Almost no nation can pay off all of their debts right now. The Greeks are basically being told to either capitulate or find some way, without further borrowing, to pay off all of their debts in short order. To put this in prospective, what if somebody told you that you had to pay off all of your student loans this month and your home mortgage next month. Even people with good jobs couldn't do this. The same with nations.
Bullshit. The largest creditor to Greece is the EFSF and they're not paying a dime on the principal until 2023. They're choking just trying to pay interest and no, taking up more credit card debt to pay off this month's credit card bill is not a sustainable way to go. They do have a problem in that their GDP is going down, meaning they earn less to pay interest with. That will eventually make paying back the principal harder too, but that's not their short or even medium-term problem. They can't even manage their debt, much less repay any of it.
Keep in mind that the past four years of bank loans from the ECB have not been to save Greece. What they were really designed to do was to keep the card game running long enough to let EU insiders and favored national banks unload Greek bonds, and to reduce their exposure to Greek default risks long enough to put European taxpayers onto the hook in the inevitable event of a Greek default. They pretended to save Greece, and Greece pretended to reform. And now here we are.
Yes, today >75% of Greek's debt is either the EFSF, ECB, bilateral loans from EU members or the IMF. Some was bought significantly below the nominal value though, so the net loss will be somewhat less. Of course at the time they very reasonably feared another wave of dominoes falling, either in the banking market or due to a jump in national debt interest rates. They bought time to show the other countries are past the peak and on a slow recovery and they built a giant insulating buffer. Some got bailed out, but Greece may also fall without triggering another crisis in the EU economy.
This is why I don't think Greece really understands the position they're in now compared to the position they were in a few years ago. The Greek government is pushing the EU into a corner where it would be politically unacceptable to make it look like Syriza won. At the same time everybody can see that the austerity isn't working very well, so if the EU decides it's better to let them crash and rebuild and at the same time put the blame at Syriza's feet now might be a great time. They're not just playing with fire, they've set themselves on fire and is gambling that the EU will put it out.
Millions of subscribers? You have trouble nowadays convincing people that we went to the moon in the first place. Even the worst television series has more views than any (real) space-related stuff.
That aside, watching a mars rover live is like watching paint dry. Opportunity has a top speed of 0.18 km/h and on average it has moved 10 meters a day. It spent over 11 years on a marathon that runners on Earth do in two hours. Everything else it does is equally slow, it makes a sloth seem energetic. The reason is of course that it's running on a tiiiiiiiny trickle of power, but it doesn't make for great entertainment. It's like for example CERN, you get a huge splash when they find the Higgs boson but between that it's months and years between something newsworthy happening.
And while I'm not inclined to draw a conclusion from this, it is interesting that we've had quite a few very high intelligences in our society over time. None of them have posed an "existential crisis" for the the planet, the the human race, or my cats. Smart people tend ot have better things to do than annoy others... also, they can anticipate consequences. Will this apply to "very smart machines"? Your guess (might be) as good as mine. It's almost certainly better than Musk's or Gates', since we know they were clueless enough to speak out definitively on a subject they don't (can't) know anything about. Hawking likewise, didn't mean to leave him out.
Well, maybe not the actual scientists but there are quite a few dead cultures and species wiped out because guns and bullets beats spears and claws. And I don't think anyone doubts Oppenheimer was a bright guy, even though he wasn't the one dropping the nukes. Since you mention cats, would you like an AI treating you like you treat the cats? My guess is you would not, particularly not when they decide we're too fickle and resource hungry and would rather not have cats.
The reason I'm not worried is because we have no clue on how to build systems with self-awareness. The software is running, but the computer can't look at itself in the mirror and realize I need electricity and CPUs and RAM sticks to "live". Wake me up when we have a computer that can actually refuse me from hitting the off switch.
The scripture from earlier confirms to those of us who trust in the promise of God's kingdom --and who see dozens of bible promises already fulfilled-
Pardon me, I might be one of those godless heathens but I suffered through quite a few years of Christian teachings - what exactly has the Bible promised us apart from forgiveness from our sins and heavenly bliss in the afterlife? The old testament was as I remember it mostly punishments. Punishment for eating the apple, building Babel's tower, Sodom and Gomorrah and of course the flood to wipe out everything. We're all sinners from the original sin and if we don't repent it's hell.
