That is what the GPL says, "Downstream developers aren't adult enough to make their own decisions about whether or not to release their derived works or keep them private. I the GOD of developers will impose upon them (if they so choose) the RULES of the GPL and heaven help them if they violate the COLLECTIVE RULES of THE GNU HURD. POWER TO THE SOCIAL MOVEMENT COLLECTIVE aka communistic gang enforcers."
BSD on the other hand says that you are an adult and can make YOUR OWN decisions about whether or not to release the source for YOUR DERIVED works and WHEN and HOW or HOW MUCH to release - AS YOU CHOOSE. True Human Freedom. No need for any enforcement. Sell it. Make money. Yea.
The original authors of any Apache fork are well within the license to make use of the Apache code as they see fit. It's NOT up to YOU who decides, it's the owners of the Apache code who decided. If you don't like it that's fine. I don't like the decisions of many authors who release under GPL but there isn't anything I can do about it other than simply use their shit. I certainly won't develop it further since I'm FORCED then to release it if I want to distribute it. I most certainly NEVER CONSIDER any GPL'd code for commercial projects for clients if any of the code will be modified in anyway other than trivially. Certainly I'd never consider using an GPL licensed module. Maybe a LGPL but it would have to be the kick ass module and then it's likely to be a second choice to any BSD licensed code even if that's not as kick ass. Freedom for me the developer is more important to me than freedom of the code. The code is already FREE - both BSD and GPL - what really matters to me is MY FREEDOM TO CHOOSE LATER ON whether or not I release code. With BSD I have that choice at anytime. With GPL'd code I have to choose up front and can't choose later without tossing away my code changes which might have cost me a lot of time and money to develop.
It's not for you to decide if others work is wasted, that's for them to decide. You've overstepped your boundaries you socialistic communist.
GPL folk are interested in having the source code always be open primarily for the end users (or developers downstream) and as such place restrictions upon what developers using the code can do with the code.
GPLer folk want freedom for their code above all other costs or considerations INCLUDING OVER the considerations for potential developers for which they care not.
=== BSD ===
BSD folk are really interested in FREEDOM FOR THE DEVELOPER.
BSD folk are interested primarily in providing DEVELOPERS with MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY and FREEDOM OF CHOICE in how they use the code.
=== TWO MEANINGS OF FREEDOM === Two entirely different notions of what constitutes freedom and thus the confusion when discussing "freedom".
This difference and dispute over "freedom" goes back to Richard Stallman's unfortunate choice of meaning for the words "free" and "freedom" that is use to propagandize GPL/GNU code.
Apple is working to eliminate GPL'd code from their system. For example they are using the BSD Licensed LLVM and clang projects, funding them actually, to replace - eventually - the GCC compiler currently used in MacOSX. Now they currently say that they don't plan on replacing the GCC totally but you gotta know it hurts BSD OS projects to have to build their binaries with GCC; in fact it stinks. Yeah for LLMV! Corporate sponsors are putting the code back much to the disdain of the GNU ilk who think that they are only ones who contribute code back since THEY ARE FORCED TO BY AGREEMENT. BSD folk don't have to yet they do out of their own interest and good will, no FORCE needed.
Apache is another example of a project with BSD like license with code being contributed back successfully.
Apple can and will avoid icky linux GNU crapy code.
That sure brings new meaning to a filing system. No one would have found it but it was just off the road. I wonder if the ReiserFS is like that or is it really any good? What will come of it no that it's more notorious than Linux?
"The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete"? How absurd.
The scientific method requires data to make hypothesis and theories testable.
Data with models, hypothesis, theories is just useless as is the article's observations and conclusions.
'Speaking at the O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference this past March, Peter Norvig, Google's research director, offered an update to George Box's maxim: "All models are wrong, and increasingly you can succeed without them."'
As someone else observed WTF???
Without models you've got nada.
What's going to replace models?
"This is a world where massive amounts of data and applied mathematics replace every other tool that might be brought to bear."
Are not applied mathematics models? Duh... They make one giant claim in one statement and in the very next sentence they contradict themselves and prove that they are full of shit!!! Cool way of writing... but not my style.
While I'm not a particle physicist I suspect their claims in this statement are simply junk: "The reason physics has drifted into theoretical speculation about n-dimensional grand unified models over the past few decades (the "beautiful story" phase of a discipline starved of data) is that we don't know how to run the experiments that would falsify the hypotheses -- the energies are too high, the accelerators too expensive, and so on."
It's just a sound bite designed to attract as many none critical thinkers as possible. Given how many people like mind poo this poo pablum is typical of writing that passes itself off as science based.
Icky mind poo guys. Surely you can do better?
"In short, the more we learn about biology, the further we find ourselves from a model that can explain it."
What??? That doesn't mean that we won't find a model that works? That doesn't mean that we can't use information science to find models that work!!!
"The new availability of huge amounts of data, along with the statistical tools to crunch these numbers, offers a whole new way of understanding the world. Correlation supersedes causation, and science can advance even without coherent models, unified theories, or really any mechanistic explanation at all."
Huh?
While I'm all for "correlation" (in fact I love correlation of various kinds) I have no idea what they mean when they say that "science can advance even without coherent models, unified theories, or really any mechanistic explanation at all." That's just beyond bizarre and profoundly and deeply mistaken understanding of science.
Maybe there is a useful message in the article about data mining on petabyte scales and higher, but it's not the advertised "End of Theory".
