Restrict formatting to existing styles. That way, styles are enforced by Word and copy/paste never introduces a new style. It is a somewhat hard to find feature, but priceless IMHO. To the point that I don't get why software is not separated into a formatting mode and a content mode.
Allow me to introduce you to Styles. Create or download a template you like. Block styles to avoid any weird format to get into your documents, Then applying styles to parts of your text is a matter of selct and click. I can format an extensive document with no flaws in a matter of minutes.
The case of Argentina is peculiar. I this case, corruption is not an unintentional consequence... it is pretty intentional. If you look at Argentina's economic policy, you see plenty of hardcore measures that everybody knew would not work, implemented time and again. They have seen and done everything under the sun. Forcing dollar parity, frozen people's accounts, took people's retirement savings, defaulted on their debt, etc etc. The only constant: people in power benefited. That's why most people in there prefer to work FOR the government (i remember hearing 60%), since at least being somewhat in the loop is better than being on the outside.
"Successful delivery of the project is in doubt, with major risks or issues apparent in a number of key areas. Urgent action is needed to ensure these are addressed, and whether resolution is feasible."
So my guess is that you are right, this could be an example of fail fast. And a potential win compared to the waterfall approach, depending on which of those "key areas" could have been identified beforehand. The fact that there is a lot of money on the table is what has people running scared. In any case... Waterfall? Did't we decide to avoid it like the plague? I hope they mean Iterative (i.e. RUP).
Funny situation truly, we use Kilometers-Per-Litre easily enough.
But you know, humans are not particularly characterized for being consistent or rational.
Except for the fact that Winter, Autumn and Summer temperatures are, if anything, even LESS UNIVERSAL, they depend a lot on where you live. And if you are remembering completely arbitrary numbers, 10, 20 and 30 C does the trick just as well. Or whatever hits your fancy, since those are extremely arbitrary divisions anyway...
That's why, in Chile, all negotiated prices are all-including. Nothing of this "plus taxes and fees" crap that can mean anything. If the advertisement says 10, then you pay 10 and anything, even taxes, should already be included. Here in the US you can only hope your bill will be what they sold you and cross your fingers. With Verizon I got fees and surcharges for 300% of the agreed price for a phone line. The amount I agreed to? It was not even in the actual bill.
Whatever happens I hope we get it right this time. Last time what happened was Consumerism, Population Explosion and Income Inequality. I really hope this time it goes into less work, more happiness, more equality.
It worked out pretty well. Agriculture as a fraction of the economy and employment went from "dominant" to "negligible" (could not find exact numbers quick).
It just turns out that new economic sectors developed. If not for bad income distribution, exponentially increasing population and consumerism, we would be working pretty little indeed.
So while predictions should be taken with a grain of salt, unfunded skepticism due to a single historical sample that has no guarantee to happen again is also a bad proposition.
You are extremely right! What's the point of easy, (even 1-click) purchases of goods and services if you have to spend about two hours reading a contract, licence or EULA. A document full of jargon, implications and references that the average person will never understand. That for very trivial things and knowing that the competition will have an equally log document, so there are no real alternatives.
It is frustrating to be required to comply to the full text of laws which not even legislators have time to read. IMHO, we need two things: simplification and standardization. I see no reason why a single, fixed set of rules should go for anything an end user is supposed to purchase, a single set of rules on how private data should be addressed, etc. Allowing every company to create their own deal is insane when we expect millions of companies to interact with millions of customers.
You already mentioned the difference: the amount. If giving money is an effective way to skew the results your way, then giving a lot is proportionally more effective. In practice this is equivalent to say that everyone can vote, it is just that some votes weight much more than others. Not that such a system is unthinkable (it is similar to medieval royalty and nobility), but is far from the representational democracy that is supposed to be there. I imagine you now see the problem.
In fact, I have seen some proposals were donations are restricted to individuals only (it's fine if they want to attach a cause or group to describe the donation) and up to a low threshold (like $100 or so). Others go even beyond this, by making the state provide each citizen's contributions for them, so everyone get's a vote chip and a donation chip. Equal chips BTW.
Uh, a different idea might be to have more than one, spread out. I see no reason why we can't start heating with laser A and continue with laser B.
