A degree is not merely about demonstrating that you can acquire some minimal base of knowledge to start your career from. It also demonstrates that you can finish what you start, even when it is a long process that requires you to do many things you have no particular interest in doing.
I don't get what is different about BTC-e than any other exchange?
A US based exchange requires clients to properly identify themselves. Like online stock trading companies. Laundering would not be possible since there will be logs of a person exchanging bitcoins for alt-coins. There would be a paper trail that crosses the different block chains, coins fully traced.
BTC-e may require ID to bull/sell coins for currency but trading one type of coin for a different type of coin, moving "value" from one blockchain to another, requires only an email address, no actual ID. Even if there is a log and if it is provided to the government the person may still be anonymous.
Short story: the US gov want bitcoin purchases, sales, and transfers to be as well documented as those for stocks when US citizens are involved.
is BitCoin real now? because if he took "real" money and exchanged it for "nothing" then he defrauded drug kingpins and they will work faster than the Feds.
According to the US gov, its an asset not money. You can buy, sell and trade assets. Buying/selling bitcoins is sort of like stock, you have to note the value when purchased and sold, report the capital gain or loss. So when you buy that cup of coffee with bitcoin be sure to note the value of those coins when purchased/received, the value spent at, and report the gain/loss to the IRS. Actually, your bitcoin client software should be able to do all that for you. I'm sure BTC-e servers are only down while they implement such support for US clients.:-)
FWIW, the argument that bitcoin is an asset not a currency is rational. Its currently too volatile to be a store of value. Although they are a convenient way to transfer money. Buy, transfer, and sell; never hold unless you are a speculator.
Bitcoin is currently only a competitor to PayPal, not the dollar or euro.
The iPod touch looks and acts like an iPhone, including standard and 3rd party apps, but without the cellular connection, phone or GPS. As much as I love the Pi, it is not a replacement for an iPod touch.
The iPod touch can also be important to iOS developers. A far less expensive device to test on. Also a convenient secondary or tertiary device to leave running past versions of iOS for testing.
> It is about researchers failing in their side job, turning their research into a good product the commercial
This is not theirs jobs. Somebody is trying to deport his job on researchers. Doing science is hard enough to not have to handle other people problems. Research have nothing to do with entrepreneurship.
Many researchers attempt to commercialize their NSF funded work for personal reasons. Many universities encourage commercialization. The NSF also encourages it. The NSF also wants to increase funding opportunities for researchers. This can require a commercialization effort, SBIR/STTR awards for example.
The research team that completely hands off commercialization to others is potentially setting up that effort for failure.
Typo, I meant to type:
"Its not engineering, science, etc where the researchers fail, it is in entrepreneurship that they typically fail."
And again, this is the opinion of the NSF, and the NSF has this I-Corp program to address this failure.
>Unlike an internet commentator speculating from their chair.
Unlike you, I do not hypothesize on the people commenting. And I do not create a fable about researchers and how they are not doing their work. Just went back at university at 40. So happy to see far less know-it-all people like you.
I went back to the University at 43. 18 months ago I was part of one of these University teams taking NSF funded research and working to commercialize it. I went through the NSF I-Corps Teams training over a period of months. My training cohort consisted of over 20 other such University based teams starting with NSF funded research. The characterization of researchers likely having crap idea and other failings with respect to commercializing of their research is not my idea, rather it was the premise of the NSF as presented by the professors from prominent Universities who were in charge of this training program. Each week we had meeting where each team presented to the professors and the other teams what they had learned that week from interviews, how this changed their value proposition, their planned solution, their planned product, etc. Over the months I witnessed researchers make radical changes in their understanding of the needs of the market and make radical changes in their product and their commercialization plans.
What you are failing to see is that it is not about researchers failing their work, their understanding of something within their field of study. It is about researchers failing in their side job, turning their research into a good product the commercial market will embrace Its not physics, science, etc where the researchers fail, it is in entrepreneurship that they typically fail. Go follow the link to the description of this program in the summary. The training is all about entrepreneurship as popularized by Steve Case, methodologies originating in part out of Stanford. It seems a DoD replication of what the NSF has been doing.
>Keep in mind that these academic teams were trying to commercialize their research,
Then the problem is that you are looking for the wrong persons not researchers but engineers/commercials.