How about setting up a firewall with our own deep packet inspection and reporting system? That way we can collectively scan, identify, analyze, report to a central site, aggregate the results, perform large scale analysis, and report the full results on all kinds of attacks on these firewalls around the world.
A distributed Get Your Hands Off My Network. This information can be used to provide Objective Evidence for Court Cases Against Aggressive ISP and Those Who Pretend To Be The Governments And Homeland Security Departments of The ~192 Imagined Countries Around The World. It's about time that these pretenders, who do real harm to other people in the world to, know that they are not the only ones with some power. We tech geeks say hands off our Internets and we are watching and reporting on YOU BIG BROTHER!
Big Brother gets it's foot, er wings, in the door yet again with a plausible reason which moves towards totalitarianism. I can't believe that you American's keep falling for that over and over and over again. The next thing you know all your home electronics such as butt plugs will have cameras, microphones, tracking devices along with dna sampling redundantly built in along with mesh wifi to report the data to their google powered data warehouses for full 7x24x366xLifeTime information awareness about you and everyone you ever connect with along with all the content of your conversations. Good luck with that.
Splat, what a mess. Clean up required on the set.
on
Iron Man Released
·
· Score: 1
Oops, darn... missile strike... massive G forces to avoid... SPLAT... ICK... CUT... iron man just splattered all over the inside of his suit. What a mess for his assistant to clean up... gooey brains and body parts and organs splattered all over the inside of the suit. Sorry that the movie ended so quickly... we'll get a new guy here soon to try out the suit... someone who won't push the G forces so hard. Better line up a whole bunch of them while we're at it and don't tell them that their life expectancy is shorter than one mission flight. Other than the splatty bits it a good flick.
The press release, oh pardon me, the article linked to in the posting above lists pricing in units of 10,000. I want one or two TILexpress-64 boards please, not 10,000 units. Until the software is built 10,000 units would just sit in my garage doing nothing.
Also, I guess they had to put out a press release to respond to the massive threat that NVidia's new Tesla board represents. At least this is going to be good for competition.
Bill Gates runs a software development company and looks at the GPL from that perspective, not from the users perspective which is the only thing that the GPL and GNU based software actually cares about.
Yes, the GPL license is totally biased towards the END USER's so called "freedom".
Yes, the GPL license prevents developers from expressing their freedom as a result of the GPL bias towards END USERS.
Since I'm also a developer I concur with Bill Gates on this. Freedom is restricted for developers who would like to take advantage of some excellent GPL and GNU code projects out there. Developer freedom is restricted since the GPL prevents the developer from maximizing their potential monetary gains by keeping THEIR enhancements to a GPL/GNU project secret and private.
In this regard the GPL license is anti-capitalistic, or more accurately "communal" or "communistic" since it creates "communal" property, specifically the piece of GPL licensed software in question, that prevents the developer from making a profit by selling his modified versions. The GPL requires that if you distribute your changes in binary form to others you must also distribute the source code.
It is a well known business practice of developers to keep their source code private and secret so that they can maximize their profits. The GPL prevents developers who would like to make money from doing so by this restriction.
Most developers who have looked into the GPL for profit purposes will have come to these conclusions and either looked for ways around it, as Red Hat and a few others have, or moved on to greener monetary opportunities in the software business.
The fact that the GPL license sets up a modern day "software commune" isn't surprising when you consider that the creator of the GPL was essentially a person with 60's hippy ideals. Which by the way is perfectly fine as it's his choice.
I am, however, surprised that Bill Gates would even bother commenting on this at all since these facts about the GPL and GNU software are well known. So what is really going on I wonder?
By the way before the GPL cult members attack the above conclusions (or me) for expressing a point of view that they find they don't like please understand that there isn't just one point of view on the GPL. There are many points of view and some of them are widely different than yours. They can be true at the same time. Yes, I know that many of you don't feel like you are in a "GPL cult commune" but that is sure what it looks like from over here (and when I stand in your shoes as I have).
You are free to use and develop software for the GPL license. Please continue doing so as some of it is actually quite good. Just don't expect all professional developers who wish to make money to join your GPL clubhouse.
Advice to Bill Gates: there are true free and open source projects such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, LLMV, Apache, etc... that would love to have injections of cash on the scale that Microsoft would bring and would love to have your participation. You can even keep some of your own changes to yourself as you wish. Oh, isn't freedom wonderful. Natually you can use the software for whatever purpose you want without paying anything for it, you can not hire any of the experienced developers who created it as you wish. It's up to you - as that's FREEDOM, TRUE FREEDOM for YOU Bill Gates. You can even make these decisions after you've worked with the True Free Open Software for years. As you wish. As you need for business reasons or whatever other reasons you might have. Welcome to the world of Truly Free Software.
Don't use public terminals. Just say NO to public terminals. It really is that simple.
You'd use a condom when having sex with someone you just met wouldn't you? How is it any different than when you use your passwords on a public terminal? Your password needs privacy and you won't get that on a public terminal.
Copy and pasting your password won't work either since the public terminal can have it's OS hacked. If you're running off of a USB booted OS of your own then copy and paste might work however you likely will get into trouble for using the USB device. They'd charge you with "hacking". Watch out.
One way that might work is to use one time passwords with a dongle such as Secure ID. Is there any open source device or software package that we can run on our phone or iPod?