Especially if for any reason scaling them up gets complicated.
Oh, thanks. I remembered Eros and the fact that the war was offensive and the aliens had repented and were not actually coming back (although unknown to humans), didn't remember the first 2 invasions at all!
Wow, I didn't get all of that, but I fear you are right. The two major flaws I see on the trailer are:
1.- They TOLD him he was going to be a hero.
2.- When did the aliens even try to learn our tactics or destroy earth? One of the most interesting parts of the plot was the moral background. We found them, they found us, there was a single fight in a remote outpost, then they went away. We can't defend ourselves, neither can they. Should we do a preemptive genocide?
Did EA decide they were innovating too much already and wanted to go for a beaten-up franchise?
Did they felt envious of the one franchise that had more sequels than Madden?
Out of curiosity, I googled this 4 minute video showing the actual interaction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi8NpwiEuzc
It actually does not seem that bad to me. It can be used pretty fast and has some nice features. I might like it or maybe I wont, but I think it is good that companies try radical new interactions. I actually liked the ribbon on office a lot compared to a clusterfuck of nested menus. context-aware menus are brilliant, same as quick access right by the mouse.
It is not Windows 7+1 though, is something new. I would have just stayed with "metro" and presented it as a new product. See if it gets traction without pissing off people happy with 7 and get some recognition for innovation for once. MS seems to be to have good designers and engineers, but marketing and management seem to suck big time.
I know that prolog searches. What I'm saying it that a lot of what is considered AI by the people that do AI is based on search. I gave plenty of examples of what I consider the common point of view in the field. Your paper, being written inside a Department of Philosophy, might re-define AI if differently. I'm not against exploring new definitions of AI, but if you want to do that, you should start by stating it.
Your goals are loaded. I can easily present a competing goals for the same behavior that push you into a different conclusion:
1) To create something that does the hard work for you.
Seen this way, in the history of man, almost EVERY industry has been trying to do this for a long, long time. The issue here is not technical development, is the fact that one we achieve something, we always come up with something else to go for and maybe an issue of how we should distribute the benefits of those developments.
It's AI the same way Prolog is AI....
SearchIsNotAI or something.
HUH? You definitely lost me there. First, Prolog is a computer language more than any kind of algorithm, just one more declarative and suited for logic. Definitely a lot of AI has been coded in Prolog.
Second, how is search not AI??? Almost any AI algorithm I can think of is a search problem. Chess (or other games) AI is nothing else than a search for a close to optimal set of moves (based on a scoring function). SLAM and Path-finding in general is also a search. Watson performs a search for potential documents matching the query. Classifiers search for an optimal decision boundary to divide the data. Clustering searches for a stable configuration of centroids (for example). Object recognition searches for matches that maximize the likelihood between object... etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. I mean, almost any algorithm that I have been teach in Machine Learning and Robotics has been introduced as a search problem!
Although I agree with you, there is much more going on here than just finding out a good balance. I see it more as a tragedy of the commons, the influence of special interests and our common inability to think and act on long term goals. If It were just about deciding which combinations work, we would at least be killing coal, which everyone seems to agree to be the worst option, and replacing it with anything else. Alas, we are not even doing much of that.
That! The article seems to completely ignore quality separate from quantity. Let me quote:
"The data also show that there are multiple routes into IT employment, most of which do not require a STEM degree:
Only about a third of the IT workforce has an IT-related college degree.
36 percent of IT workers do not hold a college degree at all.
Only 24 percent of IT workers have a four-year computer science or math degree."
Their conclusion: there is supply! Also, they say that enough people are graduating from STEM degrees, but they don't seem to consider that a lot of the people graduating from those institutions are not US citizens and WILL become H1Bs. I'm currently in a top-level graduate CS degree and 100% of the students are foreigners (yes, 100%, pretty amazing)
I have no idea if there is actually a shortage or not. It is really hard to tell when everyone seems to be pushing their own angle and making gross assumptions.
Slashdot Mirror
Restrict formatting to existing styles. That way, styles are enforced by Word and copy/paste never introduces a new style. It is a somewhat hard to find feature, but priceless IMHO. To the point that I don't get why software is not separated into a formatting mode and a content mode.