There is no lack of engineers on these teams. Nor is their a lack of mentors with commercial experience on these teams. And you are missing the point of it all. The point of this training isn't about the technical details of turning ideas into solutions. The point is to make sure one has the correct ideas about what the problems are and the ideas that you believe to be solutions, and once the ideas are sorted out that you proceed is small testable chunks where you continuously verify the things you are adding and the overall thing you are building.
If you think that you will get anything from researcher locked in a cognitive box, then you are yourself in the box.
Unlike an internet commentator speculating from their chair. I was forced to get my a** out from behind my computer and go through this NSF I-Corp training with 20+ other teams. I actually witnessed many PhDs and grad students evolve their opinions, ideas, plans, etc over a period of 4 months and hundreds of interviews.The training is designed to break that box. I witness numerous academic teams pivot their plans due to things learned during this "customer discovery". Keep in mind that these academic teams were trying to commercialize their research, not just grind out another paper for publication. To move from NSF grants to SBIR grants to Angel/VC funding.
The researchers can't delegate these interviews. The PhD/Founder/Visionary has to go do these interviews to face reality, to face the likely rejection and failure of their ideas, get over this trauma, and move/pivot to something the real world is telling them.
If you have a clue what a phone factory looks like you understand that these will not appear in US. Apple might build something else in US, but not phones.
Actually I'm quite familiar with Apple's FoxConn factories. And no, Apple will not be replicating that approach in the US. In case you missed the previous comments in this thread and the subject line, any manufacturing Apple does in the US will likely be highly automated. What little they currently do in the US with respect to the Mac Pro (small production runs, high priced) is not likely to be an approach replicated in these new factories. Also keep in mind that these factories are *not* going to be supply the global supply chain like the Chinese factories. Apple is facing political pressure in various regions to build locally. They may have to open factories in India to make progress in that market and get past political and social barriers. They have to continue manufacturing in China for the Chinese market. And these US factories don't have to fulfill the complete demand for phones in the US.
And phone manufacturing is a hard thing to automate, you can automate many parts of it, but there is still a lot of manual labor that goes into putting a phone together and you can't get rid of it.
That is why Apple has been researching robotic disassembly in an effort to recycle materials. Disassembly is a step in the more complicated assembly direction.
Its not what you think. It hacking in "old" sense, creative, simple solutions to problems. Not the "new" definition of hacking as in hostile technological attacks.
It looks like they are taking a modern entrepreneurial methodology and applying it to DoD problems. The NSF has been doing this for a while through its variation Innovation Corp (I-Corp) programs, https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pg.... Running academic researchers through this training to increase the success rate of NSF funded research making it to the market.
Notice that the students teams are doing 100 interviews, that sounds exactly like NSF I-Corp. The premise here is to teach academic researchers that whatever ideas they have about the use of their technology is most like crap, that the solutions in their mind are most likely crap. That they need to get their a** out of their office/lab and go talk to real people in the real world. Talk not about your solution, but talk about the people's problems in the domain your solution exists in, what people have tried as solutions, what worked, what didn't, why,... all the time not contaminating the interview by mentioning or steering things toward your ideas. The academic is merely interviewing to learn about real people, real problems and real solutions, or lack thereof. After 100 such interviews there should be some recurring themes, and these themes should suggest a direction to move in, unlike whatever crap the academics dreamed up in isolation in their office/lab.
Now the academics go implement a solution in a very incremental agile-like fashion. Doing more interviews to validate their solution and their continued progress, to make sure they are on track. Hypothesis, experiment, feedback, repeat.
Its basically applying an agile-like process to business and product development.
This new DoD stuff seems to be trying to get their suppliers to use this approach. Rather than the lets develop a business plan and complete product specification in isolation approach. The "it doesn't have to actually work, it only needs to meet the DoD approved spec" approach.
"If... Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die"
Where does "Jewish Law" end and "Christian Law" begin exactly?
Perhaps with the teachings of Christ, the "Christ" in "Christian"? In this particular case perhaps where Christ tells people to stop stoning sinners?;-)
But the equally important part is that a pile of money will stay in the US and contribute to domestic activity, not over seas activity.
