And yet, regressions and other bugs still get in. I'm a big fan of the many eyeballs theory, but there are limitations to it.
Yes, but successful exploitation is a very different story. And such attempts are a bit unlikely when the code is publicly coming from the NSA. Anything coming from them will get extra scrutiny by some.
This is California. One idiot misbehaves and the legislature will pass laws to require licensing of operators, registration of drones, mandatory gps based logging during all flights with such logs preserved and inspectable on demand by a government representative. Failure to provide such logs resulting in a loss of an operating license, fines, etc.
It is unlikely that kids are going to be inspired by someone doing something that people older than their great-grandparents already did 50 years ago. The people asking for manned missions to the moon are not young people looking for inspiration, but geezers trying to relive their childhood.
Easily disproven by the robotic missions to mars. The Viking robotic missions from the 1970s landed on Mars, took pictures, analyzed soil chemistry, searched for life. Sound familiar? Yep, much like the current rovers. And yet new generations are pretty damn interested despite the fact that geezers saw similar stuff in their teenage years.
The Apollo landings were also preceded by robotic mission, Surveyor, these tested surface soil and took pictures. Things the astronauts did a much better job at also. Plus the astronauts did some science the robots could not. For example removing the camera off of a surveyor lander they landed their lunar module "next to" and bringing the camera back to analyze how materials stood up to long time exposure on the lunar surface.
We can further disprove your notion with various "action sports". BMX, racing and freestyle, date back to the 1970s. Skateboarding in its more modern freestyle incarnation (vertical walls, tricks, etc), 70s. Snowboarding, 70s. Surfing in its more modern shortboard incarnations, 60s. Kids seem to enjoy some things their parents and grandparents also enjoyed.
A base would offer something quite different than a three hour exploration of the surface. I think the Mars rovers demonstrate a continued interest in space exploration. However seeing a person on another celestial body offers something to aspire to be, unlike a robot. Take a survey of the scientists and engineers on those robotics teams and see how many had wanted to be an astronaut when they were very young and being first introduced to math and science.
The kernel is heavily viewed, studied, etc. Its changes are reviewed, at multiple levels in a hierarchy. Its probably the one part of Linux where the many eyeballs notion is reality rather than myth.
Other than inspire a generation's interest in math, science and engineering?
That was one of the (few) justifications for the ISS. It didn't work. The kids were way more inspired by the robotic missions to Mars, which cost 1% as much, and actually engaged in real science.
Earth orbit is not as inspiring as a person standing on another celestial body. Yes robotic missions are inspiring, but nothing compared to a manned mission. Speaking as someone starting elementary school immediately after Apollo 11.
The Curiosity rover project cost 2.5B, 25% as much as the proposed project.
A human with some tools can do a lot of science. And repair equipment, and deal with unforeseen things, and deal with things in real time, etc. How many rock and soil samples have robots brought back? Robots are not more capable, they are merely on site for longer periods of time.
Robots are a great tool, but they are plan B, a concession to costs or technological limits. And for Mars that concession seems a necessity at the moment. But if a moon mission with a little more endurance than previous missions can be done for $10B -- 4x Curiosity, 2/3x an Apollo mission, and possibly less than the mostly failed STEM encouraging projects the Congress will devise -- its probably worthwhile. Apollo probably eventually paid off in terms dual use tech and basic research. It spurred many technological developments.
Actually we do know, we have the source code, have had it for about 15 years. Its been in the mainline Linux kernel for about 12 years. In case you haven't heard changes to the kernel get, uh,... reviewed.
Wrong. It would be one of the most effective ways to inspire interest in kids of STEM. Far more than $10B will be flushed down STEM oriented programs for kids that are far less effective.
Not to mention the technological spinoffs that will benefit people. Clue: You are greatly benefiting from the original space race as you are reading this.
Other than inspire a generation's interest in math, science and engineering? Other than the dual use of much of the technology that will be developed for the space program?
Both of these things were major benefits of the original space race and you are materially benefitting from both at this very moment.
... I do not see the point of having the GPU rendering faster than the monitor's refresh rate, usually at 60FPS...