Allow me to introduce you to Styles. Create or download a template you like. Block styles to avoid any weird format to get into your documents, Then applying styles to parts of your text is a matter of selct and click. I can format an extensive document with no flaws in a matter of minutes.
The case of Argentina is peculiar. I this case, corruption is not an unintentional consequence... it is pretty intentional. If you look at Argentina's economic policy, you see plenty of hardcore measures that everybody knew would not work, implemented time and again. They have seen and done everything under the sun. Forcing dollar parity, frozen people's accounts, took people's retirement savings, defaulted on their debt, etc etc. The only constant: people in power benefited. That's why most people in there prefer to work FOR the government (i remember hearing 60%), since at least being somewhat in the loop is better than being on the outside.
"Successful delivery of the project is in doubt, with major risks or issues apparent in a number of key areas. Urgent action is needed to ensure these are addressed, and whether resolution is feasible."
So my guess is that you are right, this could be an example of fail fast. And a potential win compared to the waterfall approach, depending on which of those "key areas" could have been identified beforehand. The fact that there is a lot of money on the table is what has people running scared. In any case... Waterfall? Did't we decide to avoid it like the plague? I hope they mean Iterative (i.e. RUP).
Funny situation truly, we use Kilometers-Per-Litre easily enough. But you know, humans are not particularly characterized for being consistent or rational.
Except for the fact that Winter, Autumn and Summer temperatures are, if anything, even LESS UNIVERSAL, they depend a lot on where you live. And if you are remembering completely arbitrary numbers, 10, 20 and 30 C does the trick just as well. Or whatever hits your fancy, since those are extremely arbitrary divisions anyway...
That's why, in Chile, all negotiated prices are all-including. Nothing of this "plus taxes and fees" crap that can mean anything. If the advertisement says 10, then you pay 10 and anything, even taxes, should already be included. Here in the US you can only hope your bill will be what they sold you and cross your fingers. With Verizon I got fees and surcharges for 300% of the agreed price for a phone line. The amount I agreed to? It was not even in the actual bill.
There is some evidence even the 1% is worse off: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
Whatever happens I hope we get it right this time. Last time what happened was Consumerism, Population Explosion and Income Inequality. I really hope this time it goes into less work, more happiness, more equality.
It worked out pretty well. Agriculture as a fraction of the economy and employment went from "dominant" to "negligible" (could not find exact numbers quick). It just turns out that new economic sectors developed. If not for bad income distribution, exponentially increasing population and consumerism, we would be working pretty little indeed.
So while predictions should be taken with a grain of salt, unfunded skepticism due to a single historical sample that has no guarantee to happen again is also a bad proposition.
...the perfect way to determine when bad laws cannot be applied to real life.
You are extremely right! What's the point of easy, (even 1-click) purchases of goods and services if you have to spend about two hours reading a contract, licence or EULA. A document full of jargon, implications and references that the average person will never understand. That for very trivial things and knowing that the competition will have an equally log document, so there are no real alternatives.
It is frustrating to be required to comply to the full text of laws which not even legislators have time to read. IMHO, we need two things: simplification and standardization. I see no reason why a single, fixed set of rules should go for anything an end user is supposed to purchase, a single set of rules on how private data should be addressed, etc. Allowing every company to create their own deal is insane when we expect millions of companies to interact with millions of customers.
You already mentioned the difference: the amount. If giving money is an effective way to skew the results your way, then giving a lot is proportionally more effective. In practice this is equivalent to say that everyone can vote, it is just that some votes weight much more than others. Not that such a system is unthinkable (it is similar to medieval royalty and nobility), but is far from the representational democracy that is supposed to be there. I imagine you now see the problem.
Check this: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html
In fact, I have seen some proposals were donations are restricted to individuals only (it's fine if they want to attach a cause or group to describe the donation) and up to a low threshold (like $100 or so). Others go even beyond this, by making the state provide each citizen's contributions for them, so everyone get's a vote chip and a donation chip. Equal chips BTW.