LEARN TO USE TRUE CRYPT or another encryption system TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM THE PRYING EYES OF BIG BROTHER AGENTS WITH THEIR ARROGANT AGENDA OF PRIVACY VIOLATIONS. DOUBLE ENCRYPT (AT LEAST).
rueCrypt is a software system for establishing and maintaining an on-the-fly-encrypted volume (data storage device). On-the-fly encryption means that data are automatically encrypted or decrypted right before they are loaded or saved, without any user intervention. No data stored on an encrypted volume can be read (decrypted) without using the correct password/keyfile(s) or correct encryption keys. Entire file system is encrypted (e.g., file names, folder names, contents of every file, free space, meta data, etc).
Files can be copied to and from a mounted TrueCrypt volume just like they are copied to/from any normal disk (for example, by simple drag-and-drop operations). Files are automatically being decrypted on-the-fly (in memory/RAM) while they are being read or copied from an encrypted TrueCrypt volume. Similarly, files that are being written or copied to the TrueCrypt volume are automatically being encrypted on-the-fly (right before they are written to the disk) in RAM. Note that this does not mean that the whole file that is to be encrypted/decrypted must be stored in RAM before it can be encrypted/decrypted. There are no extra memory (RAM) requirements for TrueCrypt. For an illustration of how this is accomplished, see the following paragraph.
Let's suppose that there is an.avi video file stored on a TrueCrypt volume (therefore, the video file is entirely encrypted). The user provides the correct password (and/or keyfile) and mounts (opens) the TrueCrypt volume. When the user double clicks the icon of the video file, the operating system launches the application associated with the file type - typically a media player. The media player then begins loading a small initial portion of the video file from the TrueCrypt-encrypted volume to RAM (memory) in order to play it. While the portion is being loaded, TrueCrypt is automatically decrypting it (in RAM). The decrypted portion of the video (stored in RAM) is then played by the media player. While this portion is being played, the media player begins loading next small portion of the video file from the TrueCrypt-encrypted volume to RAM (memory) and the process repeats. This process is called on-the-fly encryption/decryption and it works for all file types, not only for video files. Note that TrueCrypt never saves any decrypted data to a disk - it only stores them temporarily in RAM (memory). Even when the volume is mounted, data stored in the volume is still encrypted. When you restart Windows or turn off your computer, the volume will be dismounted and files stored in it will be inaccessible (and encrypted). Even when power supply is suddenly interrupted (without proper system shut down), files stored in the volume are inaccessible (and encrypted). To make them accessible again, you have to mount the volume (and provide the correct password and/or keyfile).
Ben Stein's Expelled trailer presents itself as an advocate for free speech for academics who are being ostracized for their belief in, or even the slightest hint of, Intelligent Design. In that regard he free to say what he wants and I support his right to do so no matter how stupid what he or the others say is.
Of course I also have the freedom of speech to say what I want and what he says in his movie trailer and other video clips I've seen of him is, well to be kind, stupid.
As someone said, he misses the point that theology belongs in it's own space and not in the academic world of science.
As we all know, but not all like, science requires evidence. So while the "mud" might have gotten a kick start with lightening to produce fully functional 747's it's just a hypothesis at this point how lift got started. Once we can create life with mud and lightening in a lab ourselves we'll have definitive proof about one way that life can get started - there could be others, such as life starting in outer space in asteroids, possibly with the energy of a collision, or the warmth from the sun during a close flyby. In any event science considers these potential hypotheses that require evidence before they can be considered a potentially valid theory.
Ben Stein shows his preference, in fact he doesn't hide it at all, when he states that he used to believe in God at the beginning of his life. Well he still does believe in God although he doesn't directly say so. It's a media manipulation technique since he makes one consider the possibly that he changed his mind but then he never delivers on that and instead makes himself out to be a crusader for an injustice.
It is an injustice to call someone's (many someone's) ideas stupid? Should a stupid idea and the person who purveys them not be called what they are? Should the intelligent among the human species not call it like they see it? Isn't that an attempt by Ben Stein to prevent free speech?
Also, his use of the Richard Dawkin's quotes are likely taken out of context. They are effectively used to impune all scientists who communicate the lack Intelligent Design in Intelligent Design.
In his trailer Ben Stein makes the statement that Darwin is a dangerous idea however he doesn't follow through with what he means by that. Of course, to people like Ben Stein, Glenn Beck, Jerry Falwell, the Pope, and other god fearing people, Darwin's ideas are dangerous since the notions of evolution and natural selection might just leave them without any god - and that would destabilize their world view beyond their ability to function normally in everyday life. Oh wait, it sounds like it has as stupid is as stupid does.
Yes, Ben Stein, you can question the authority of Darwin's ideas all you want, however, don't go crying by making a whimpering movie about being expelled when those with some actual intelligence counter question the intelligence of your questions as well as their underlying premises. When the underlying premises of the so called "questions of Darwin's authority" is a supernatural notion such as God you'll have to answer questions yourself about the bigger holes supporting that hypothesis.
Here's a question for you Ben: who created your intelligent designer? Maybe the intelligent designer evolved from lightening stuck mud to create the entire universe where we find ourselves? If so where did the mud come from that created the designer?
For someone who claims that some ideas, such illegal immigration to the USA, are too complex for you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHbdMbSLfb4) you've sure made up your mind about the first cause of God, something which has zero evidence for it. It seems to me that illegal immigration is a much simpler concept to solve by many orders of magnitude than how the universe got started assuming of course that it ever had a beginning. (A beginning to the universe might not make sense to us mere humans as time *may not* have existed before the universe began).