The new testament was pretty much all allegories on how we should live, there were a few "one-off" miracles while Jesus lived but all those who saw him raise the dead, turn water to wine or walk on water has been dead for 2000 years. So there's good and evil in the world, but that's pretty indistinguishable from good and bad people with free will without God or Satan pulling anyone's strings.
So I'm curious, what is it you feel God has promised? And what do see that makes you feel he's delivered? Because I can't find a lick of difference, the devout believers get injured, sick and die like the rest of us and terrible sins go by without being struck down from the heavens. It's of course possible that all of this gets tallied up and justice is served in the afterlife, but here and now in this life I can't find any sign of God. Maybe I should ask this in the opposite direction, if you were to envision a world without God what exactly would be different?
Look, I understand what you're trying to say. If they're trying to hide their atrocities we should expose them, if they're using them as propaganda and to terrorize we should suppress them. But as a guideline that would be very confusing and hard to live by since it assumes you know the details of every conflict and who wants what, assuming they're all in agreement which they're probably not. Not to mention the answer is probably (d) all of the above, some are inspired to fight against the atrocities, some are frightened by them and some are cheering them on.
Every year we send busloads of teens to visit Nazi concentration camps, not because we have some morbid fascination with death camps and genocide but because at some point you have to learn how cruel human beings can be to each other. But that is quickly fading out of living memory, it's 70 years since the war ended so those who really remember the war is in their 80s and 90s by now. Very soon it'll be "museum" knowledge that you read about in a book and look at an exhibit and it's going to be filed away as ancient history. But it's not, because there's still shit like that going on but we're not sure if we want to see it or not.
I'll admit that watching cruelty will make you die a little inside. You will want to punch something or maybe cry a bit, but at the end of the day I want the truth about the world not the PG-rated version. Which is of course not to say you should lose perspective, with 7 billion people it'll seem like anything you focus on happens a lot even if it deals with 0.01% of the population or less. And I'm here in the safety of my living room looking at a screen, I'm not the one in a war zone getting shot at. I'm not the one hoping nobody will bomb the market I go to. I'm not the soldier who needs to pull the trigger risking that innocents die if I do or die if I don't. I still got it easy.
Not really. I believe there is a clean hands doctrine that says if your inaction has amplified the harm then you might not get relief for that. For example if you live in the downstairs apartment and notice water is leaking from the upstairs apartment but don't do anything to stop it or limit the damage because you'd rather get the insurance money you can get cut short. It's a lot trickier with an IP issue, is it a lump transfer or an ongoing violation but I think it has most the characteristics of the former where you take a half-finished product and hand it to someone else to finish. In that case there's no harm in delaying apart from the statute of limitations.
Let's say I'm in an accident with you, but it seems at first to not be a big deal and I don't sue for damages. However it turns out it won't heal properly and I lose a lot of money and decide to sue anyway. Am I too late? No, those costs aren't caused by the delay, they'd come no matter what and it won't count against me. Of course I'm not in the US, there you find the nearest ambulance chaser and sue for $millions, unless it was a hobo that hurt you.
And yet it's an obvious case for cheap political rhetoric, "What do you mean that's never going to happen? You're sitting there making plans for it right now!" I don't think you should underestimate the explosive power of contingency plans. For example in a supply chain you might have a contingency plan in case your business partners, vendor or distribution network turn shit but nobody's going to like that you have a plan to stab them in the back. And there's always those who willingly or unintentionally confuse planning in case of failure with planning for failure.
TL;DR: Some things you should just keep your mouth shut about, even if makes sense.
Well, we sure didn't get into it to write boring business applications except a few in the dotcom years who quickly moved on when it went bust. As I remember it though, there were many who just wanted to play games and only a few who wanted work with code and I don't think pushing them to play more would have brought them over. Of course you needed the opportunity, but there are a lot of games that are mod-friendly if you're so inclined. I'd sure encourage and test if tweaking a game peeks their interest, but if it doesn't I wouldn't try with more game time.