Note the game is under development. Those frame rates will probably not last as more code gets added to the game. Eventually new code will be getting discarded or optimized to get the frame rate up to 60fps.
Also, it may be 300fps on a developer's system with the latest card/chipset AMD has to offer. If may be 60fps on the type of hardware consumers actually have.
Regulated monopolies are not good for any economy.
the us economy flourished in the 1950s with regulated telephones and regulated taxicabs and regulated airfares
The US economy flourished because it had just modernized during World War II and many other industrial nations had their economies wrecked during the war. Plus US industry was heavily "subsidized" by the government financed reconstruction of many of those countries devastated by war.
When making such comparisons always keep in mind the caveat of the statistician and economist, "all other things being equal". In the 1950s they were not.
Whether or not people choose to follow a course is not evidence of whether or not it would solve the problem.
Ranked-choice does not change the fact that it is necessary to vote out of misbehaving incumbents even if they are from your own party. Whether you are voting for 1, 2 or 3 *other* candidates you still have to deny a vote to your party's candidate, that your vote has to be punitive.
Technically it's theft. You've cost the rail company money (pittance though it may be) and potentially risked a fire by plugging an unknown device into an electrical socket.
I stopped reading here and I'm seriously hoping you're kidding. "risked a fire"? Seriously?
Apple recalled millions of their original iPhone/iPod touch chargers. The small 5W USB adapter, they were a fire hazard. They still use the design, last I checked they still put the little green dot on them that differentiated the later safer models from the original hazardous models.
The only way to make politicians accountable is to be a disloyal party member.
To be clear, you're basically saying the same thing Frank said -- cooperation (with your party) is currency.
Except that there are multiple currencies and not all currencies are equal. The supreme currency is the vote of the citizen, it determines whether one gets into office, stays there, or is removed. The vastly inferior currency is the favor trading among peers in the House or Senate that will not save a politician from the wrath of voters.
Throwing the rascal out means electing the candidate of the less favored party. Except in particularly egregious cases, it won't be clear that the opposite party candidate is any better. This makes "throw the rascal out" very unattractive.
Everything has a price. It is a Darwinian process. For candidates to be shown that serving the people is the path to future office and serving special interests is the path out of office they must see that party loyalty will not save them. They must fear that their party members **will** vote for the unattractive less favored opponents in response to bad behavior.
You are essentially arguing to vote for a party platform, essentially excusing a office holder's bad behavior. That is exactly what is happening now and why candidates are essentially free to serve the special interests of the party rather than the people.
Your argument is severely flawed. That corporate job is a consolation prize that offers little of the things the politician sought by gaining office. Power chief among these. Politicians want to be leaders not minions, even a well paid minion.
The money of PACs is overrated. No amount of Koch brothers commercials will change an informed mind.
Except Koch money (and others, esp. Murdoch) is being used to "inform" minds.
Only to inform naive apathetic minds, and these people only have a disproportionate power because so many of those who do care take themselves out of the game by party loyalty. Exception, NRA and AARP members. They care about their issues, show up to vote, and are not loyal to a party; and as a results they have enormous power. These organizations show the secondary status of money, delivering votes is far more powerful than delivering money.
Members of Congress may be peers, but they are in no way equals when it comes to influence. Membership and especially chair positions on some committees (House Ways & Means, Intelligence, etc.) have a lot more power than other committees and those memberships are not handed out to the freshmen class.
Yes, but a powerful chair can not remove a low ranking member from office. Something the voters can do.
The currency of politics is votes, as Frank admits, but that currency is primarily held by the voters. In a one person one vote system the 99% have the power, the money of the 1% can only buy influence when the 99% permit it. And we permit it by re-electing incumbents that fail to protect our interests. A politicians greatest goal is to get re-elected and that is in the hands of the 99% not the 1%.
Unfortunately, the 1% control exposure to candidates through media cartels. The 99% can vote in whoever they want, but the only candidates they'll ever see are those who have been vetted by the 1%.
We had a case where the voters got sufficiently riled up that a candidate with no money or name recognition beat the incumbent. An incumbent that outspent the no name 1,000:1 and who was the ranking party leader in the House. The winner was not the choice of the 1%.