Hack into the ARMOR system, alter the code, have it generate the routes for you and you won't have to "guess" it's random predictions.
The COPS won't know the difference when they are dispatched to places at the airport. If fact it could dispatch them so that they are FAR away from the real action taking place. If fact you could dispatch them with instructions that a terrorist action was taking place on the other side of the airport with descriptions of innocents as the terrorists causing the police to be terrorists upon those innocents. Well, that's not that unusual since the police are usually domestic terrorists anyhow for most people that they interact with.
Harv T. Ecker. Anthony Robbins. Robert Dilts. Werner Erhard. Richard Dawkins. Bill Gates. Stephen Jobs. Christopher Hitchens. Alfred Korzybski. Alan Kay.
The Art of The Long View. Business Models That Work. How to Make Money. Learn When You Are Being Tricked.
Sure I have a bridge to sell you, you can turn a good prophet on it anytime!
No, really, you must create your own wealth! Get together with some others you trust, or if you trust no one then do it on your own, and figure out something of value to other human beings. Make it happen.
That's what "management" is attempting to do at many companies but they are not intending to make you wealthy, they are planning on making themselves wealthy!
Take Electronic Arts for example: wow a game company! Who wouldn't want to work on games and get rich? Well, it's unlikely that you'd get rich there now at this stage in the corporate game. Even the early people who were there (a couple of developers who I know) didn't make it super rich. Sure one or two have done very well, but the company made tons more on them then they got.
All of us would have done better as a group had we worked together outside of the greed of EA founders as the rewards would have gone to the creators of the work rather than the corporate hacks and their wives. However, that didn't happen. Live moves on. The red pill comes with bumps and sometimes cliffs. Either learn or don't.
Value is different for different people. Find how to create and deliver value and you'll likely do quite well.
You've hit the head on the nail. What is _YOUR_$$$_VALUE_TO_MANAGEMENT_ AND THEIR PLANS FOR GLOBAL DOMINATION? The bigger the value they see in you and what you are doing the more resources you'll be given, the more responsibility, the more people, and if you play your cards well (sorry about the poker metaphor) the more cash will land in your bank account.
There are pitfalls of course. Management has lots of tricks to get you to think that you are special to them. That you are important when they are really just getting you to work harder while having no intention of paying you anymore. You must crack this one.
That's why who and what you work on are actually important. If you don't reach your goals within 12 to 18 months prepare to leave; and certainly leave within 24 months if you've not established yourself as vital to their operations as evidenced by big fat payments to your bank account each week or month.
If you value being a geek more then maybe you've found a good spot for yourself and don't mind working for peanuts. Then don't rock the boat. Choose the blue pill as Neo didn't. Play it safe.
The only question I have for you is how much of your life will you play it safe? Go on, take the red pill. Yum. A future of unlimited potential awaits you on the off world colonies, all it takes is a quantum leap on your part. Choose.
Ok, sarcasm seems to be your method of message. But in what way to you take exception to what I said, exactly?
Look, if you actually want to be a cube boy or girl then by all means don't let me or my point of view stop your existence in a cube.
I for one have no intention of being a cubical slave, nor an employment slave. I work for clients because it makes me money and as a side benefit they get something out of it! I work for myself, to better my life and the lives of those who are important to me. If it happens that my fellow cube mates (nothingness forgive) are actually important to me then I also work for them; however if that's the case then we'd all better be working really hard on ALL of us getting rich beyond belief.
Life is too short to live and work in a cube!
Life is too short to be crammed in working with others in a work environment that doesn't support maximal wealth creation for yourself and anyone else who is important to you. Optionally that can include your co-workers assuming they are mutually supportive.
If all you want is subsistence living and a cube is fine for you then get out of the way of those of us who want more, who want a better life.
What's that saying, "Lead, follow, or stand aside."
Wealth waits for no man or woman. Actually Harv T. Ecker recommends that if you are not making money hand over fist within 12 months of a new venture (or employment or investment or whatever) then get the heck out of it. I moderated 12 months into 24 due to the development curve of the technology industry.
Look, it all depends on what YOUR goals are. Ignore mine, please. Focus on your goals. What do you want to accomplish at a company that has just demoted you from an office to a cube? I'd say they are showing you the door fairly blatantly. Move on. Get wealthy some where else where there are people who will bend over backwards to make you rich as they get rich.
Employment = Corporate Slavery.
Cube = Slave Pit.
I know. I've worked enough jobs and contracts to know what's up.
The corporate interest is rarely your real interest.
For some this is fine. Actually for most this is fine. For a few it isn't. Know thyself and choose what is best for YOU and yours (if you have any yours).
Slashdot Mirror
That is what the GPL says, "Downstream developers aren't adult enough to make their own decisions about whether or not to release their derived works or keep them private. I the GOD of developers will impose upon them (if they so choose) the RULES of the GPL and heaven help them if they violate the COLLECTIVE RULES of THE GNU HURD. POWER TO THE SOCIAL MOVEMENT COLLECTIVE aka communistic gang enforcers."
BSD on the other hand says that you are an adult and can make YOUR OWN decisions about whether or not to release the source for YOUR DERIVED works and WHEN and HOW or HOW MUCH to release - AS YOU CHOOSE. True Human Freedom. No need for any enforcement. Sell it. Make money. Yea.
