These folks have millions of compute nodes. And very little resources, which is why they set up this network in the first place. You really think they have time to go chasing after silly little bits of data that matter only to you? Next you'll be wondering why GW Bush never returns your calls.
That quote says more about Mileva's state of mind than any actual facts. You think she's going to tell people, "My fiancé couldn't get a job because everybody thinks he's a jerk"? No, she's going to minimize interpersonal problems to "he has a sharp tongue" and add the factor of antisemitism minimize his responsibility. It's what people do for the people they love.
Which is not to say that antisemitism didn't make things harder — I'm sure it did. But that's not the same thing as saying, "He couldn't get an academic job because he was a Jew." You may find it convenient to place the entire episode under that glib description, but it's not consistent with the facts.
You don't need IPv6 to give every light bulb you own its own IP address. You just need to use a private address space. The biggest one is 10.*.*.*, which should be plenty for any (relatively) sane person.
You should do it that way anyway, or else somebody is going to hack into your Christmas ornamentation and do evil things.
Forget that! I'm not letting every script kiddy hack into my toaster! It took me years to find the right setting, and I don't let anybody else touch it!
Crack a book once in a while. This was around 1900. Hitler was still a schoolboy, and Universities in German-speaking countries (Einstein was born in Germany, graduated from ETH in Switzerland) had large numbers of Jewish faculty.
That's not the impression I got from reading Alan Hodges's biography of Turing. If nothing else, he needed a certain minimum level of social skill to keep up what appears to have been a very active sex life.
Asperger's Syndrome is today's trendy illness, and really gets overdiagnosed. You can "diagnose" anybody with that or a similar condition if you cherry-pick your symptoms, and don't view them in the overall context of the patient's interaction with others.
Even when valid (and they rarely are), these glib little psychiatric labels are more of a barrier to understanding people than a help. You look at Turing, you say, "Asperger's!" and think you know all you need to know about the dude, even though your knowledge consists of a single highly speculative medical article. That's just plain lazy.
A "post-hydrocarbon world" has been available for a long time - nuclear.
Let's put aside all the concerns about meltdowns and storing waste for millenia, 'cause you've heard all that before. And never mind the difficulty of knowing whether somebody intends to to stop refining their fissionables when it's still not weapons grade, 'cause we can always bomb them. And we'll overlook all the carbon that gets generated while you're building the plants and digging up the radioactive ore, 'cause we don't want to pick nits.
But that still leaves one little problem: nuclear power plans are expensive and slow to build. So even if you build as fast as you possibly can, you're still not going to be able to use nuclear for more than a partial replacement for hydrocarbons. So never mind.
I'm saying nothing of the kind. I'm saying that some kinds of work (especially in software development) aren't accommodating to those who don't know how to give and take on a project. Some people don't listen because they have big egos; others don't listen because they're the smartest person, and think that means that other people's opinions don't matter. Either way, the key phrase is "doesn't listen" and that's a formula for disaster.
I just remembered a story I heard a long time ago. A guy was hired to automate some kind of metal fabricating plant. Guy goes in all full of himself, because he's smarter than all the blue collar types that work in the plant and he knows it. Since they all hate him, they don't talk to him, and because they don't talk to him, he never learns that much of what he thinks he knows about working with metal is nonsense. So the first time he fires up one of his contraptions, it destroys itself, trying to cut a piece of metal that's way too thick. Management is underwhelmed and Mr. Knowitall is gone the next day.
Moral: if you're absolutely sure you're a genius, you're probably an idiot.
Collaboration can be overrated. If the people that are 'working' on your project are more of an hindrance for you rather than being helpful, I think they need to shut the hell up, get off your back, and let you do your work.
That's fine if you never do any projects that require more than one person.
You can be Albert Einstein, Alan Turing, and Ada Augusta all rolled into one. But if you are surrounded by idiots, none of your big ideas are going to go anywhere, no matter how good they are. But hey, at least you're 'collaborating'. So go find some new collaborators. Though if you spend all your time complaining how stupid everybody else is, I think your problems may be more basic than that.
A true hotshot should be able to move up the hierarchy quickly.
I've had some interaction with Google, and I get the impression that they have a lot of hotshots and almost no hierarchy. So unless you're hired as an Official Google Genius, you're never going to become one. Really, the only way to do it is to graduate from a good school and/or have a graduate degree and/or do some original computer science that's really impressive. Self-trained "practical" programmers need not apply.
Albert Einstein actually managed to scuttle his initial post-graduate career because he let everybody know how smart he was. (He actually was as smart as he thought he was, but that didn't make anybody like him any better.) That's why he had to go work as a patent clerk. His best work was done after he'd grown up and gotten more sociable — and collaborative.
Perhaps the Turing machine and Alan's other mathematical achievements occurred in splendid isolation. But what about his work with Enigma? That was a huge project, and I doubt if it got done by him sitting around doing everything himself.
