I can't speak to kernel development but I did develop a data processing engine in C that incorporated design features more traditionally suited to C++ development like polymorphism, interfaces, run-time loadable components, etc. The choice of C was meant to aid with future porting to systems for which C++ compilers were believed not to exist. The system worked but not without encountering instances where someone who developed a component for the system misunderstood some aspect of the architecture and implemented something incorrectly or deliberately took a shortcut that broke the model. To help keep things clean and orderly we had a very rigid coding standard that (most) people followed but it was still not as clear to follow as it would have looked coded in C++. Training developers to code for it who were familiar with C++ took a bit more effort as well. All that said, while I wish we had done it in C++ I don't relish the thought of re-writing it from scratch to use C++ constructs.
Right, because making cost-risk assumptions that hinge on projections that future generations will meet your milestones for implementing what is currently science fiction is the responsible way to kick a problem down the road.
Blast it into space? What is this, the third grade? Heck, why stop there? Lets have Superman fly it into the sun for us! Nuclear waste is bulky, and heavy. Even assuming cheaper forms of moving material into space it would still be incredibly expensive to use as a form of trash disposal. Plus, an elevator only gets it into a very low Earth orbit. You need to spend more energy to push it away to a degree that ensures we NEVER see it again. On top of all that it would be an huge risk to move that amount of spent fuel off-planet. Not only would it be an environmental catastrophe if such a transport failed, but it's the type of failure that could easily trigger a war when it lands in some other countries back yard!
This whole attitude just disgusts me. Anyone who has had a job for any length of time knows that it plain sucks when the work you are doing is overshadowed by cleaning up the mess of your prececessors. Future generations will have enough challenging problems to solve. They don't need to be inheriting yet another mess from the current generation and they certainly don't need to be modeling their ethics on the "someone else will clean it up" attitude.
To be honest this is my primary concern with this whole idea, it's a massive money pit when we have more than enough home grown problems that need solving. Once those 'colonists' are up there and initial interest dies off, the funding angle quickly shifts to Sally Struthers begging us saying "for only 2 million dollars a day you can save the lives of these brave colonists, that's less that the cost of a million cups of coffee!" Now who are your charitable donations going towards? Nobody on this planet will have it half as bad as those colonists if they don't get their resupplies all for a problem we invented because we felt we didn't have enough problems already.
Some people claim that we need to hurry up and colonize other planets to avoid extinction from a potential catastrophe on Earth. It would take a pretty big catastrophe on Earth for the Earth to even come close to how inhospitable Mars _already_ is! Others may disagree with me but Earth is my last stand. If we haven't figured out how to protect it yet (more from ourselves than from meteors) then what are we doing wasting resources sending people to a desolate rock?
I'm all for space research. Lets keep tossing probes / rovers around the solar system and learn everything we can. Heck, if we find some unobtanium deposit somewhere that solves our energy problems then fine, lets break out the orbital laser batteries and flash-fry some blue aliens but as it stands this whole mission is just a science fiction wet dream / money pit. One day we'll be ready to indulge ourselves in colonizing other worlds, but right now we're asking for the keys to the family car while we are still riding our bike with the training wheels on.
Precisely!, and they are having all the more fun for it! Meanwhile we are sitting around boxed in cubicles thinking of ways we could create even more sophisticated boxes to sit in where you can't even leave if you want to!
Alright, since your example relates to Iran lets say that either through choice of the Iranian government or by external force Iran became cutoff from the Internet. Would it not be the case that Iranians who had purchased Bitcoins would be challenged to make transactions with them? Would it be possible for someone to spend coins twice; once on the Iranian network and once on the rest of the Internet?
Hmm, your argument is convincing however I think I'm going to stick to stockpiling the one resource that will stand the test of time: gold. And by gold I mean delicious Kraft Mac & Cheese of which I estimate my body is comprised of at least 95%. When the great cataclysm comes, as long as we can grow wheat, and whatever plant / animal / petroleum derivative orange 'cheese' powder comes from then the scientists and engineers of this world will persevere!