I don't think you have to come up with that many conspiracy theories, Mozilla's "problem" is that they won. They broke Microsoft's monopoly, made HTML/CSS properly standardized and together with KHTML/WebKit/Blink some 80% use an open source renderer though many use it in a closed source binary. Microsoft would be laughed at if they tried any new proprietary extensions and for the rest the implementation details are all in the open.
I'm talking of the unwanted UI changes. Then there were the release frequency changes that broke extensions every release for a long time. Then there were more unwanted UI changes, cumulating in the despised Australis UI. Then there was the switch to Yahoo for searches. There were the grid advertisements. Then there was the mandatory HTTPS proposal. Now there's this nonsense. All of this is being done when there are still many bugs to fix, some of them existing for years.
Their problem can be summed up in two words: "Now what?" and it turns out they didn't really have any other goal in common than slaying the dragon and now the dragon's dead. Some UX designers get to make an art project. Some cowboy coders thinks more releases is better. Some will do anything to get away from the reliance on their biggest competitor. Some security nuts get to go overboard. Some want to go after Android/Chrome OS with Firefox OS, but this time they're not competing against proprietary and neglected shovelware and barking up a tree Ubuntu has made essentially no progress on.
Let's face it, Mozilla mainly won because Microsoft was trying to keep the web from competing with local applications so they could sell Windows licenses, they got to the head of the pack and grinded it to a halt. They didn't want to compete, they wanted to put a spanner in the works for as long as possible. It annoyed many and gave Firefox enormous amounts of goodwill even when it didn't work properly, out of spite for Microsoft people kept using it and pushing for sites to support it. They don't have a clue on how to compete with someone that puts up a fight, which is their second biggest problem.
An asteroid may kill a lot of people, but it will not cause global extinction. No asteroid strike has ever completely wiped out life on earth.
Isn't that argument a bit like "I plan to live forever, so far so good"? After all, if it did wipe out all life well then we'd be dead so obviously it hasn't happened yet. Some large extinction event seem to happen once every 50-100 million years, what does a once in a billion year event look like? Ceres, the biggest object in the asteroid belt is about a million times bigger (10^20 kg vs 10^14 kg) than the dino killer. That one isn't going anywhere, but there's clearly quite a few potential total extinction candidates if they came to intersect with Earth's orbit.
Each year that passes sees roughly a 0.0000005% chance of a species-threatening asteroid coming our way, while real threatsâS - âSenvironmental, medical and political (i.e., war)âS -âScould literally wipe us off the face of the Earth in the blink of an eye.
Global warming is a sloooooooooooooooooow process and even if you burned every bit of coal and oil you wouldn't make Canada into Sahara, it's hardly an extinction level event. A modern day pandemic could presumably kill millions, but it's hardly an existential threat to the human race. Same goes for total thermonuclear war, there's be a lot of direct deaths and many more indirects deads from nuclear winter and starvation but not enough to wipe us out.
We're not even remotely in the same league. The odds are small that it happens tomorrow but in terms of "worst case" asteroids have everything us humans can come up with beat by far.
I can only come up with the obvious client-side encryption, but will the network as a whole still be able to use the data as it's supposed to (in this case; find adult friends)?
This. It seems sexual preferences, age and location is rather essential for the service they provide and email, well how else are they going to notify you that someone has taken an interest in you or that you got a reply? You can't ask a doctor to not work with medical data, there's of course good and poor security but at the end of the day if there's a total system compromise you're screwed.
How could you protect against this?
Best practice seems to be as follows: 1. Public facing server makes web service call to locked down proxy server. 2. Proxy server validates every request thoroughly, everything that looks even remotely funny is rejected. 3. Proxy server queries stored procedure in locked down database, no SELECT * for you. 4. The results are serialized back to XML and sent to the public facing server for display.
A lot of work if you want to do it right, but you get a fairly good barrier to a total breach from the outside. Of course they could compromise your web server and start harvesting data, but you should have some sort of tripwire system for that with audits and logs checking for abnormal activity.
The other way in is of course from your network, if they can compromise someone on the inside with database access or developers to plant vulnerabilities that'll go into the production system. But that's usually a much tougher route and really no different from breaking into any other secure network.