Uh, a different idea might be to have more than one, spread out. I see no reason why we can't start heating with laser A and continue with laser B. Especially if for any reason scaling them up gets complicated.
Even more. Patents have no mechanism to account from independent re-discovery, which is everywhere in CS.
Luckily, the most useful concepts on CS were created 30 to 50 years ago. Imagine a world were hash tables are patented...
Oh, thanks. I remembered Eros and the fact that the war was offensive and the aliens had repented and were not actually coming back (although unknown to humans), didn't remember the first 2 invasions at all!
Wow, I didn't get all of that, but I fear you are right. The two major flaws I see on the trailer are:
1.- They TOLD him he was going to be a hero.
2.- When did the aliens even try to learn our tactics or destroy earth? One of the most interesting parts of the plot was the moral background. We found them, they found us, there was a single fight in a remote outpost, then they went away. We can't defend ourselves, neither can they. Should we do a preemptive genocide?
Or am I remembering things wrong???
Did EA decide they were innovating too much already and wanted to go for a beaten-up franchise?
Did they felt envious of the one franchise that had more sequels than Madden?
Maybe that's the problem: naming.
Out of curiosity, I googled this 4 minute video showing the actual interaction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi8NpwiEuzc It actually does not seem that bad to me. It can be used pretty fast and has some nice features. I might like it or maybe I wont, but I think it is good that companies try radical new interactions. I actually liked the ribbon on office a lot compared to a clusterfuck of nested menus. context-aware menus are brilliant, same as quick access right by the mouse.
It is not Windows 7+1 though, is something new. I would have just stayed with "metro" and presented it as a new product. See if it gets traction without pissing off people happy with 7 and get some recognition for innovation for once. MS seems to be to have good designers and engineers, but marketing and management seem to suck big time.
I know that prolog searches. What I'm saying it that a lot of what is considered AI by the people that do AI is based on search. I gave plenty of examples of what I consider the common point of view in the field. Your paper, being written inside a Department of Philosophy, might re-define AI if differently. I'm not against exploring new definitions of AI, but if you want to do that, you should start by stating it.
1) To create something that does the hard work for you.
Seen this way, in the history of man, almost EVERY industry has been trying to do this for a long, long time. The issue here is not technical development, is the fact that one we achieve something, we always come up with something else to go for and maybe an issue of how we should distribute the benefits of those developments.
It's AI the same way Prolog is AI. ...
SearchIsNotAI or something.
HUH? You definitely lost me there. First, Prolog is a computer language more than any kind of algorithm, just one more declarative and suited for logic. Definitely a lot of AI has been coded in Prolog.
Second, how is search not AI??? Almost any AI algorithm I can think of is a search problem. Chess (or other games) AI is nothing else than a search for a close to optimal set of moves (based on a scoring function). SLAM and Path-finding in general is also a search. Watson performs a search for potential documents matching the query. Classifiers search for an optimal decision boundary to divide the data. Clustering searches for a stable configuration of centroids (for example). Object recognition searches for matches that maximize the likelihood between object... etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. I mean, almost any algorithm that I have been teach in Machine Learning and Robotics has been introduced as a search problem!
Although I agree with you, there is much more going on here than just finding out a good balance. I see it more as a tragedy of the commons, the influence of special interests and our common inability to think and act on long term goals. If It were just about deciding which combinations work, we would at least be killing coal, which everyone seems to agree to be the worst option, and replacing it with anything else. Alas, we are not even doing much of that.
That! The article seems to completely ignore quality separate from quantity. Let me quote:
"The data also show that there are multiple routes into IT employment, most of which do not require a STEM degree:
Only about a third of the IT workforce has an IT-related college degree.
36 percent of IT workers do not hold a college degree at all.
Only 24 percent of IT workers have a four-year computer science or math degree."
Their conclusion: there is supply! Also, they say that enough people are graduating from STEM degrees, but they don't seem to consider that a lot of the people graduating from those institutions are not US citizens and WILL become H1Bs. I'm currently in a top-level graduate CS degree and 100% of the students are foreigners (yes, 100%, pretty amazing)
I have no idea if there is actually a shortage or not. It is really hard to tell when everyone seems to be pushing their own angle and making gross assumptions.