If some country intentionally cuts itself off in such a manner (or is cut off forcibly) that could be a _very_ long time. Besides, is one party really any more cut off than the other? It's just two separate networks at that point. You can make arbitrary distinctions such as which network is bigger but it's really just two fragments of a former whole with neither side being a more valid network than the other, especially if multiple countries cooperated in partitioning off their own networks. Who decides which network Bitcoin transactions will be valid in? It sounds like nobody makes that distinction since Bitcoin is a distributed system that doesn't have officials / administrators. For a currency that is supposed to be immune to government intervention, it seems this is an area where it suffers significantly.
So if a country has its Internet shut off, what are the reprecussions to the Bitcoin network? Does one side of the partition lose the abilty to make transfers, or can you spend the same Bitcoin twice; once in that country, and again on the rest of the network?
So if you define life by DNA then I suppose you'd count identical twins as the same person (or at least sharing the same singular 'start' of life) since the zygote that split to form each twin was formed by a single egg and a single sperm (which you define as the moment life begins). Or if I clone a person by injecting their complete genetic sequence into an egg then no new life has been created, and the newly formed 'person' is really just an extension of the first like an extra, albeit disconnected, limb. Splicing DNA may seem special to us but at the cellular level it is just another process in the continuous cycle of life.
Would you like your driverless car to veer off the road into a tree because it's pattern matching algorithm thought that the clothing that fell out of someones car lying on the road might have a living human in it? Even if such a system were perfect, it is still a machine and it should do no less than represent the intent of its user be that self-preservation or not. This is part of the reason I disagree with having driverless cars in the first place. The choices you make behind the wheel can have a serious impact on not only your own life but that of others. Don't delegate that responsibility to an automated control system. Angry Birds can wait until you get to your destination safely.
"Hello, and welcome to the XYZ Corp product support line. If you have your 6 digit customer support code please enter it now followed by the # sign. You may also visit our support forums at forums.xyzcorp.com. If you would like to establish a new customer support account, please stay on the line and you will be forwarded to our sales department."
I'm imagining a reality show where contestants are 'piloting' robotic telepresence pack animals like wolves. Your objective is to gain control of a pack of real wild animals and to lead them in battle against the packs lead by the other contestants. The winner recieves a lifetime supply of raw meat, den building materials, and psycological counseling.
The smoke is what lets you know it's time to make more coffee. Remember to let glass carafes cool before rinsing them or they shatter. You can try rinsing out the tar if you like but odds are the cinders aren't going anywhere. On a related topic, don't let the coffee drinkers see what the inside of the empty carafe looks like, it ruins the suspension of disbelief. With these hints in mind you are ready to make a pot of office coffee that will get the staff through one. more. day.
I prefer something that is hard to steal but still possible to be stolen. Why? well I'd rather someone stole my keys or my wallet than forced me to do something to access my property at gunpoint. I'd also rather avoid the support conversation "Sir, what you are saying is impossible. There is no way someone forged your retinal pattern and stole all your money. Clearly you are lying to collect compensation."
I've had someone make fraudulent purchases with my credit card before. The company notified me when they detected a purchase made at a location I couldn't physically have gotten to from the last time I used the card in my area. All I had to do was let them know the purchases weren't mine and they took care of it for me. Card got cancelled and a new card with a new number was overnighted to me. Not as easy to mail someone a new eyball or a new voice when some crook figures out how to record your biometric signature and trick the biometric reader.
With 27,500 pounds of thrust, I don't think where you mount the engine on that vehicle will affect the end result much, that is, when what's left returns to a solid phase of matter.
... I thought the whole premise behind banishing annonymity and making people use real names was that it was supposed to make everyone behave courteously and politely. Hmm, this may pose a challenge... We'll probably want to develop a backup justification for why people should register accounts and use their real names online.
My argument isn't that we don't have the technology, only that machines can't be imbued with accountability for their actions. The ONLY scenario where I can see an automatic driving system useful in is if the system can detect that the driver has fallen unconsious. There is NO replacement for a driver who maintains full situational awareness of the driving environment. That means eyes on the road, checking mirrors, and ready to take control of the vehicle instantaneously should an unexpected situation arise. No texting, no alcohol, no entertaining the kids. If you are already doing all of this, then just put your foot on the pedal and your hands on the steering wheel and just drive! You can't delegate accountability to a machine. If they want to design a system that can bring the car safely to the side of the road if the driver becomes unresponsive then fine, but don't tempt people into thinking they can have a robo-chauffeur drive them home from the bar or take little Billy to school by himself.