Ada Augusta, as I recall, never delivered any working systems. Wasn't her fault (the technology just wasn't ready for her), but that excludes her as any kind of teamwork benchmark.
More companies are deathly confounded by "let's get along" managers who believe teamwork and tolerance are more important than actual good work.
And what use is "good work" if there's no collaboration? I've seen many projects self-destruct because it was lacking. It doesn't even need one or more loud-mouthed assholes (though that will certainly do it). It just needs one or more developers who have their own vision of the project and don't care about anyone else. Or want to do their own bit of the project a certain way, and don't care that this doesn't fit in with the other pieces of the project.
You can be Albert Einstein, Alan Turing, and Ada Augusta all rolled into one. But if you can't work with people, you're just another jerk, and none of your big ideas are going to go anywhere, no matter how good they are.
Basically you're saying "fraud is inevitable, so let's minimize it's effects." I think the top priority should be detecting fraud. And an electronic system is a lot easier to audit than a paper one.
About your sig. I assume you gave HT a free review copy. Me, I followed your link, read your free chapters, and said, "ok, this is pretty good, even if the portrayal of Dan Quayle is a little over the top. Maybe I'll buy a copy. Wait a minute. Thirty five dollars. Never mind!"
I think that's going to be the dominant response, no matter how much you plug the book. Rather than an on-demand press, you might consider ebooks.
With paper ballots, you have to have a much larger number of people in on the scheme to change a large number of votes and cover your tracks afterward.
Only because you have a lot of people monitoring the process. Give me 5 minutes alone with a ballot box, and I promise you a surprising shift in votes for that precinct. But there are a ton of people who are busy making sure I don't get that 5 minutes.
By the same token, you can design an electronic voting system so that every step is an open book. And I promise you that a zillion geeks and computer scientist will have nothing better to do than spend hours picking nits with your system. This is a level of double-checking no paper system can claim.
Any system is trustworthy to the degree that it is transparent.
Sigh. Everyone points to paper ballots as a guarantee that votes will be properly counted. May I point out that rigged elections predate electronic voting by many centuries?
Ok, so your hybrid system allows you to double check. But when do you double check? If we can't trust the electronic system (and if we did, what's the point in having a dead tree backup?) then you end up with the loser demanding a hand count every time. So you might as well do it by hand to begin with. Except that's too expensive.
It doesn't even matter what process you use to count ballots. What matters is that the process occur out in the open. It's as easy to do that with electronic voting as with paper ballots. Easier even, because it's easier to track the workflow. Harder to repeat the 1960 voting in Chicago, where the ballot boxes took a suspicious amount of time in transit.
Like in the dictionary: "being such as may be reasonably anticipated" (Merriam-Webster). So I guess I'm a "strict consequentialist". Congratulations on finding a pretentious label for my opinion, but no points for actually contributing to the discussion, since you forgot to explain why "consequentialism" is such a bad thing. Let's hear it in your own words please; I'm bored with people who can't defend their opinions.
I've seen that eye roll, and from computer geeks. I used to work at Borland documenting their IDEs. These are designed around toolbars with 16x16 icons. Which was the standard icon size when Delphi first appeared, but monitors have gotten a lot bigger since then. When I suggested a big icon option, I got that eye roll, perhaps unconsciously demonstrating their superior visual acuity.
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia, they are so tired of this joke.
These folks have millions of compute nodes. And very little resources, which is why they set up this network in the first place. You really think they have time to go chasing after silly little bits of data that matter only to you? Next you'll be wondering why GW Bush never returns your calls.
Didn't Seti@Home used to have their own client/agent/whatever?
That quote says more about Mileva's state of mind than any actual facts. You think she's going to tell people, "My fiancé couldn't get a job because everybody thinks he's a jerk"? No, she's going to minimize interpersonal problems to "he has a sharp tongue" and add the factor of antisemitism minimize his responsibility. It's what people do for the people they love.
Which is not to say that antisemitism didn't make things harder — I'm sure it did. But that's not the same thing as saying, "He couldn't get an academic job because he was a Jew." You may find it convenient to place the entire episode under that glib description, but it's not consistent with the facts.
You don't need IPv6 to give every light bulb you own its own IP address. You just need to use a private address space. The biggest one is 10.*.*.*, which should be plenty for any (relatively) sane person.
You should do it that way anyway, or else somebody is going to hack into your Christmas ornamentation and do evil things.
Forget that! I'm not letting every script kiddy hack into my toaster! It took me years to find the right setting, and I don't let anybody else touch it!
Crack a book once in a while. This was around 1900. Hitler was still a schoolboy, and Universities in German-speaking countries (Einstein was born in Germany, graduated from ETH in Switzerland) had large numbers of Jewish faculty.
You know, the joke in your sig got old a long time ago.
Asperger's Syndrome is today's trendy illness, and really gets overdiagnosed. You can "diagnose" anybody with that or a similar condition if you cherry-pick your symptoms, and don't view them in the overall context of the patient's interaction with others.
