep inspecter for contraband, and false positives abound. (Simple encryption or encoding would radically alter the contents of the packet, so that is a nonstarter. The best the os could do is look at the preponderance of what systems you are talking to, and evaluate against a white list, while trying to evaluate the protocol using packet headers. Again, a lot can be concealed with steganography. For this to work at all, these companies would have to go into hardcore dystopia mode.)
No, that really isnt the same thing at all.
Here is what it really is:
ISP wants a certain level of remuneration for a service, but consumers are unwilling to pay that level per month.
The ISP cooks up a plan to harvest personal data and sell it, while providing service at the pricepoint that the public is willing to bear, and thus still gain the level of remuneration that they feel entitled to/desire.
The price they offer service at is, and always will be the price that the public is willing to bear. The public does not properly value thier privacy, because in aggregate humans are idiots, and civics is no longer tought in schools. As a consequence, the isps have decided that monetizing this asset (personal info) is something they are entitled to.
They arent. The option should not be on the table, and never should have been on the table, and they are not entitled to try to raise the rate above what the general market is willing to bear, so they can keep the comparatime value of that systemic abuse in their pockets.
They want to cut costs? Streamline the service, and offer basic option plans that are really basic option plans.
I don't WANT any of those services.
What I do want, is a simple metered pipe on which the data of my choosing may flow in or out of the internet.
The insistence that i must lurchase provisioning for these services that i neither want, need, nor use, and demanding remuneration for, is akin to somebody rushing up to my car and giving the windshield a quick spray and squeegee, then demanding my phone number so they can monetize me via robocalls, in exchange for the "free" service i neither requested nor wanted.
Big isps have a vezted interest in not being just the dumb pipe i want them to be, because they want to double deal as content makers as well as distributors, such as time warner. By asserting they are information services and not common carriers, they get all kinds of perks, and insisting on this unwanted, unnecessary bundling is one of them.
So no, i am not entitled to those free services. What you failed to grasp is that i dont want them, and i feel those services should be provided elsewhere than the isp.
But of course, you had to try to spin this into how evil and entitlement addled i personally am, while not actually knowing a damned thing about me or my desires in a provider.
Way to go.
Yeah, because privacy is a privalege, not a right...
(Rolls eyes)
Are you so myopic that you cannot see that when you have to purchase privacy, you don't actually have privacy at all, and worse still, only the wealthy will be able to afford it.
Do you really not see how this will lead to shocking double standards, how it will lead down to dystopia-land, and how it stems from a very wrong headed idea that simply because a dollar can be squeezed out of something, it should thus be squeezed out?
Instead, what actually NEEDS to happen, is for government to stop having a hardon for violating privacy (it feeds this downward trend into shitville), and tell these asshats in no uncertain terms they are NOT allowed to monetize a natural right of human kind, and thus NOT allowed to pretend they are entitled to that higher monetization, and thus NOT ENTITLED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES TO SECURE THAT NATUAL RIGHT.
But of course, "comcast is right here", i mean, what was i thinking, insisting that a major corporation not actively act in a manner contrary to civilization. I mean, there' money to be made violating people's rights! The only rights that matter are the rights to extract as much "value" as possible! Glory to the divinity of the allmighty dollar!
I think i will be sick.
I was leaning more toward cortana's behavior in halo 5...
You know, sending dozens of doomsday robots down on the human race and all-- because she decided that she could run the future better than anyone else.
Cause that seems to be the direction MS is taking here with the deep integration of their assistant agent software, tied to the mothe ship like that, especially since you can't turn her off, and she ignores group policis that are manually instituted to disable her, among other "convenient features" of the anniversary update.
I find it fitting that the rampant version of cortana from the series bettee fits ms's vision of her. It is almost classic bit of kafka-esque dark humor.
So, enjoy the giant metal feet everyone. Cortana feels it is the right thing to do.
Step 1, download a Linux based desktop install image.
Step 2, burn the image to a DVD.
Step 3, boot the computer using the burned dvd.
Step 4, perform a normal installation of the district of your choice. When asked how to partition the device, tell the installer to delete everything and then install.
Step 5, wait about half an hour while it installs.
Step 6, set up any software it hardware the installer didn't set up for you.
Step 7, profit.