Who do you think you're talking about? Apple has over $250 billion in cash that they have pretty much purely horded. What makes you think they're going to suddenly start spending that money?
I'm not referring to that money. I'm referring to the money that would otherwise be spent on overseas manufacturing and overseas shipping. In other words I'm pointing out that it makes an economic difference where activity takes places, domestically or overseas.
Yes there will be a high degree of automation. Even so there will be some jobs. Some dealing with phones, some dealing with the robots.
Yeah...that's not much in the way of employment and none of them are really manufacturing jobs which are what were promised.
Not all jobs at a manufacturing plant are assembly, fabrication, etc; even back in the day. My grandfather "boiled the water" for the steam turbines that generated the electricity for the manufacturing plant. It was still a manufacturing job. People, and robots, who do fabrication and assembly need support.
Hell, dealing with the robots hardly even qualifies as a blue collar type job as it's presumably far more tech oriented.
My tour of Siemens in Germany suggests otherwise. Highly trained technicians are blue collar jobs.
And that assumes Apple doesn't outsource that aspect of their factory to already existing professionals.
A friend from college has a company supporting local automated manufacturing and packaging companies. He's very busy. He misses half of our occasional weekend get togethers, his wife and kids showing up without him, his wife explaining that something somewhere broke and they have to get the line up and running fast.. If another company came to him with an offer of additional work he would have to hire more employees.
So, really, the only boon from this would be the construction (short term), the dozen phone operators that they'd need (remember, this is an internal business facility), the dozen plant supervisors they need on hand in case of a fire, and the freight trucks that are used to ship it (although, I don't know that that would be much of an increase vs Apple's current shipping with their partners there).
The history of robotic and automation in Germany suggests otherwise, at least according to the folks at Siemens.
Yes there will be a high degree of automation. Even so there will be some jobs. Some dealing with phones, some dealing with the robots. But the equally important part is that a pile of money will stay in the US and contribute to domestic activity, not over seas activity.
Uh...
How many iPhones do you think fit in a shipping container?
Online orders seem to ship by air. You can follow your phone online as it moves from China to Alaska to the lower 48, assuming you are in the lower 48.
A NASA archivist concluded there's no evidence the tapes contained anything of historic significance.
Yes, there is no evidence when one does not look. I believe that a few dozen reels had labels; hundreds of reels had no labels, their contents unknown. If was a great leap of faith to assume that they were all Pioneer telemetry. Other missions? Software?
Now if they said we don't have the equipment, software or budget to clean and restore the degraded and molded tape, and that the likelihood of successful restoration is quite low, that would have been more honest than "there's no evidence".
No, I mean nationalism. We Germans know very well what happens if one tries to run a country on that. Not a good idea at all.
France happens. Is that so bad?:-)
The problems you refer to are not simply born of nationalism. Nationalism was but one theme in a rather toxic brew. One that was misused and is not inherently bad.
No, AI can not. What AI can do is be an extremely valuable tool for radiologists and doctors, one that makes analyzing all the various forms of synthetic medical imagery more accurate, and most likely increasing their productivity. It can reduce oversights and errors, but it won't be able to fully replace expert human analysis for quite some time. Like most AI solutions it will most likely take far longer than AI experts predict. Perhaps we need an AI to predict timeframe for AI solutions since people seem to do that poorly.:-)
Does this perhaps lead to reducing the number of radiologists due to increased productivity? Probably not, more likely radiologists will be bombarded with more imagery to analyze as technology improves and costs lower and is more frequently used.
My 7 (8?) year old 64-bit Athlon X2 3.1 GHz 8 GB RAM BYO PC is just fine running Windows 10.
Admittedly it just had its 3rd video card upgrade. Everything else is "original".
We should be tracking video card sales:-)
Yeah, yeah, more laptops these days.
Teachers monitoring and calling out students distracts from teaching, it disrupts the entire class. And how are they to monitor all the students, real-time spyware?
Slashdot Mirror
A degree is not merely about demonstrating that you can acquire some minimal base of knowledge to start your career from. It also demonstrates that you can finish what you start, even when it is a long process that requires you to do many things you have no particular interest in doing.
I don't get what is different about BTC-e than any other exchange?