It keeps making me wonder if I'm the only person who writes Word / Excel / Powerpoint / Visual Studio / etc. documents with other windows open and visible as references. Yes, I generally run my apps fullscreen if I can but when I want to see several windows at once it is a major benefit to be able to do so. Maybe I'm just the last person not running a monitor setup reminescent of The Matrix.
I get what Microsoft is doing here, they want to own the smartphone / tablet market and if they unify these platforms with PC by restricing the PC UI by the constraints of cellphones and tablets then apps developed for one apply to all. That's fine if you are developing the next Angry Birds, I just don't get why anyone would want to do serious work with one arm tied behind their back even if they can make do without it.
Perhaps I'm not the best judge of quality but I was enjoying the beer I was making from beer #1. A colleague who was much more of a beer connoisseur than myself (and wasn't afraid to tell me his opinion) told me he enjoyed it but it lacked the complexity he desires in a beer. So yea, it probably wouldn't have won an award but it was enjoyable to drink even without considering the satisfaction of having made it myself. Like many hobbies, skill and experience opens the doors to take on more complex projects and being able to better match a particular style. Additionally, like many hobbies it is ok to paint outside the lines. You may not exactly match the style you were shooting for if you change out a malt or ferment at a slightly higher or lower temperature but if you at least manage to keep a sanitary work area you'll have a drinkable end result that you'll enjoy all the more for having made it yourself.
This is Slashdot, so I know we can all boil water for our mac&cheese. If you can add to that keeping a fairly sanitary workspace then that's all you need to make some honestly good beer.
(By the way, that one-time setup cost of $250 is probably on the high end. If cost is an issue you can get started making 5 gallon batches for around $100 for equipment and about $30 for some of the cheaper ingredient kits.)
Aww man, we're screwed! We all know that Mother Earth was just asking for it! There was a time when she'd kill a man for so much as trying to make a move on her, but these days it seems like she'll let damn near anyone crest her ample peaks or explore her deepest crevasse!
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak to kernel development but I did develop a data processing engine in C that incorporated design features more traditionally suited to C++ development like polymorphism, interfaces, run-time loadable components, etc. The choice of C was meant to aid with future porting to systems for which C++ compilers were believed not to exist. The system worked but not without encountering instances where someone who developed a component for the system misunderstood some aspect of the architecture and implemented something incorrectly or deliberately took a shortcut that broke the model. To help keep things clean and orderly we had a very rigid coding standard that (most) people followed but it was still not as clear to follow as it would have looked coded in C++. Training developers to code for it who were familiar with C++ took a bit more effort as well. All that said, while I wish we had done it in C++ I don't relish the thought of re-writing it from scratch to use C++ constructs.
Right, because making cost-risk assumptions that hinge on projections that future generations will meet your milestones for implementing what is currently science fiction is the responsible way to kick a problem down the road.
Blast it into space? What is this, the third grade? Heck, why stop there? Lets have Superman fly it into the sun for us! Nuclear waste is bulky, and heavy. Even assuming cheaper forms of moving material into space it would still be incredibly expensive to use as a form of trash disposal. Plus, an elevator only gets it into a very low Earth orbit. You need to spend more energy to push it away to a degree that ensures we NEVER see it again. On top of all that it would be an huge risk to move that amount of spent fuel off-planet. Not only would it be an environmental catastrophe if such a transport failed, but it's the type of failure that could easily trigger a war when it lands in some other countries back yard!
This whole attitude just disgusts me. Anyone who has had a job for any length of time knows that it plain sucks when the work you are doing is overshadowed by cleaning up the mess of your prececessors. Future generations will have enough challenging problems to solve. They don't need to be inheriting yet another mess from the current generation and they certainly don't need to be modeling their ethics on the "someone else will clean it up" attitude.
To be honest this is my primary concern with this whole idea, it's a massive money pit when we have more than enough home grown problems that need solving. Once those 'colonists' are up there and initial interest dies off, the funding angle quickly shifts to Sally Struthers begging us saying "for only 2 million dollars a day you can save the lives of these brave colonists, that's less that the cost of a million cups of coffee!" Now who are your charitable donations going towards? Nobody on this planet will have it half as bad as those colonists if they don't get their resupplies all for a problem we invented because we felt we didn't have enough problems already.