The original authors of any Apache fork are well within the license to make use of the Apache code as they see fit. It's NOT up to YOU who decides, it's the owners of the Apache code who decided. If you don't like it that's fine. I don't like the decisions of many authors who release under GPL but there isn't anything I can do about it other than simply use their shit. I certainly won't develop it further since I'm FORCED then to release it if I want to distribute it. I most certainly NEVER CONSIDER any GPL'd code for commercial projects for clients if any of the code will be modified in anyway other than trivially. Certainly I'd never consider using an GPL licensed module. Maybe a LGPL but it would have to be the kick ass module and then it's likely to be a second choice to any BSD licensed code even if that's not as kick ass. Freedom for me the developer is more important to me than freedom of the code. The code is already FREE - both BSD and GPL - what really matters to me is MY FREEDOM TO CHOOSE LATER ON whether or not I release code. With BSD I have that choice at anytime. With GPL'd code I have to choose up front and can't choose later without tossing away my code changes which might have cost me a lot of time and money to develop.
It's not for you to decide if others work is wasted, that's for them to decide. You've overstepped your boundaries you socialistic communist.
=== GPL ===
GPL folk are interested in having the source code always be open primarily for the end users (or developers downstream) and as such place restrictions upon what developers using the code can do with the code.
GPLer folk want freedom for their code above all other costs or considerations INCLUDING OVER the considerations for potential developers for which they care not.
=== BSD ===
BSD folk are really interested in FREEDOM FOR THE DEVELOPER.
BSD folk are interested primarily in providing DEVELOPERS with MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY and FREEDOM OF CHOICE in how they use the code.
=== TWO MEANINGS OF FREEDOM ===
Two entirely different notions of what constitutes freedom and thus the confusion when discussing "freedom".
This difference and dispute over "freedom" goes back to Richard Stallman's unfortunate choice of meaning for the words "free" and "freedom" that is use to propagandize GPL/GNU code.
The words free and freedom has many potential meanings as this link demonstrates, get used to it:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Afree
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Afreedom
=== CHOOSE FREEDOM FOR HUMAN DEVELOERS ===
I choose freedom for DEVELOPERS since we are sentient human beings while code isn't!
Bullshit.
Apple is working to eliminate GPL'd code from their system. For example they are using the BSD Licensed LLVM and clang projects, funding them actually, to replace - eventually - the GCC compiler currently used in MacOSX. Now they currently say that they don't plan on replacing the GCC totally but you gotta know it hurts BSD OS projects to have to build their binaries with GCC; in fact it stinks. Yeah for LLMV! Corporate sponsors are putting the code back much to the disdain of the GNU ilk who think that they are only ones who contribute code back since THEY ARE FORCED TO BY AGREEMENT. BSD folk don't have to yet they do out of their own interest and good will, no FORCE needed.
Apache is another example of a project with BSD like license with code being contributed back successfully.
Apple can and will avoid icky linux GNU crapy code.
That sure brings new meaning to a filing system. No one would have found it but it was just off the road. I wonder if the ReiserFS is like that or is it really any good? What will come of it no that it's more notorious than Linux?
Wired is tired.
"The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete"? How absurd.
The scientific method requires data to make hypothesis and theories testable.
Data with models, hypothesis, theories is just useless as is the article's observations and conclusions.
'Speaking at the O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference this past March, Peter Norvig, Google's research director, offered an update to George Box's maxim: "All models are wrong, and increasingly you can succeed without them."'
As someone else observed WTF???
Without models you've got nada.
What's going to replace models?
"This is a world where massive amounts of data and applied mathematics replace every other tool that might be brought to bear."
Are not applied mathematics models? Duh... They make one giant claim in one statement and in the very next sentence they contradict themselves and prove that they are full of shit!!! Cool way of writing... but not my style.
While I'm not a particle physicist I suspect their claims in this statement are simply junk: "The reason physics has drifted into theoretical speculation about n-dimensional grand unified models over the past few decades (the "beautiful story" phase of a discipline starved of data) is that we don't know how to run the experiments that would falsify the hypotheses -- the energies are too high, the accelerators too expensive, and so on."
It's just a sound bite designed to attract as many none critical thinkers as possible. Given how many people like mind poo this poo pablum is typical of writing that passes itself off as science based.
Icky mind poo guys. Surely you can do better?
"In short, the more we learn about biology, the further we find ourselves from a model that can explain it."
What??? That doesn't mean that we won't find a model that works? That doesn't mean that we can't use information science to find models that work!!!
"The new availability of huge amounts of data, along with the statistical tools to crunch these numbers, offers a whole new way of understanding the world. Correlation supersedes causation, and science can advance even without coherent models, unified theories, or really any mechanistic explanation at all."
Huh?
While I'm all for "correlation" (in fact I love correlation of various kinds) I have no idea what they mean when they say that "science can advance even without coherent models, unified theories, or really any mechanistic explanation at all." That's just beyond bizarre and profoundly and deeply mistaken understanding of science.
Maybe there is a useful message in the article about data mining on petabyte scales and higher, but it's not the advertised "End of Theory".
How about setting up a firewall with our own deep packet inspection and reporting system? That way we can collectively scan, identify, analyze, report to a central site, aggregate the results, perform large scale analysis, and report the full results on all kinds of attacks on these firewalls around the world.