The only way to make politicians accountable is to be a disloyal party member.
No, there is one other way, and a better one: use the primary election to kick out a bad incumbent and put in place a better representative from the same party. The fact that voters don't turn out in the primaries is one of the greatest failings of our political process. If we used the primaries to select a candidate who would sign on to a properly framed platform we would have a much more responsive and representative system.
That is one aspect of the punitive voting scheme I am referring to. Punitive votes can occur in the primary or the general. However the punitive votes in the general may be necessary to break the party machine and the power of the fringes. The fringes will always have a disproportionate influence in the primary as opposed to the general. In the general they sort of cancel out to a degree. A Darwinian process of constant losses and the machine and fringe should adapt, moderate or get nothing.
No, party loyalty is only a symptom, not a root. The same 'game theory' explanation given in TFS is also the root of 'party loyalty'.
No it does not. Two members of Congress are peers and have to cooperate in some form. However a voter in a one person one vote system is not a peer, voters have absolute control over the politician's future unlike a fellow member of Congress. Voters may reward good behavior (re-elect) and punish bad behavior (punitive vote for the other candidate, forcing incumbent out of office). Party loyalty disrupts this reward/punishment feedback loop, it breaks what would otherwise be a Darwinian process.
Again, the 99% have the power, they just choose to accept the status quo and permit a certain level of bad behavior.
Basically party loyalty is the root of the problem.
Party loyalty is much weaker today than in the past, when candidates were picked by party bosses rather than elected in primaries, and campaign funds were provided by the parties rather than PACs. So if party loyalty was the root of the problem, things would be getting much better.
Two thirds of the voters are out of the game due to party loyalty. Only the disloyal are being courted and persuaded and making the decision on who runs things.
"Party loyalty" is not about selecting candidates, its about voting for them. If a poor candidate is selected then a party member should view the other candidate more favorably. This will lead to better candidates being selected in the primaries. Its going along with some idiot that won the primary because he/she is your party's choice that is screwing up things. And failing to vote punitively, voting for someone who says the "right" things during the primary but does something else once in office. In other words voting for party platforms and campaign promises rather than past performance.
The money of PACs is overrated. No amount of Koch brothers commercials will change an informed mind. It is votes that are the true currency of politics, not money. Look at the two most powerful lobbies in the US, the NRA and the AARP. They are so incredibly successful and powerful *not* because of money but because they deliver voters. Voters who will not be swayed by an ad campaign no matter how many dollars are pumped into the campaign.
Want to change things, focus on educating and informing voters. Want to fail, want to see the current system persist, focus on the money.
Basically party loyalty is the root of the problem.
It has nothing to do with party loyalty and everything to do with the system itself. A winner-take all system will devolve into a two party system and stay that way. Game theory is in agreement with that. No matter how much one group wants to splinter, doing so would ensure the success of the other group, which is usually viewed as worse than sticking with ones own group, even if you dislike a lot of their policies.
You are missing a critical detail. Members of both parties are disloyal. There is no one party splintering and one party remaining solid. There is simple members of both parties voting for a superior candidate regardless of party, and punishing an incumbent that represents interests other than the people's. I am not referring to punishing an incumbent over mere disagreement on the best path to a common goal. For example honest disagreement on banking reform, as opposed to outright giving dishonest bankers and pass and a bailout.
Another way to look at things is that there are political parties only to the extent that one joins to promote their preferred path to various goals. However when it comes time to vote there are no effective parties, only honest judgements on candidates. That breaks the current system, forcing the parties to offer candidates that are more responsive to the expectations of the people (things that can vote) and less so to the special interests (things that can not vote)
History, and organizational behavior research, has shown over and over again that one gets what one rewards. This hold true for "Wally and his minivan" as well as politicians. Reward politicians that do the people's work and you get politicians that do the people's work. Reward politicians that do the work of parties and the special interests of those parties and you get politicians that do the special interest's work.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet, regressions and other bugs still get in. I'm a big fan of the many eyeballs theory, but there are limitations to it.
