But the political-axis framework gives us a familiar set of ideas and terms for identifying areas of fundamental disagreement. This can lead to faster problem resolution.
Actually, it gives people flags to rally 'round both to defend their positions without thinking and to avoid evaluating alternatives.
Congratulations, this was the dumbest 'oops' I've ever read on software engineering.
A number of posters have been wondering why UF cut the Computer Science department. It is because the administrators at the University of Florida want more funding from the state of Florida, and a useful and popular STEM program is a higher value hostage than, say, any Arts and Humanities program.
My basis for this is OP's linked article in Forbes, which quite transparently links the elimination of the department with state budget cuts. Could you imagine how that would read if UF threatened closure of a Literature department and elimination of courses in postmodernism and semiotics? Most sane people would yawn at that.
It seems odd to me that the list of "What should I do?" includes the following "Do Nots":
-Do not collect metadata, content, or search electronic communications of individuals
-Do not do additional logging of online activity or monitor communications
Is this a bit of legal cover designed to immunize these agencies against 4th amendment violations by over imaginative barristas, and still have access to the data they collect? Can the government evade the 4th amendment by getting us all to spy on each other, provided they give us some standard boilerplate disclaimer?
"The relevant aspect of the book here is Godel's incompleteness theorem, which, broadly speaking, says that no finite mathematical system can resolve, definitively, the truth value of all possible mathematical conjectures expressible in that same mathematical system."
I fail to see how stricter software product liability laws would help that. But for creating work for lawyers based on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? Pure genius.
"Well, true — the assignee of the IP address might not be the actual copyright infringer. But, more generally, being named as a defendant in a lawsuit does not mean that you're at fault anyway — that's what the trial is for."
Uh, isn't that the heart of the problem? Copyright holders using the high costs of a trial to extort money from whomever they decide to accuse?
"And, believe it or not, you can still become a tech billionaire later in life even if you're cursed with a PhD."
But if you're cursed with a PhD, you're probably also cursed with student debt and years of lost earnings. That makes it harder to get seed money to start up an enterprise.
You should avoid long winded discussions of operations that sum up to "everything's OK". You risk looking like an attention grabber if you try to cram too much detail on the way.
I'm disturbed by the lack of corroboration.
I'm amused by the fact that this probable hoax made it into the daily mail.
I'm hopeful that maybe I can make even more efficient solar panels from toenail clippings or poo smeared on aluminum foil.
Unless the software becomes popular, that is. Don't they have to sue infringers to maintain their patent? Or the next guy that comes along can point to the first guy and say, "You didn't sue him!"
Vaughn does some sleight of hand with the term "Mission Critical". I would say from personal experience in a large high energy physics experiment that Windows NT/XP is not the best platform for a high performance/high availability application. The LSE experience may have been similar, and perhaps aggravated by incompetent consultant, but to conclude from this that.Net is not a good platform for "Mission Critical" applications is just false. I work on several "Mission Critical".Net applications at a medium bank where 10 ms response times would be way overkill...
That being said, if you really want to make your platform bulletproof, code it in C/C++.
Pure science for the sake of itself is certainly a worthwhile goal. However, there is also science beyond HEP, and I think that is the point that the Austrian government is heeling to. A 25 year "dry spell" is a tough record to run on for any scientific endeavor. Some might even date this to the advent of the Standard Model in the early 70's, since many of the "discoveries" since then (Eg- WZ, bottom, top quark, etc) are just filling in the blank slots of that theory. There has been no paradigm shift.
(Arguably the only fresh discovery coming out of HEP in the last 25 years is the discovery that neutrinos have mass. However, even this amounts to measurement of a free parameter in the standard model and, though it leads to beautiful quantum effects like neutrino oscillation, these effects are well known from other sectors like the K and the B.)
Until now, I think HEP has basked in the glow of the remarkable mid-20th century advances in nuclear physics, eg- the atom bomb, atomic power, etc. With accelerator based experiments churning out discoveries and results that agree with Standard Model theory at "six 9's" precision, it may be time to declare the game over.
They're setting it up so either everyone is forced to pay into their welfare system for a failed industry through a tax on all internet connectivity or they can, without proof or recourse, have you disconnected from the internet.