A US based exchange requires clients to properly identify themselves. Like online stock trading companies. Laundering would not be possible since there will be logs of a person exchanging bitcoins for alt-coins. There would be a paper trail that crosses the different block chains, coins fully traced.
BTC-e may require ID to bull/sell coins for currency but trading one type of coin for a different type of coin, moving "value" from one blockchain to another, requires only an email address, no actual ID. Even if there is a log and if it is provided to the government the person may still be anonymous.
Short story: the US gov want bitcoin purchases, sales, and transfers to be as well documented as those for stocks when US citizens are involved.
is BitCoin real now? because if he took "real" money and exchanged it for "nothing" then he defrauded drug kingpins and they will work faster than the Feds.
According to the US gov, its an asset not money. You can buy, sell and trade assets. Buying/selling bitcoins is sort of like stock, you have to note the value when purchased and sold, report the capital gain or loss. So when you buy that cup of coffee with bitcoin be sure to note the value of those coins when purchased/received, the value spent at, and report the gain/loss to the IRS. Actually, your bitcoin client software should be able to do all that for you. I'm sure BTC-e servers are only down while they implement such support for US clients. :-)
FWIW, the argument that bitcoin is an asset not a currency is rational. Its currently too volatile to be a store of value. Although they are a convenient way to transfer money. Buy, transfer, and sell; never hold unless you are a speculator.
Bitcoin is currently only a competitor to PayPal, not the dollar or euro.
The iPod touch looks and acts like an iPhone, including standard and 3rd party apps, but without the cellular connection, phone or GPS. As much as I love the Pi, it is not a replacement for an iPod touch.
The iPod touch can also be important to iOS developers. A far less expensive device to test on. Also a convenient secondary or tertiary device to leave running past versions of iOS for testing.
> It is about researchers failing in their side job, turning their research into a good product the commercial
This is not theirs jobs. Somebody is trying to deport his job on researchers. Doing science is hard enough to not have to handle other people problems. Research have nothing to do with entrepreneurship.
Many researchers attempt to commercialize their NSF funded work for personal reasons. Many universities encourage commercialization. The NSF also encourages it. The NSF also wants to increase funding opportunities for researchers. This can require a commercialization effort, SBIR/STTR awards for example.
The research team that completely hands off commercialization to others is potentially setting up that effort for failure.
The laws may carry over, what is considered sinful, but the punishments performed by men certainly seem to not necessarily carry over.
Typo, I meant to type:
"Its not engineering, science, etc where the researchers fail, it is in entrepreneurship that they typically fail."
And again, this is the opinion of the NSF, and the NSF has this I-Corp program to address this failure.
>Unlike an internet commentator speculating from their chair.
Unlike you, I do not hypothesize on the people commenting. And I do not create a fable about researchers and how they are not doing their work. Just went back at university at 40. So happy to see far less know-it-all people like you.
I went back to the University at 43. 18 months ago I was part of one of these University teams taking NSF funded research and working to commercialize it. I went through the NSF I-Corps Teams training over a period of months. My training cohort consisted of over 20 other such University based teams starting with NSF funded research. The characterization of researchers likely having crap idea and other failings with respect to commercializing of their research is not my idea, rather it was the premise of the NSF as presented by the professors from prominent Universities who were in charge of this training program. Each week we had meeting where each team presented to the professors and the other teams what they had learned that week from interviews, how this changed their value proposition, their planned solution, their planned product, etc. Over the months I witnessed researchers make radical changes in their understanding of the needs of the market and make radical changes in their product and their commercialization plans.
What you are failing to see is that it is not about researchers failing their work, their understanding of something within their field of study. It is about researchers failing in their side job, turning their research into a good product the commercial market will embrace Its not physics, science, etc where the researchers fail, it is in entrepreneurship that they typically fail. Go follow the link to the description of this program in the summary. The training is all about entrepreneurship as popularized by Steve Case, methodologies originating in part out of Stanford. It seems a DoD replication of what the NSF has been doing.
>Keep in mind that these academic teams were trying to commercialize their research,
Then the problem is that you are looking for the wrong persons not researchers but engineers/commercials.