Yes, but successful exploitation is a very different story. And such attempts are a bit unlikely when the code is publicly coming from the NSA. Anything coming from them will get extra scrutiny by some.
This is California. One idiot misbehaves and the legislature will pass laws to require licensing of operators, registration of drones, mandatory gps based logging during all flights with such logs preserved and inspectable on demand by a government representative. Failure to provide such logs resulting in a loss of an operating license, fines, etc.
It is unlikely that kids are going to be inspired by someone doing something that people older than their great-grandparents already did 50 years ago. The people asking for manned missions to the moon are not young people looking for inspiration, but geezers trying to relive their childhood.
Easily disproven by the robotic missions to mars. The Viking robotic missions from the 1970s landed on Mars, took pictures, analyzed soil chemistry, searched for life. Sound familiar? Yep, much like the current rovers. And yet new generations are pretty damn interested despite the fact that geezers saw similar stuff in their teenage years.
The Apollo landings were also preceded by robotic mission, Surveyor, these tested surface soil and took pictures. Things the astronauts did a much better job at also. Plus the astronauts did some science the robots could not. For example removing the camera off of a surveyor lander they landed their lunar module "next to" and bringing the camera back to analyze how materials stood up to long time exposure on the lunar surface.
We can further disprove your notion with various "action sports". BMX, racing and freestyle, date back to the 1970s. Skateboarding in its more modern freestyle incarnation (vertical walls, tricks, etc), 70s. Snowboarding, 70s. Surfing in its more modern shortboard incarnations, 60s. Kids seem to enjoy some things their parents and grandparents also enjoyed.
A base would offer something quite different than a three hour exploration of the surface. I think the Mars rovers demonstrate a continued interest in space exploration. However seeing a person on another celestial body offers something to aspire to be, unlike a robot. Take a survey of the scientists and engineers on those robotics teams and see how many had wanted to be an astronaut when they were very young and being first introduced to math and science.
The kernel is heavily viewed, studied, etc. Its changes are reviewed, at multiple levels in a hierarchy. Its probably the one part of Linux where the many eyeballs notion is reality rather than myth.
Other than inspire a generation's interest in math, science and engineering?
That was one of the (few) justifications for the ISS. It didn't work. The kids were way more inspired by the robotic missions to Mars, which cost 1% as much, and actually engaged in real science.
Earth orbit is not as inspiring as a person standing on another celestial body. Yes robotic missions are inspiring, but nothing compared to a manned mission. Speaking as someone starting elementary school immediately after Apollo 11.
The Curiosity rover project cost 2.5B, 25% as much as the proposed project.
A human with some tools can do a lot of science. And repair equipment, and deal with unforeseen things, and deal with things in real time, etc. How many rock and soil samples have robots brought back? Robots are not more capable, they are merely on site for longer periods of time.
Robots are a great tool, but they are plan B, a concession to costs or technological limits. And for Mars that concession seems a necessity at the moment. But if a moon mission with a little more endurance than previous missions can be done for $10B -- 4x Curiosity, 2/3x an Apollo mission, and possibly less than the mostly failed STEM encouraging projects the Congress will devise -- its probably worthwhile. Apollo probably eventually paid off in terms dual use tech and basic research. It spurred many technological developments.
As far as you know.
Actually we do know, we have the source code, have had it for about 15 years. Its been in the mainline Linux kernel for about 12 years. In case you haven't heard changes to the kernel get, uh, ... reviewed.
no, huge waste of taxpayer money.
Wrong. It would be one of the most effective ways to inspire interest in kids of STEM. Far more than $10B will be flushed down STEM oriented programs for kids that are far less effective.
Not to mention the technological spinoffs that will benefit people. Clue: You are greatly benefiting from the original space race as you are reading this.
What good does going back to the moon do?
Other than inspire a generation's interest in math, science and engineering? Other than the dual use of much of the technology that will be developed for the space program?
Both of these things were major benefits of the original space race and you are materially benefitting from both at this very moment.
... I do not see the point of having the GPU rendering faster than the monitor's refresh rate, usually at 60FPS ...
Note the game is under development. Those frame rates will probably not last as more code gets added to the game. Eventually new code will be getting discarded or optimized to get the frame rate up to 60fps.
