One could be forgiven for assuming that years of cumulative search and click data from MSN would have made this issue apparent very early on. But apparently that wasn't the case. Was the collaboration between MSN and Bing teams really that poor? Or was the MSN data just that worthless? In any case, it suggests that MS tries to have too many fingers in too many pies, and should refocus on making core products (Windows, Office an XBox) great again before running off dabbling in markets it doesn't understand. No wonder stock is flat since forever...
There no absolute "need" but it greatly simplifies reading meters "on the fly", since the utility company personnel doesn't have to park, walk up to the house, get bitten by dogs etc. So in the end it's to save cost and presumably keep energy bills down.
Of course, if there was a way gauge energy consumption truly remotely from a central location that would be better, and also negate the "need" for wireles...
Me too, but a little differently: Reminds me of king Solomon and the baby. (1 Kings 3:16-28). If any of the countries actually steps up and does something to limit global warming (i.e. tries to "save the baby") that country should be deemed the rightful owner of the island should it ever reappear. Or maybe get the fishing/mineral rights on the piece of seabed where it once was. Or something. Or not.
Damn! For a moment there I thought you had some juicy scoop on Miguel I...
Speaking of doing things out of desperation: As far as work whoring goes, I'm sure we all do it from time to time. At least if those who have a boss or a family or a mortgage or...
Yes, I largely agree with the notion of "it depends", thus the comment about toolmakers and tool users early in my post: For example, most programmers will be using encryption, as opposed to creating encryption algorithms. (In fact, if somebody based on alleged awesome maths skills eschewed an established encryption algorithm or similar in favor of a home-brew most managers would be very sceptical and doubt his/her judgement!)
So in order to carry your "farmer"/"cook" analogy further maybe it's fairer to say that a "cryptologist" needs awesome math skills and some programming skills, whereas a "programmer" needs programming skills and a host of other skills including some maths skills, a smattering of social skills and not least the ability to build on other peoples work? In which case upon reflection this whole post and TFA are really rather pointless... I can't say it's not so.
Or maybe it's closer to the truth to say that real programmers need no stinking maths skills, just lots of caffeine, pizza and hubris?:)
Pizza analogy: You can't work in a pizzeria without profound knowledge of chemistry
Car analogy: Automotive engineers are the best drivers, the rest are tinkerers
General: Tool makers vs. tool users
Just because most (all?) programming is based on mathematics it doesn't necessary follow that math is essential or even particularly important to the practice of programing. It could be argued that problem domain knowledge plays a similar role. For example, one could equally plausibly contend that without a profound knowledge of banking you shouldn't write banking software. In my experience hiring managers prefer domain knowledge over generalist skills such as math. Personality is another biggie.
I suspect that the tone of this thread is reflecting the prevalent commodization of programming. We wish that smarts, maths skills etc. are important factors, so we can feel good about ourselves, feel smart, important whatever. In reality very few of us will ever again have jobs where math skills are truly important. Dumbing down? Maybe. Some might see it as a natural consequence of the fall of the "priesthood" that ruled computing decades ago.
I believe you are correct. Besides, it really doesn't strike me as very cost effective way to generate hydrogen, unless those crystals are extremely inexpensive to produce.
I see your point, but we've always known that there are many different mechanisms in play on the chemical level (like pH in some fishes), the genetic/chromosomal level, the cellular level and the organism level even within classes. Consider single cell organisms with "genders": at the most primitive level hormones have no role, whereas genetics does. Is it reasonable to assume that this could have carried over to some higher organisms?
I thought TFA even concedes that this very mechanism has been observed before in insects and some mammals. When Clinton says "We assumed that sex determination in birds would follow the mammal pattern" it makes me wonder why he made that assumption, or if it was just a convenient null hypothesis. Or if it just a buildup to how truly "amazing" the discovery is. Given the differences in chromosomal origin of sex between different animal groups wouldn't it have been equally reasonable to assume that the developmental patterns would diverge? In other words, given that we know that sexual differentiation is a phenomenon that has evolved at multiple times via multiple genetic mechanisms in multiple phyla, classes and orders why should we assume that the implementation on the organism level would be identical? Isn't it more intuitive that there would be differences? But finding the "unexpected" makes for a better article than finding the expected...
It's well known that birds have a completely different sex determination mechanism than mammals. For example, mammals (other than the platypus) use X/Y or X/0 chromosomes to determine sex. Birds on the other hand use Z/W chromosomes for sex determination, as do most fish, some insects and some reptiles. So the big eyed "Ooooh, who would've thunk that birds aren't handling it the way we mammals do?" attitude of the article seems kind of silly considering we've known about this striking difference for a long time. Imagine that it actually mattered... Suspect they just wanted a reason to publish those cool pictures.
Slashdot Mirror
Good old EM is "easy" to defend against. One can use shielding etc. to great effect.
Defense against gamma rays is more difficult but doable, through checks and balances in soft- and hardware.
But the worst of them all is poor programming. Somehow there seems to be no defense against that, which is mind boggling in itself.
One could be forgiven for assuming that years of cumulative search and click data from MSN would have made this issue apparent very early on. But apparently that wasn't the case. Was the collaboration between MSN and Bing teams really that poor? Or was the MSN data just that worthless? In any case, it suggests that MS tries to have too many fingers in too many pies, and should refocus on making core products (Windows, Office an XBox) great again before running off dabbling in markets it doesn't understand. No wonder stock is flat since forever...
For voting machines the use McAffee anti-virus and enabling Windows firewall are apparently deemed sufficient... :)
You're spot on: The absurdity of these issues never ceases to amaze me.