It could actually be a good development. If everyone were forced to pay, everyone would share an interest in stopping RIAA. The way things are now, only people unlucky enough to have been sued have an interest in stopping them.
I consciously don't buy music anymore. I don't pirate it either. I just do without. Why? Because I can't bring myself to give my hard earned money to the thieving cocksuckers that comprise the RIAA and contribute to their program of turning the internet into a police state. Nothing that they can possibly produce is worth giving up on our freedoms.
That's no reason to meddle in scientific terminology
That's a good point, and I confess that I haven't read the bill, and if lawmakers are indeed making scientific claims, then they're about as intelligent as the Indiana legislature was when they passed a resolution squaring the circle!
But it's really the use of the language that I'm getting at: is "planet" a scientific term, is it a cultural term, or is it both? I think it's both, and people get upset when other groups try to usurp the definitions of words they thought they knew. To laymen, it would be as if a group of classicists came up with a new definition for "Wonders of the Ancient World" and declared that there are now only 6 because, say, the Lighthouse at Alexandria wasn't really a lighthouse or something.
One could make the argument that the concept of "nine planets" is ingrained in popular culture. The scientific reasons why Pluto is not a planet are fairly technical, and scientists who try to explain this come off a bit like the annoying guy at a cocktail party who corrects your pronunciation. The natural inclination is to put that guy back in his place.
It is a little ridiculous and unnecessary; when kicking out Pluto, the IAU could have at the same time declared that there are nine "historical planets" and left the technical discourse to people who are actually interested in that.
I've been writing custom data access layers since 2001, and they all have components that vaguely resemble this: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week15/OG/html/1329-2/US06163776-20080408.html.
There needs to be a test that goes beyond "prior art" for software patents. Namely, if a software solution is obvious given the problem and the tools, then it should not be patentable. Otherwise, patent law does not advance the common good, it merely makes programming more expensive/less productive.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it gives people flags to rally 'round both to defend their positions without thinking and to avoid evaluating alternatives.
Congratulations, this was the dumbest 'oops' I've ever read on software engineering.
And now I'm going over to the Daily Kos to get my morning tech news.
A number of posters have been wondering why UF cut the Computer Science department. It is because the administrators at the University of Florida want more funding from the state of Florida, and a useful and popular STEM program is a higher value hostage than, say, any Arts and Humanities program.
My basis for this is OP's linked article in Forbes, which quite transparently links the elimination of the department with state budget cuts. Could you imagine how that would read if UF threatened closure of a Literature department and elimination of courses in postmodernism and semiotics? Most sane people would yawn at that.
"The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea."
Since when? Democracy is about preventing the abuse of power. Putting the "right people" who have the "best ideas" in charge leads to fascism.
They need to protect all of those bagels and cream cheese.
It seems odd to me that the list of "What should I do?" includes the following "Do Nots":
-Do not collect metadata, content, or search electronic communications of individuals
-Do not do additional logging of online activity or monitor communications
Is this a bit of legal cover designed to immunize these agencies against 4th amendment violations by over imaginative barristas, and still have access to the data they collect? Can the government evade the 4th amendment by getting us all to spy on each other, provided they give us some standard boilerplate disclaimer?
I fail to see how stricter software product liability laws would help that. But for creating work for lawyers based on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? Pure genius.
"Well, true — the assignee of the IP address might not be the actual copyright infringer. But, more generally, being named as a defendant in a lawsuit does not mean that you're at fault anyway — that's what the trial is for."
Uh, isn't that the heart of the problem? Copyright holders using the high costs of a trial to extort money from whomever they decide to accuse?
"And, believe it or not, you can still become a tech billionaire later in life even if you're cursed with a PhD." But if you're cursed with a PhD, you're probably also cursed with student debt and years of lost earnings. That makes it harder to get seed money to start up an enterprise.
You should avoid long winded discussions of operations that sum up to "everything's OK". You risk looking like an attention grabber if you try to cram too much detail on the way.
Not quite - that honor goes to the goof above.
Never mind - I had "Ad Block Plus" enabled. (Oh I'm so embarrassed!)
I clicked over to the Washington Post to read the story, and there were no ads there.
Tell us more about your idea so we can help. We'll keep it secret here.