Some people claim that we need to hurry up and colonize other planets to avoid extinction from a potential catastrophe on Earth. It would take a pretty big catastrophe on Earth for the Earth to even come close to how inhospitable Mars _already_ is! Others may disagree with me but Earth is my last stand. If we haven't figured out how to protect it yet (more from ourselves than from meteors) then what are we doing wasting resources sending people to a desolate rock?
I'm all for space research. Lets keep tossing probes / rovers around the solar system and learn everything we can. Heck, if we find some unobtanium deposit somewhere that solves our energy problems then fine, lets break out the orbital laser batteries and flash-fry some blue aliens but as it stands this whole mission is just a science fiction wet dream / money pit. One day we'll be ready to indulge ourselves in colonizing other worlds, but right now we're asking for the keys to the family car while we are still riding our bike with the training wheels on.
Precisely!, and they are having all the more fun for it! Meanwhile we are sitting around boxed in cubicles thinking of ways we could create even more sophisticated boxes to sit in where you can't even leave if you want to!
Great, now all I can think about is all the fun monkeys have up in the trees and that dolphins have frolicking in the ocean!
Alright, since your example relates to Iran lets say that either through choice of the Iranian government or by external force Iran became cutoff from the Internet. Would it not be the case that Iranians who had purchased Bitcoins would be challenged to make transactions with them? Would it be possible for someone to spend coins twice; once on the Iranian network and once on the rest of the Internet?
Hmm, your argument is convincing however I think I'm going to stick to stockpiling the one resource that will stand the test of time: gold. And by gold I mean delicious Kraft Mac & Cheese of which I estimate my body is comprised of at least 95%. When the great cataclysm comes, as long as we can grow wheat, and whatever plant / animal / petroleum derivative orange 'cheese' powder comes from then the scientists and engineers of this world will persevere!
If some country intentionally cuts itself off in such a manner (or is cut off forcibly) that could be a _very_ long time. Besides, is one party really any more cut off than the other? It's just two separate networks at that point. You can make arbitrary distinctions such as which network is bigger but it's really just two fragments of a former whole with neither side being a more valid network than the other, especially if multiple countries cooperated in partitioning off their own networks. Who decides which network Bitcoin transactions will be valid in? It sounds like nobody makes that distinction since Bitcoin is a distributed system that doesn't have officials / administrators. For a currency that is supposed to be immune to government intervention, it seems this is an area where it suffers significantly.
So if a country has its Internet shut off, what are the reprecussions to the Bitcoin network? Does one side of the partition lose the abilty to make transfers, or can you spend the same Bitcoin twice; once in that country, and again on the rest of the network?
So if you define life by DNA then I suppose you'd count identical twins as the same person (or at least sharing the same singular 'start' of life) since the zygote that split to form each twin was formed by a single egg and a single sperm (which you define as the moment life begins). Or if I clone a person by injecting their complete genetic sequence into an egg then no new life has been created, and the newly formed 'person' is really just an extension of the first like an extra, albeit disconnected, limb. Splicing DNA may seem special to us but at the cellular level it is just another process in the continuous cycle of life.
Would you like your driverless car to veer off the road into a tree because it's pattern matching algorithm thought that the clothing that fell out of someones car lying on the road might have a living human in it? Even if such a system were perfect, it is still a machine and it should do no less than represent the intent of its user be that self-preservation or not. This is part of the reason I disagree with having driverless cars in the first place. The choices you make behind the wheel can have a serious impact on not only your own life but that of others. Don't delegate that responsibility to an automated control system. Angry Birds can wait until you get to your destination safely.
"Hello, and welcome to the XYZ Corp product support line. If you have your 6 digit customer support code please enter it now followed by the # sign. You may also visit our support forums at forums.xyzcorp.com. If you would like to establish a new customer support account, please stay on the line and you will be forwarded to our sales department."
Thank you for your calm and civil responses.
I'm imagining a reality show where contestants are 'piloting' robotic telepresence pack animals like wolves. Your objective is to gain control of a pack of real wild animals and to lead them in battle against the packs lead by the other contestants. The winner recieves a lifetime supply of raw meat, den building materials, and psycological counseling.