A distributed Get Your Hands Off My Network. This information can be used to provide Objective Evidence for Court Cases Against Aggressive ISP and Those Who Pretend To Be The Governments And Homeland Security Departments of The ~192 Imagined Countries Around The World. It's about time that these pretenders, who do real harm to other people in the world to, know that they are not the only ones with some power. We tech geeks say hands off our Internets and we are watching and reporting on YOU BIG BROTHER!
Power the the Geeks.
It arrived Friday. Wow. 430 to 512 BILLION FLOATING POINT OPERATIONS PER SECOND! Need I say any more. Yummy, now I get to play with it!
Bring on the 100 million beef cows that live in the USA and Canada and I'll eat them doing my part to cause global warming!
Isn't it interesting that the "Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Reaches 'Unprecedented' Levels"?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3066
Very interesting indeed. Maybe we need to have another 100 million cows to reverse this Southern Hemisphere Global Cooling!
Big Brother gets it's foot, er wings, in the door yet again with a plausible reason which moves towards totalitarianism. I can't believe that you American's keep falling for that over and over and over again. The next thing you know all your home electronics such as butt plugs will have cameras, microphones, tracking devices along with dna sampling redundantly built in along with mesh wifi to report the data to their google powered data warehouses for full 7x24x366xLifeTime information awareness about you and everyone you ever connect with along with all the content of your conversations. Good luck with that.
That is a given.
Oops, darn... missile strike... massive G forces to avoid... SPLAT... ICK... CUT... iron man just splattered all over the inside of his suit. What a mess for his assistant to clean up... gooey brains and body parts and organs splattered all over the inside of the suit. Sorry that the movie ended so quickly... we'll get a new guy here soon to try out the suit... someone who won't push the G forces so hard. Better line up a whole bunch of them while we're at it and don't tell them that their life expectancy is shorter than one mission flight. Other than the splatty bits it a good flick.
The press release, oh pardon me, the article linked to in the posting above lists pricing in units of 10,000. I want one or two TILexpress-64 boards please, not 10,000 units. Until the software is built 10,000 units would just sit in my garage doing nothing.
Also, I guess they had to put out a press release to respond to the massive threat that NVidia's new Tesla board represents. At least this is going to be good for competition.
It's been discovered that it's invented.
Humans invented what they discovered.
Bill Gates runs a software development company and looks at the GPL from that perspective, not from the users perspective which is the only thing that the GPL and GNU based software actually cares about.
Yes, the GPL license is totally biased towards the END USER's so called "freedom".
Yes, the GPL license prevents developers from expressing their freedom as a result of the GPL bias towards END USERS.
Since I'm also a developer I concur with Bill Gates on this. Freedom is restricted for developers who would like to take advantage of some excellent GPL and GNU code projects out there. Developer freedom is restricted since the GPL prevents the developer from maximizing their potential monetary gains by keeping THEIR enhancements to a GPL/GNU project secret and private.
In this regard the GPL license is anti-capitalistic, or more accurately "communal" or "communistic" since it creates "communal" property, specifically the piece of GPL licensed software in question, that prevents the developer from making a profit by selling his modified versions. The GPL requires that if you distribute your changes in binary form to others you must also distribute the source code.
It is a well known business practice of developers to keep their source code private and secret so that they can maximize their profits. The GPL prevents developers who would like to make money from doing so by this restriction.
Most developers who have looked into the GPL for profit purposes will have come to these conclusions and either looked for ways around it, as Red Hat and a few others have, or moved on to greener monetary opportunities in the software business.
The fact that the GPL license sets up a modern day "software commune" isn't surprising when you consider that the creator of the GPL was essentially a person with 60's hippy ideals. Which by the way is perfectly fine as it's his choice.
I am, however, surprised that Bill Gates would even bother commenting on this at all since these facts about the GPL and GNU software are well known. So what is really going on I wonder?
By the way before the GPL cult members attack the above conclusions (or me) for expressing a point of view that they find they don't like please understand that there isn't just one point of view on the GPL. There are many points of view and some of them are widely different than yours. They can be true at the same time. Yes, I know that many of you don't feel like you are in a "GPL cult commune" but that is sure what it looks like from over here (and when I stand in your shoes as I have).
You are free to use and develop software for the GPL license. Please continue doing so as some of it is actually quite good. Just don't expect all professional developers who wish to make money to join your GPL clubhouse.
Advice to Bill Gates: there are true free and open source projects such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, LLMV, Apache, etc... that would love to have injections of cash on the scale that Microsoft would bring and would love to have your participation. You can even keep some of your own changes to yourself as you wish. Oh, isn't freedom wonderful. Natually you can use the software for whatever purpose you want without paying anything for it, you can not hire any of the experienced developers who created it as you wish. It's up to you - as that's FREEDOM, TRUE FREEDOM for YOU Bill Gates. You can even make these decisions after you've worked with the True Free Open Software for years. As you wish. As you need for business reasons or whatever other reasons you might have. Welcome to the world of Truly Free Software.
Don't use public terminals. Just say NO to public terminals. It really is that simple.
You'd use a condom when having sex with someone you just met wouldn't you? How is it any different than when you use your passwords on a public terminal? Your password needs privacy and you won't get that on a public terminal.
Copy and pasting your password won't work either since the public terminal can have it's OS hacked. If you're running off of a USB booted OS of your own then copy and paste might work however you likely will get into trouble for using the USB device. They'd charge you with "hacking". Watch out.
One way that might work is to use one time passwords with a dongle such as Secure ID. Is there any open source device or software package that we can run on our phone or iPod?