For patients undergoing scans or treatments involving radiation, why not verify exposure with a 25 cent dosimeter? You'd catch problems right away.
True enough. Do they have a "Page 3" girl? That always makes it more believable.
I'm disturbed by the lack of corroboration. I'm amused by the fact that this probable hoax made it into the daily mail. I'm hopeful that maybe I can make even more efficient solar panels from toenail clippings or poo smeared on aluminum foil.
Unless the software becomes popular, that is. Don't they have to sue infringers to maintain their patent? Or the next guy that comes along can point to the first guy and say, "You didn't sue him!"
(1) Macs are more expensive. (2) People write more about "Why Macs are so expensive" (3) "Why windows is so expensive" matches 3/5 words. QED
Vaughn does some sleight of hand with the term "Mission Critical". I would say from personal experience in a large high energy physics experiment that Windows NT/XP is not the best platform for a high performance/high availability application. The LSE experience may have been similar, and perhaps aggravated by incompetent consultant, but to conclude from this that .Net is not a good platform for "Mission Critical" applications is just false. I work on several "Mission Critical" .Net applications at a medium bank where 10 ms response times would be way overkill...
That being said, if you really want to make your platform bulletproof, code it in C/C++.
Pure science for the sake of itself is certainly a worthwhile goal. However, there is also science beyond HEP, and I think that is the point that the Austrian government is heeling to. A 25 year "dry spell" is a tough record to run on for any scientific endeavor. Some might even date this to the advent of the Standard Model in the early 70's, since many of the "discoveries" since then (Eg- WZ, bottom, top quark, etc) are just filling in the blank slots of that theory. There has been no paradigm shift.
(Arguably the only fresh discovery coming out of HEP in the last 25 years is the discovery that neutrinos have mass. However, even this amounts to measurement of a free parameter in the standard model and, though it leads to beautiful quantum effects like neutrino oscillation, these effects are well known from other sectors like the K and the B.)
Until now, I think HEP has basked in the glow of the remarkable mid-20th century advances in nuclear physics, eg- the atom bomb, atomic power, etc. With accelerator based experiments churning out discoveries and results that agree with Standard Model theory at "six 9's" precision, it may be time to declare the game over.
They're setting it up so either everyone is forced to pay into their welfare system for a failed industry through a tax on all internet connectivity or they can, without proof or recourse, have you disconnected from the internet.
It could actually be a good development. If everyone were forced to pay, everyone would share an interest in stopping RIAA. The way things are now, only people unlucky enough to have been sued have an interest in stopping them.
I consciously don't buy music anymore. I don't pirate it either. I just do without. Why? Because I can't bring myself to give my hard earned money to the thieving cocksuckers that comprise the RIAA and contribute to their program of turning the internet into a police state. Nothing that they can possibly produce is worth giving up on our freedoms.
That's no reason to meddle in scientific terminology
That's a good point, and I confess that I haven't read the bill, and if lawmakers are indeed making scientific claims, then they're about as intelligent as the Indiana legislature was when they passed a resolution squaring the circle!
But it's really the use of the language that I'm getting at: is "planet" a scientific term, is it a cultural term, or is it both? I think it's both, and people get upset when other groups try to usurp the definitions of words they thought they knew. To laymen, it would be as if a group of classicists came up with a new definition for "Wonders of the Ancient World" and declared that there are now only 6 because, say, the Lighthouse at Alexandria wasn't really a lighthouse or something.
One could make the argument that the concept of "nine planets" is ingrained in popular culture. The scientific reasons why Pluto is not a planet are fairly technical, and scientists who try to explain this come off a bit like the annoying guy at a cocktail party who corrects your pronunciation. The natural inclination is to put that guy back in his place. It is a little ridiculous and unnecessary; when kicking out Pluto, the IAU could have at the same time declared that there are nine "historical planets" and left the technical discourse to people who are actually interested in that.
I've been writing custom data access layers since 2001, and they all have components that vaguely resemble this: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week15/OG/html/1329-2/US06163776-20080408.html. There needs to be a test that goes beyond "prior art" for software patents. Namely, if a software solution is obvious given the problem and the tools, then it should not be patentable. Otherwise, patent law does not advance the common good, it merely makes programming more expensive/less productive.