There no absolute "need" but it greatly simplifies reading meters "on the fly", since the utility company personnel doesn't have to park, walk up to the house, get bitten by dogs etc. So in the end it's to save cost and presumably keep energy bills down.
Of course, if there was a way gauge energy consumption truly remotely from a central location that would be better, and also negate the "need" for wireles...
Hacking: expect lawsuits here in the US!
Me too, but a little differently: Reminds me of king Solomon and the baby. (1 Kings 3:16-28). If any of the countries actually steps up and does something to limit global warming (i.e. tries to "save the baby") that country should be deemed the rightful owner of the island should it ever reappear. Or maybe get the fishing/mineral rights on the piece of seabed where it once was. Or something. Or not.
but I wasn't speaking of sex whores
Damn! For a moment there I thought you had some juicy scoop on Miguel I...
Speaking of doing things out of desperation: As far as work whoring goes, I'm sure we all do it from time to time. At least if those who have a boss or a family or a mortgage or...
Tried that, but the bunny-ears antenna keeps getting in the way. Suggestions?
Thanks!
Yes, I largely agree with the notion of "it depends", thus the comment about toolmakers and tool users early in my post: For example, most programmers will be using encryption, as opposed to creating encryption algorithms. (In fact, if somebody based on alleged awesome maths skills eschewed an established encryption algorithm or similar in favor of a home-brew most managers would be very sceptical and doubt his/her judgement!)
So in order to carry your "farmer"/"cook" analogy further maybe it's fairer to say that a "cryptologist" needs awesome math skills and some programming skills, whereas a "programmer" needs programming skills and a host of other skills including some maths skills, a smattering of social skills and not least the ability to build on other peoples work? In which case upon reflection this whole post and TFA are really rather pointless... I can't say it's not so.
Or maybe it's closer to the truth to say that real programmers need no stinking maths skills, just lots of caffeine, pizza and hubris? :)
"Earthquake proof"? They used to make the same claim for another iron alloy: Steel
Not only is it "news" it is "good news". That statement actually speaks to your point....
Pizza analogy: You can't work in a pizzeria without profound knowledge of chemistry
Car analogy: Automotive engineers are the best drivers, the rest are tinkerers
General: Tool makers vs. tool users
Just because most (all?) programming is based on mathematics it doesn't necessary follow that math is essential or even particularly important to the practice of programing. It could be argued that problem domain knowledge plays a similar role. For example, one could equally plausibly contend that without a profound knowledge of banking you shouldn't write banking software. In my experience hiring managers prefer domain knowledge over generalist skills such as math. Personality is another biggie.
I suspect that the tone of this thread is reflecting the prevalent commodization of programming. We wish that smarts, maths skills etc. are important factors, so we can feel good about ourselves, feel smart, important whatever. In reality very few of us will ever again have jobs where math skills are truly important. Dumbing down? Maybe. Some might see it as a natural consequence of the fall of the "priesthood" that ruled computing decades ago.
FTIW I'm working on an Irish catholic priest joke...
Sounds like a no-problem to me, you just get the source code and recompile it on XP. What was that? Oh...
if you're going to use a dog as a weapon, use someone else's dog
Thank goodness that dogs are notoriously difficult to clone. When people start using sheep as weapons we're suddenly all suspects.
Yes, but you can't deep fry yummy battered things in just any old medium.
I believe you are correct. Besides, it really doesn't strike me as very cost effective way to generate hydrogen, unless those crystals are extremely inexpensive to produce.
And not "Legal" either. Nokia's position is that what Apple is doing is "Illegal". So the post should have been "Illegal Magic".
At least Apple copied the stuff with permission
After all, how ironic if Xerox was to say "Hey, they're copying!"
I see your point, but we've always known that there are many different mechanisms in play on the chemical level (like pH in some fishes), the genetic/chromosomal level, the cellular level and the organism level even within classes. Consider single cell organisms with "genders": at the most primitive level hormones have no role, whereas genetics does. Is it reasonable to assume that this could have carried over to some higher organisms?
I thought TFA even concedes that this very mechanism has been observed before in insects and some mammals. When Clinton says "We assumed that sex determination in birds would follow the mammal pattern" it makes me wonder why he made that assumption, or if it was just a convenient null hypothesis. Or if it just a buildup to how truly "amazing" the discovery is. Given the differences in chromosomal origin of sex between different animal groups wouldn't it have been equally reasonable to assume that the developmental patterns would diverge? In other words, given that we know that sexual differentiation is a phenomenon that has evolved at multiple times via multiple genetic mechanisms in multiple phyla, classes and orders why should we assume that the implementation on the organism level would be identical? Isn't it more intuitive that there would be differences? But finding the "unexpected" makes for a better article than finding the expected...
It's well known that birds have a completely different sex determination mechanism than mammals. For example, mammals (other than the platypus) use X/Y or X/0 chromosomes to determine sex. Birds on the other hand use Z/W chromosomes for sex determination, as do most fish, some insects and some reptiles. So the big eyed "Ooooh, who would've thunk that birds aren't handling it the way we mammals do?" attitude of the article seems kind of silly considering we've known about this striking difference for a long time. Imagine that it actually mattered... Suspect they just wanted a reason to publish those cool pictures.
Relieved to see TFA was about tastebuds: When I saw the title I thought somebody had published the story of my life!
It looks like those (incredibly crappy) multi window IDEs of ten years ago. The name is cute though.
Actually, since this is quantum physics "nighish" would be a better choice of adjective.
What's wrong with just parking?