T.R.U.E. C.R.Y.P.T. D.O.T. O.R.G.
.avi video file stored on a TrueCrypt volume (therefore, the video file is entirely encrypted). The user provides the correct password (and/or keyfile) and mounts (opens) the TrueCrypt volume. When the user double clicks the icon of the video file, the operating system launches the application associated with the file type - typically a media player. The media player then begins loading a small initial portion of the video file from the TrueCrypt-encrypted volume to RAM (memory) in order to play it. While the portion is being loaded, TrueCrypt is automatically decrypting it (in RAM). The decrypted portion of the video (stored in RAM) is then played by the media player. While this portion is being played, the media player begins loading next small portion of the video file from the TrueCrypt-encrypted volume to RAM (memory) and the process repeats. This process is called on-the-fly encryption/decryption and it works for all file types, not only for video files.
LEARN TO USE TRUE CRYPT or another encryption system TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM THE PRYING EYES OF BIG BROTHER AGENTS WITH THEIR ARROGANT AGENDA OF PRIVACY VIOLATIONS. DOUBLE ENCRYPT (AT LEAST).
From: http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/
rueCrypt is a software system for establishing and maintaining an on-the-fly-encrypted volume (data storage device). On-the-fly encryption means that data are automatically encrypted or decrypted right before they are loaded or saved, without any user intervention. No data stored on an encrypted volume can be read (decrypted) without using the correct password/keyfile(s) or correct encryption keys. Entire file system is encrypted (e.g., file names, folder names, contents of every file, free space, meta data, etc).
Files can be copied to and from a mounted TrueCrypt volume just like they are copied to/from any normal disk (for example, by simple drag-and-drop operations). Files are automatically being decrypted on-the-fly (in memory/RAM) while they are being read or copied from an encrypted TrueCrypt volume. Similarly, files that are being written or copied to the TrueCrypt volume are automatically being encrypted on-the-fly (right before they are written to the disk) in RAM. Note that this does not mean that the whole file that is to be encrypted/decrypted must be stored in RAM before it can be encrypted/decrypted. There are no extra memory (RAM) requirements for TrueCrypt. For an illustration of how this is accomplished, see the following paragraph.
Let's suppose that there is an
Note that TrueCrypt never saves any decrypted data to a disk - it only stores them temporarily in RAM (memory). Even when the volume is mounted, data stored in the volume is still encrypted. When you restart Windows or turn off your computer, the volume will be dismounted and files stored in it will be inaccessible (and encrypted). Even when power supply is suddenly interrupted (without proper system shut down), files stored in the volume are inaccessible (and encrypted). To make them accessible again, you have to mount the volume (and provide the correct password and/or keyfile).
Ben Stein's Expelled trailer presents itself as an advocate for free speech for academics who are being ostracized for their belief in, or even the slightest hint of, Intelligent Design. In that regard he free to say what he wants and I support his right to do so no matter how stupid what he or the others say is.
Of course I also have the freedom of speech to say what I want and what he says in his movie trailer and other video clips I've seen of him is, well to be kind, stupid.
As someone said, he misses the point that theology belongs in it's own space and not in the academic world of science.
As we all know, but not all like, science requires evidence. So while the "mud" might have gotten a kick start with lightening to produce fully functional 747's it's just a hypothesis at this point how lift got started. Once we can create life with mud and lightening in a lab ourselves we'll have definitive proof about one way that life can get started - there could be others, such as life starting in outer space in asteroids, possibly with the energy of a collision, or the warmth from the sun during a close flyby. In any event science considers these potential hypotheses that require evidence before they can be considered a potentially valid theory.
Ben Stein shows his preference, in fact he doesn't hide it at all, when he states that he used to believe in God at the beginning of his life. Well he still does believe in God although he doesn't directly say so. It's a media manipulation technique since he makes one consider the possibly that he changed his mind but then he never delivers on that and instead makes himself out to be a crusader for an injustice.
It is an injustice to call someone's (many someone's) ideas stupid? Should a stupid idea and the person who purveys them not be called what they are? Should the intelligent among the human species not call it like they see it? Isn't that an attempt by Ben Stein to prevent free speech?
Also, his use of the Richard Dawkin's quotes are likely taken out of context. They are effectively used to impune all scientists who communicate the lack Intelligent Design in Intelligent Design.
In his trailer Ben Stein makes the statement that Darwin is a dangerous idea however he doesn't follow through with what he means by that. Of course, to people like Ben Stein, Glenn Beck, Jerry Falwell, the Pope, and other god fearing people, Darwin's ideas are dangerous since the notions of evolution and natural selection might just leave them without any god - and that would destabilize their world view beyond their ability to function normally in everyday life. Oh wait, it sounds like it has as stupid is as stupid does.
Yes, Ben Stein, you can question the authority of Darwin's ideas all you want, however, don't go crying by making a whimpering movie about being expelled when those with some actual intelligence counter question the intelligence of your questions as well as their underlying premises. When the underlying premises of the so called "questions of Darwin's authority" is a supernatural notion such as God you'll have to answer questions yourself about the bigger holes supporting that hypothesis.
Here's a question for you Ben: who created your intelligent designer? Maybe the intelligent designer evolved from lightening stuck mud to create the entire universe where we find ourselves? If so where did the mud come from that created the designer?