The smoke is what lets you know it's time to make more coffee. Remember to let glass carafes cool before rinsing them or they shatter. You can try rinsing out the tar if you like but odds are the cinders aren't going anywhere. On a related topic, don't let the coffee drinkers see what the inside of the empty carafe looks like, it ruins the suspension of disbelief. With these hints in mind you are ready to make a pot of office coffee that will get the staff through one. more. day.
I prefer something that is hard to steal but still possible to be stolen. Why? well I'd rather someone stole my keys or my wallet than forced me to do something to access my property at gunpoint. I'd also rather avoid the support conversation "Sir, what you are saying is impossible. There is no way someone forged your retinal pattern and stole all your money. Clearly you are lying to collect compensation."
I've had someone make fraudulent purchases with my credit card before. The company notified me when they detected a purchase made at a location I couldn't physically have gotten to from the last time I used the card in my area. All I had to do was let them know the purchases weren't mine and they took care of it for me. Card got cancelled and a new card with a new number was overnighted to me. Not as easy to mail someone a new eyball or a new voice when some crook figures out how to record your biometric signature and trick the biometric reader.
Easy, you just shoot it down with a missile. Any small pieces that are left over could be cleaned up with another gas generating satellite.
With 27,500 pounds of thrust, I don't think where you mount the engine on that vehicle will affect the end result much, that is, when what's left returns to a solid phase of matter.
... I thought the whole premise behind banishing annonymity and making people use real names was that it was supposed to make everyone behave courteously and politely. Hmm, this may pose a challenge... We'll probably want to develop a backup justification for why people should register accounts and use their real names online.
Posting to cancel accidental down-mod.
My argument isn't that we don't have the technology, only that machines can't be imbued with accountability for their actions. The ONLY scenario where I can see an automatic driving system useful in is if the system can detect that the driver has fallen unconsious. There is NO replacement for a driver who maintains full situational awareness of the driving environment. That means eyes on the road, checking mirrors, and ready to take control of the vehicle instantaneously should an unexpected situation arise. No texting, no alcohol, no entertaining the kids. If you are already doing all of this, then just put your foot on the pedal and your hands on the steering wheel and just drive! You can't delegate accountability to a machine. If they want to design a system that can bring the car safely to the side of the road if the driver becomes unresponsive then fine, but don't tempt people into thinking they can have a robo-chauffeur drive them home from the bar or take little Billy to school by himself.
It keeps making me wonder if I'm the only person who writes Word / Excel / Powerpoint / Visual Studio / etc. documents with other windows open and visible as references. Yes, I generally run my apps fullscreen if I can but when I want to see several windows at once it is a major benefit to be able to do so. Maybe I'm just the last person not running a monitor setup reminescent of The Matrix.
I get what Microsoft is doing here, they want to own the smartphone / tablet market and if they unify these platforms with PC by restricing the PC UI by the constraints of cellphones and tablets then apps developed for one apply to all. That's fine if you are developing the next Angry Birds, I just don't get why anyone would want to do serious work with one arm tied behind their back even if they can make do without it.
Perhaps I'm not the best judge of quality but I was enjoying the beer I was making from beer #1. A colleague who was much more of a beer connoisseur than myself (and wasn't afraid to tell me his opinion) told me he enjoyed it but it lacked the complexity he desires in a beer. So yea, it probably wouldn't have won an award but it was enjoyable to drink even without considering the satisfaction of having made it myself. Like many hobbies, skill and experience opens the doors to take on more complex projects and being able to better match a particular style. Additionally, like many hobbies it is ok to paint outside the lines. You may not exactly match the style you were shooting for if you change out a malt or ferment at a slightly higher or lower temperature but if you at least manage to keep a sanitary work area you'll have a drinkable end result that you'll enjoy all the more for having made it yourself.
This is Slashdot, so I know we can all boil water for our mac&cheese. If you can add to that keeping a fairly sanitary workspace then that's all you need to make some honestly good beer.
(By the way, that one-time setup cost of $250 is probably on the high end. If cost is an issue you can get started making 5 gallon batches for around $100 for equipment and about $30 for some of the cheaper ingredient kits.)
Aww man, we're screwed! We all know that Mother Earth was just asking for it! There was a time when she'd kill a man for so much as trying to make a move on her, but these days it seems like she'll let damn near anyone crest her ample peaks or explore her deepest crevasse!
A dinosaur just tastes like a dinosaur, but it might reveal to us what a chicken really tastes like!