There is no lack of engineers on these teams. Nor is their a lack of mentors with commercial experience on these teams. And you are missing the point of it all. The point of this training isn't about the technical details of turning ideas into solutions. The point is to make sure one has the correct ideas about what the problems are and the ideas that you believe to be solutions, and once the ideas are sorted out that you proceed is small testable chunks where you continuously verify the things you are adding and the overall thing you are building.
If you think that you will get anything from researcher locked in a cognitive box, then you are yourself in the box.
Unlike an internet commentator speculating from their chair. I was forced to get my a** out from behind my computer and go through this NSF I-Corp training with 20+ other teams. I actually witnessed many PhDs and grad students evolve their opinions, ideas, plans, etc over a period of 4 months and hundreds of interviews.The training is designed to break that box. I witness numerous academic teams pivot their plans due to things learned during this "customer discovery". Keep in mind that these academic teams were trying to commercialize their research, not just grind out another paper for publication. To move from NSF grants to SBIR grants to Angel/VC funding.
The researchers can't delegate these interviews. The PhD/Founder/Visionary has to go do these interviews to face reality, to face the likely rejection and failure of their ideas, get over this trauma, and move/pivot to something the real world is telling them.
If you have a clue what a phone factory looks like you understand that these will not appear in US. Apple might build something else in US, but not phones.
Actually I'm quite familiar with Apple's FoxConn factories. And no, Apple will not be replicating that approach in the US. In case you missed the previous comments in this thread and the subject line, any manufacturing Apple does in the US will likely be highly automated. What little they currently do in the US with respect to the Mac Pro (small production runs, high priced) is not likely to be an approach replicated in these new factories. Also keep in mind that these factories are *not* going to be supply the global supply chain like the Chinese factories. Apple is facing political pressure in various regions to build locally. They may have to open factories in India to make progress in that market and get past political and social barriers. They have to continue manufacturing in China for the Chinese market. And these US factories don't have to fulfill the complete demand for phones in the US.
And phone manufacturing is a hard thing to automate, you can automate many parts of it, but there is still a lot of manual labor that goes into putting a phone together and you can't get rid of it.
That is why Apple has been researching robotic disassembly in an effort to recycle materials. Disassembly is a step in the more complicated assembly direction.
Its not what you think. It hacking in "old" sense, creative, simple solutions to problems. Not the "new" definition of hacking as in hostile technological attacks.
... all the time not contaminating the interview by mentioning or steering things toward your ideas. The academic is merely interviewing to learn about real people, real problems and real solutions, or lack thereof. After 100 such interviews there should be some recurring themes, and these themes should suggest a direction to move in, unlike whatever crap the academics dreamed up in isolation in their office/lab.
It looks like they are taking a modern entrepreneurial methodology and applying it to DoD problems. The NSF has been doing this for a while through its variation Innovation Corp (I-Corp) programs, https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pg.... Running academic researchers through this training to increase the success rate of NSF funded research making it to the market.
Notice that the students teams are doing 100 interviews, that sounds exactly like NSF I-Corp. The premise here is to teach academic researchers that whatever ideas they have about the use of their technology is most like crap, that the solutions in their mind are most likely crap. That they need to get their a** out of their office/lab and go talk to real people in the real world. Talk not about your solution, but talk about the people's problems in the domain your solution exists in, what people have tried as solutions, what worked, what didn't, why,
Now the academics go implement a solution in a very incremental agile-like fashion. Doing more interviews to validate their solution and their continued progress, to make sure they are on track. Hypothesis, experiment, feedback, repeat.
Its basically applying an agile-like process to business and product development.
This new DoD stuff seems to be trying to get their suppliers to use this approach. Rather than the lets develop a business plan and complete product specification in isolation approach. The "it doesn't have to actually work, it only needs to meet the DoD approved spec" approach.
"If ... Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die"
Where does "Jewish Law" end and "Christian Law" begin exactly?
Perhaps with the teachings of Christ, the "Christ" in "Christian"? In this particular case perhaps where Christ tells people to stop stoning sinners? ;-)
But the equally important part is that a pile of money will stay in the US and contribute to domestic activity, not over seas activity.
Who do you think you're talking about? Apple has over $250 billion in cash that they have pretty much purely horded. What makes you think they're going to suddenly start spending that money?
I'm not referring to that money. I'm referring to the money that would otherwise be spent on overseas manufacturing and overseas shipping. In other words I'm pointing out that it makes an economic difference where activity takes places, domestically or overseas.