For someone who claims that some ideas, such illegal immigration to the USA, are too complex for you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHbdMbSLfb4) you've sure made up your mind about the first cause of God, something which has zero evidence for it. It seems to me that illegal immigration is a much simpler concept to solve by many orders of magnitude than how the universe got started assuming of course that it ever had a beginning. (A beginning to the universe might not make sense to us mere humans as time *may not* have existed before the universe began).
Stupid ideas are just th
Yeah, yeah, grammar police are everywhere. Darn Slashdot doesn't let you edit after posting. I defer the blame for the typo to them. ;--).
Are Grammar Police are domestic terrorists of a low level grade?
H. A. C. K. E. R.
Hack into the ARMOR system, alter the code, have it generate the routes for you and you won't have to "guess" it's random predictions.
The COPS won't know the difference when they are dispatched to places at the airport. If fact it could dispatch them so that they are FAR away from the real action taking place. If fact you could dispatch them with instructions that a terrorist action was taking place on the other side of the airport with descriptions of innocents as the terrorists causing the police to be terrorists upon those innocents. Well, that's not that unusual since the police are usually domestic terrorists anyhow for most people that they interact with.
Don't you mean it's "left" or "right" or "up" or "down" or "twist" as an exercise for the reader!
Study:
Harv T. Ecker.
Anthony Robbins.
Robert Dilts.
Werner Erhard.
Richard Dawkins.
Bill Gates.
Stephen Jobs.
Christopher Hitchens.
Alfred Korzybski.
Alan Kay.
The Art of The Long View.
Business Models That Work.
How to Make Money.
Learn When You Are Being Tricked.
Graph Networks.
Smalltalk.
Sure I have a bridge to sell you, you can turn a good prophet on it anytime!
No, really, you must create your own wealth! Get together with some others you trust, or if you trust no one then do it on your own, and figure out something of value to other human beings. Make it happen.
That's what "management" is attempting to do at many companies but they are not intending to make you wealthy, they are planning on making themselves wealthy!
Take Electronic Arts for example: wow a game company! Who wouldn't want to work on games and get rich? Well, it's unlikely that you'd get rich there now at this stage in the corporate game. Even the early people who were there (a couple of developers who I know) didn't make it super rich. Sure one or two have done very well, but the company made tons more on them then they got.
All of us would have done better as a group had we worked together outside of the greed of EA founders as the rewards would have gone to the creators of the work rather than the corporate hacks and their wives. However, that didn't happen. Live moves on. The red pill comes with bumps and sometimes cliffs. Either learn or don't.
Value is different for different people. Find how to create and deliver value and you'll likely do quite well.
Blue pill? Red pill? Choose.
[life awaits your choice]
You've hit the head on the nail. What is _YOUR_$$$_VALUE_TO_MANAGEMENT_ AND THEIR PLANS FOR GLOBAL DOMINATION? The bigger the value they see in you and what you are doing the more resources you'll be given, the more responsibility, the more people, and if you play your cards well (sorry about the poker metaphor) the more cash will land in your bank account.
There are pitfalls of course. Management has lots of tricks to get you to think that you are special to them. That you are important when they are really just getting you to work harder while having no intention of paying you anymore. You must crack this one.
That's why who and what you work on are actually important. If you don't reach your goals within 12 to 18 months prepare to leave; and certainly leave within 24 months if you've not established yourself as vital to their operations as evidenced by big fat payments to your bank account each week or month.
If you value being a geek more then maybe you've found a good spot for yourself and don't mind working for peanuts. Then don't rock the boat. Choose the blue pill as Neo didn't. Play it safe.
The only question I have for you is how much of your life will you play it safe? Go on, take the red pill. Yum. A future of unlimited potential awaits you on the off world colonies, all it takes is a quantum leap on your part. Choose.
[blinking cursor awaits your choice]
Ok, sarcasm seems to be your method of message. But in what way to you take exception to what I said, exactly?
Look, if you actually want to be a cube boy or girl then by all means don't let me or my point of view stop your existence in a cube.
I for one have no intention of being a cubical slave, nor an employment slave. I work for clients because it makes me money and as a side benefit they get something out of it! I work for myself, to better my life and the lives of those who are important to me. If it happens that my fellow cube mates (nothingness forgive) are actually important to me then I also work for them; however if that's the case then we'd all better be working really hard on ALL of us getting rich beyond belief.
Life is too short to live and work in a cube!
Life is too short to be crammed in working with others in a work environment that doesn't support maximal wealth creation for yourself and anyone else who is important to you. Optionally that can include your co-workers assuming they are mutually supportive.
If all you want is subsistence living and a cube is fine for you then get out of the way of those of us who want more, who want a better life.
What's that saying, "Lead, follow, or stand aside."
Wealth waits for no man or woman. Actually Harv T. Ecker recommends that if you are not making money hand over fist within 12 months of a new venture (or employment or investment or whatever) then get the heck out of it. I moderated 12 months into 24 due to the development curve of the technology industry.
Look, it all depends on what YOUR goals are. Ignore mine, please. Focus on your goals. What do you want to accomplish at a company that has just demoted you from an office to a cube? I'd say they are showing you the door fairly blatantly. Move on. Get wealthy some where else where there are people who will bend over backwards to make you rich as they get rich.
Employment = Corporate Slavery.
Cube = Slave Pit.
I know. I've worked enough jobs and contracts to know what's up.
The corporate interest is rarely your real interest.
For some this is fine. Actually for most this is fine. For a few it isn't. Know thyself and choose what is best for YOU and yours (if you have any yours).