Also, it may be 300fps on a developer's system with the latest card/chipset AMD has to offer. If may be 60fps on the type of hardware consumers actually have.
Regulated monopolies are not good for any economy.
the us economy flourished in the 1950s with regulated telephones and regulated taxicabs and regulated airfares
The US economy flourished because it had just modernized during World War II and many other industrial nations had their economies wrecked during the war. Plus US industry was heavily "subsidized" by the government financed reconstruction of many of those countries devastated by war.
When making such comparisons always keep in mind the caveat of the statistician and economist, "all other things being equal". In the 1950s they were not.
Whether or not people choose to follow a course is not evidence of whether or not it would solve the problem.
Ranked-choice does not change the fact that it is necessary to vote out of misbehaving incumbents even if they are from your own party. Whether you are voting for 1, 2 or 3 *other* candidates you still have to deny a vote to your party's candidate, that your vote has to be punitive.
Technically it's theft. You've cost the rail company money (pittance though it may be) and potentially risked a fire by plugging an unknown device into an electrical socket.
I stopped reading here and I'm seriously hoping you're kidding. "risked a fire"? Seriously?
Apple recalled millions of their original iPhone/iPod touch chargers. The small 5W USB adapter, they were a fire hazard. They still use the design, last I checked they still put the little green dot on them that differentiated the later safer models from the original hazardous models.
To be clear, you're basically saying the same thing Frank said -- cooperation (with your party) is currency.
Except that there are multiple currencies and not all currencies are equal. The supreme currency is the vote of the citizen, it determines whether one gets into office, stays there, or is removed. The vastly inferior currency is the favor trading among peers in the House or Senate that will not save a politician from the wrath of voters.
Throwing the rascal out means electing the candidate of the less favored party. Except in particularly egregious cases, it won't be clear that the opposite party candidate is any better. This makes "throw the rascal out" very unattractive.
Everything has a price. It is a Darwinian process. For candidates to be shown that serving the people is the path to future office and serving special interests is the path out of office they must see that party loyalty will not save them. They must fear that their party members **will** vote for the unattractive less favored opponents in response to bad behavior.
You are essentially arguing to vote for a party platform, essentially excusing a office holder's bad behavior. That is exactly what is happening now and why candidates are essentially free to serve the special interests of the party rather than the people.
There is no magic bullet, no cost free solution.
In 2014 House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his seat in the Republican primary to economics professor David Brat.
Your argument is severely flawed. That corporate job is a consolation prize that offers little of the things the politician sought by gaining office. Power chief among these. Politicians want to be leaders not minions, even a well paid minion.
The money of PACs is overrated. No amount of Koch brothers commercials will change an informed mind.
Except Koch money (and others, esp. Murdoch) is being used to "inform" minds.
Only to inform naive apathetic minds, and these people only have a disproportionate power because so many of those who do care take themselves out of the game by party loyalty. Exception, NRA and AARP members. They care about their issues, show up to vote, and are not loyal to a party; and as a results they have enormous power. These organizations show the secondary status of money, delivering votes is far more powerful than delivering money.
Members of Congress may be peers, but they are in no way equals when it comes to influence. Membership and especially chair positions on some committees (House Ways & Means, Intelligence, etc.) have a lot more power than other committees and those memberships are not handed out to the freshmen class.
Yes, but a powerful chair can not remove a low ranking member from office. Something the voters can do.
The currency of politics is votes, as Frank admits, but that currency is primarily held by the voters. In a one person one vote system the 99% have the power, the money of the 1% can only buy influence when the 99% permit it. And we permit it by re-electing incumbents that fail to protect our interests. A politicians greatest goal is to get re-elected and that is in the hands of the 99% not the 1%.
Unfortunately, the 1% control exposure to candidates through media cartels. The 99% can vote in whoever they want, but the only candidates they'll ever see are those who have been vetted by the 1%.
We had a case where the voters got sufficiently riled up that a candidate with no money or name recognition beat the incumbent. An incumbent that outspent the no name 1,000:1 and who was the ranking party leader in the House. The winner was not the choice of the 1%.