Yes there will be a high degree of automation. Even so there will be some jobs. Some dealing with phones, some dealing with the robots.
Yeah...that's not much in the way of employment and none of them are really manufacturing jobs which are what were promised.
Not all jobs at a manufacturing plant are assembly, fabrication, etc; even back in the day. My grandfather "boiled the water" for the steam turbines that generated the electricity for the manufacturing plant. It was still a manufacturing job. People, and robots, who do fabrication and assembly need support.
Hell, dealing with the robots hardly even qualifies as a blue collar type job as it's presumably far more tech oriented.
My tour of Siemens in Germany suggests otherwise. Highly trained technicians are blue collar jobs.
And that assumes Apple doesn't outsource that aspect of their factory to already existing professionals.
A friend from college has a company supporting local automated manufacturing and packaging companies. He's very busy. He misses half of our occasional weekend get togethers, his wife and kids showing up without him, his wife explaining that something somewhere broke and they have to get the line up and running fast.. If another company came to him with an offer of additional work he would have to hire more employees.
So, really, the only boon from this would be the construction (short term), the dozen phone operators that they'd need (remember, this is an internal business facility), the dozen plant supervisors they need on hand in case of a fire, and the freight trucks that are used to ship it (although, I don't know that that would be much of an increase vs Apple's current shipping with their partners there).
The history of robotic and automation in Germany suggests otherwise, at least according to the folks at Siemens.
Yes there will be a high degree of automation. Even so there will be some jobs. Some dealing with phones, some dealing with the robots. But the equally important part is that a pile of money will stay in the US and contribute to domestic activity, not over seas activity.
save $40.00 a device for shipping from China
Uh... How many iPhones do you think fit in a shipping container?
Online orders seem to ship by air. You can follow your phone online as it moves from China to Alaska to the lower 48, assuming you are in the lower 48.
A NASA archivist concluded there's no evidence the tapes contained anything of historic significance.
Yes, there is no evidence when one does not look. I believe that a few dozen reels had labels; hundreds of reels had no labels, their contents unknown. If was a great leap of faith to assume that they were all Pioneer telemetry. Other missions? Software?
Now if they said we don't have the equipment, software or budget to clean and restore the degraded and molded tape, and that the likelihood of successful restoration is quite low, that would have been more honest than "there's no evidence".
No, AI can not.
Most of the world didn't think that the automobile would replace horse + carriage when first introduced.
Horses are still more common than AI driven cars. The human driven cars don't count. :-)
Yep, because Napoleon.
Despite the fact that I was only referring to modern 20th century nations ... I still wish I could moderate your reply as "insightful". :-)
No, I mean nationalism. We Germans know very well what happens if one tries to run a country on that. Not a good idea at all.
France happens. Is that so bad? :-)
The problems you refer to are not simply born of nationalism. Nationalism was but one theme in a rather toxic brew. One that was misused and is not inherently bad.
Can AI Replace Hospital Radiologists?
No, AI can not. What AI can do is be an extremely valuable tool for radiologists and doctors, one that makes analyzing all the various forms of synthetic medical imagery more accurate, and most likely increasing their productivity. It can reduce oversights and errors, but it won't be able to fully replace expert human analysis for quite some time. Like most AI solutions it will most likely take far longer than AI experts predict. Perhaps we need an AI to predict timeframe for AI solutions since people seem to do that poorly. :-)
Does this perhaps lead to reducing the number of radiologists due to increased productivity? Probably not, more likely radiologists will be bombarded with more imagery to analyze as technology improves and costs lower and is more frequently used.
The box I mentioned actually dual boots Windows and Linux. :-)
My 7 (8?) year old 64-bit Athlon X2 3.1 GHz 8 GB RAM BYO PC is just fine running Windows 10.
:-)
Admittedly it just had its 3rd video card upgrade. Everything else is "original".
We should be tracking video card sales
Yeah, yeah, more laptops these days.
A pawn in geopolitical games? Welcome to the big time, the world of large successful corporations. You have arrived. ;-)
Teachers monitoring and calling out students distracts from teaching, it disrupts the entire class. And how are they to monitor all the students, real-time spyware?