Even when valid (and they rarely are), these glib little psychiatric labels are more of a barrier to understanding people than a help. You look at Turing, you say, "Asperger's!" and think you know all you need to know about the dude, even though your knowledge consists of a single highly speculative medical article. That's just plain lazy.
But that still leaves one little problem: nuclear power plans are expensive and slow to build. So even if you build as fast as you possibly can, you're still not going to be able to use nuclear for more than a partial replacement for hydrocarbons. So never mind.
I'm saying nothing of the kind. I'm saying that some kinds of work (especially in software development) aren't accommodating to those who don't know how to give and take on a project. Some people don't listen because they have big egos; others don't listen because they're the smartest person, and think that means that other people's opinions don't matter. Either way, the key phrase is "doesn't listen" and that's a formula for disaster.
I just remembered a story I heard a long time ago. A guy was hired to automate some kind of metal fabricating plant. Guy goes in all full of himself, because he's smarter than all the blue collar types that work in the plant and he knows it. Since they all hate him, they don't talk to him, and because they don't talk to him, he never learns that much of what he thinks he knows about working with metal is nonsense. So the first time he fires up one of his contraptions, it destroys itself, trying to cut a piece of metal that's way too thick. Management is underwhelmed and Mr. Knowitall is gone the next day.
Moral: if you're absolutely sure you're a genius, you're probably an idiot.
Albert Einstein actually managed to scuttle his initial post-graduate career because he let everybody know how smart he was. (He actually was as smart as he thought he was, but that didn't make anybody like him any better.) That's why he had to go work as a patent clerk. His best work was done after he'd grown up and gotten more sociable — and collaborative.
Perhaps the Turing machine and Alan's other mathematical achievements occurred in splendid isolation. But what about his work with Enigma? That was a huge project, and I doubt if it got done by him sitting around doing everything himself.
Ada Augusta, as I recall, never delivered any working systems. Wasn't her fault (the technology just wasn't ready for her), but that excludes her as any kind of teamwork benchmark.
You can be Albert Einstein, Alan Turing, and Ada Augusta all rolled into one. But if you can't work with people, you're just another jerk, and none of your big ideas are going to go anywhere, no matter how good they are.
As for pro bodyguards: if they're there to protect you, and not just to show off how important you are, then they carry Uzis.
Basically you're saying "fraud is inevitable, so let's minimize it's effects." I think the top priority should be detecting fraud. And an electronic system is a lot easier to audit than a paper one.
About your sig. I assume you gave HT a free review copy. Me, I followed your link, read your free chapters, and said, "ok, this is pretty good, even if the portrayal of Dan Quayle is a little over the top. Maybe I'll buy a copy. Wait a minute. Thirty five dollars. Never mind!"
I think that's going to be the dominant response, no matter how much you plug the book. Rather than an on-demand press, you might consider ebooks.
By the same token, you can design an electronic voting system so that every step is an open book. And I promise you that a zillion geeks and computer scientist will have nothing better to do than spend hours picking nits with your system. This is a level of double-checking no paper system can claim.
Any system is trustworthy to the degree that it is transparent.
I stand corrected. Please note that I was replying to a guy who cited India as proof that hard counting scales.
I don't argue with cats!
Sigh. Everyone points to paper ballots as a guarantee that votes will be properly counted. May I point out that rigged elections predate electronic voting by many centuries?
Ok, so your hybrid system allows you to double check. But when do you double check? If we can't trust the electronic system (and if we did, what's the point in having a dead tree backup?) then you end up with the loser demanding a hand count every time. So you might as well do it by hand to begin with. Except that's too expensive.
It doesn't even matter what process you use to count ballots. What matters is that the process occur out in the open. It's as easy to do that with electronic voting as with paper ballots. Easier even, because it's easier to track the workflow. Harder to repeat the 1960 voting in Chicago, where the ballot boxes took a suspicious amount of time in transit.
Any process scales if you don't care about the quality of the result. Vote rigging is rampant in India, and all that hand-counting is often blamed.
There's also the slight difference in the cost of labor in India versus the U.S.
Like in the dictionary: "being such as may be reasonably anticipated" (Merriam-Webster). So I guess I'm a "strict consequentialist". Congratulations on finding a pretentious label for my opinion, but no points for actually contributing to the discussion, since you forgot to explain why "consequentialism" is such a bad thing. Let's hear it in your own words please; I'm bored with people who can't defend their opinions.
When an act is wrong, it's wrong because of its actual or foreseeable consequences. If this were just about lying, nobody would give a shit.
I've seen that eye roll, and from computer geeks. I used to work at Borland documenting their IDEs. These are designed around toolbars with 16x16 icons. Which was the standard icon size when Delphi first appeared, but monitors have gotten a lot bigger since then. When I suggested a big icon option, I got that eye roll, perhaps unconsciously demonstrating their superior visual acuity.