The only way to make politicians accountable is to be a disloyal party member.
No, there is one other way, and a better one: use the primary election to kick out a bad incumbent and put in place a better representative from the same party. The fact that voters don't turn out in the primaries is one of the greatest failings of our political process. If we used the primaries to select a candidate who would sign on to a properly framed platform we would have a much more responsive and representative system.
That is one aspect of the punitive voting scheme I am referring to. Punitive votes can occur in the primary or the general. However the punitive votes in the general may be necessary to break the party machine and the power of the fringes. The fringes will always have a disproportionate influence in the primary as opposed to the general. In the general they sort of cancel out to a degree. A Darwinian process of constant losses and the machine and fringe should adapt, moderate or get nothing.
No, party loyalty is only a symptom, not a root. The same 'game theory' explanation given in TFS is also the root of 'party loyalty'.
No it does not. Two members of Congress are peers and have to cooperate in some form. However a voter in a one person one vote system is not a peer, voters have absolute control over the politician's future unlike a fellow member of Congress. Voters may reward good behavior (re-elect) and punish bad behavior (punitive vote for the other candidate, forcing incumbent out of office). Party loyalty disrupts this reward/punishment feedback loop, it breaks what would otherwise be a Darwinian process.
Again, the 99% have the power, they just choose to accept the status quo and permit a certain level of bad behavior.
Shit, did they finally decommission Amtrak? I was just planning a trip.
Long range trips are slower and cost more. Ex. NY to Los Angeles, not NY to DC or Boston.
Basically party loyalty is the root of the problem.
Party loyalty is much weaker today than in the past, when candidates were picked by party bosses rather than elected in primaries, and campaign funds were provided by the parties rather than PACs. So if party loyalty was the root of the problem, things would be getting much better.
Two thirds of the voters are out of the game due to party loyalty. Only the disloyal are being courted and persuaded and making the decision on who runs things.
"Party loyalty" is not about selecting candidates, its about voting for them. If a poor candidate is selected then a party member should view the other candidate more favorably. This will lead to better candidates being selected in the primaries. Its going along with some idiot that won the primary because he/she is your party's choice that is screwing up things. And failing to vote punitively, voting for someone who says the "right" things during the primary but does something else once in office. In other words voting for party platforms and campaign promises rather than past performance.
The money of PACs is overrated. No amount of Koch brothers commercials will change an informed mind. It is votes that are the true currency of politics, not money. Look at the two most powerful lobbies in the US, the NRA and the AARP. They are so incredibly successful and powerful *not* because of money but because they deliver voters. Voters who will not be swayed by an ad campaign no matter how many dollars are pumped into the campaign.
Want to change things, focus on educating and informing voters. Want to fail, want to see the current system persist, focus on the money.
Basically party loyalty is the root of the problem.
It has nothing to do with party loyalty and everything to do with the system itself. A winner-take all system will devolve into a two party system and stay that way. Game theory is in agreement with that. No matter how much one group wants to splinter, doing so would ensure the success of the other group, which is usually viewed as worse than sticking with ones own group, even if you dislike a lot of their policies.
You are missing a critical detail. Members of both parties are disloyal. There is no one party splintering and one party remaining solid. There is simple members of both parties voting for a superior candidate regardless of party, and punishing an incumbent that represents interests other than the people's. I am not referring to punishing an incumbent over mere disagreement on the best path to a common goal. For example honest disagreement on banking reform, as opposed to outright giving dishonest bankers and pass and a bailout.
Another way to look at things is that there are political parties only to the extent that one joins to promote their preferred path to various goals. However when it comes time to vote there are no effective parties, only honest judgements on candidates. That breaks the current system, forcing the parties to offer candidates that are more responsive to the expectations of the people (things that can vote) and less so to the special interests (things that can not vote)
History, and organizational behavior research, has shown over and over again that one gets what one rewards. This hold true for "Wally and his minivan" as well as politicians. Reward politicians that do the people's work and you get politicians that do the people's work. Reward politicians that do the work of parties and the special interests of those parties and you get politicians that do the special interest's work.