I could go on an on about the differences between an Engineer, a Tech, a Manager, and a Team lead. It sounds like what you are looking for in a manager is really a team lead position.
Formally, you could be right. Informally, both the team leader and manager hat usually end up on the same person, even if he lacks one title or the other. If you haven't got a team lead it's pretty obvious, if you do have a team lead then in my experience the manager does the HR/administrative bits and leave the actual work management to the team lead or the project manager if you work on a project.
For example, with no formal title I basically had the responsibility to: 1) Execute the actual project 2) Delegate as possible to the two juniors 3) Support the two juniors 4) Train the two juniors
Sure, there was a project manager dealing with the contract and formal contact with the client. There was a manager dealing with formal HR bits. But I felt I was a bit project manager, a bit team lead, a bit manager and a bit mentor all at once. It was a constant prioritization between:
1) What must I do to get the project done? 2) What can I delegate to free up my time? 3) What should I delegate to teach them? 4) What should we walk through together?
When you're in practice managing 100% of their time, you get all the hats whether you want to or not.
"More useful" by whose definition? Money is llike water - it can only generate power if it's moving. That 'useful stuff' you speak of often looks like putting the money behind a dam, where it does nothing to stimulate the economy. Consumption, on the other hand, drives the economy.
That's a fairly flawed interpretation, globally all that is consumed must be produced so the only way to raise total consumption is to increase total production. If we consume more than we produce we run a deficit and are either living off means we already have or incurring a debt, which means we've spent less in the past or will spend less in the future. Increasing consumption won't grow the economy as such.
However circulation helps the economy find the most efficient means to produce what we want so I pay McDonald's because it's cheaper than growing and harvesting and cooking my own meal. They again buy from their suppliers and so on stretching your money so you get more for less, but all of this is because of advantages of scale. The value-add comes from us being more efficient when we're specialized, not because we play musical chairs with our money.
One has to give it to AMD. Despite their stock and sales taking a battering, they have consistently refused to let go of cutting edge innovation. If anything, their CPU team should learn something from their GPU team.
Well unlike their CPU division the GPU division hasn't been the one bleeding massive amounts of cash, at least not until the GTX 970/980 generation from nVidia. Though with the R300 OEM series being a R200 rebrand they seem to be running out of steam, one limited quantity HBM card won't fix their lineup.
This kind of power savings combined with increased bandwidth cna be a potential game changer. You can finally have a lightweight thin gaming laptop that can still do 1080p resolution at high detail levels for modern games.
You still need power for shaders that is about 80-90% of a GPU's power consumption. In fact, AMDs problem is that even if they could swap out the GDDR5 for HBM today they still lose on performance/watt to nVidia's Maxwell 2. And the interposer is basically a giant semi-processed silicon die, it might be good for performance but it's probably not good for cost.
Anyway, the slides are kinda impressive just like with their Zen processor and whatnot. But AMD has a rather poor track record of delivering products on schedule that live up to their hype. It's now been eight months since nVidia launched the GTX970/980 and we're still waiting for something new from AMD. You can't win if you don't get your tech into products and ship them.
Smart phones killed dead time, if you have five minutes riding the bus or whatever and you can rather instantly find/read/check anything you might need which is rather convenient. It's rather limited how entertained you can get while driving a car, since your attention is legally required to be on the road. And if you're only two you're usually socially required to be in the front seat making conversation, not zone out in the entertainment system. Really it's most kids in the back seat who get to do that and then why not on their cell phone or tablet or 3DS or whatever? You need a significant value-add to make up for the fact that it's stuck in the car. And as long as you're driving, the car's handling is going to be a big deal.
Now if we're talking a self-driving car where it's really my en-route entertainment center that's an entirely different matter. You just tell the car where to go and it goes, how it is to drive doesn't matter. It probably doesn't even matter if it takes a few minutes longer because you got to play another round of Candy Crush. In this case, yes having an Android/iPhone dock so it could integrate with the rest of my entertainment world makes sense. Until then, I'll be busy limping along bumper-to-bumper listening to the radio....
Unlike what Hollywood thinks not all problems are solved simply by running across a border. Have you ever: tried to get a passport for a minor without the other parent's signature? tried to travel as the sole parent of a minor? tried to enter a country as the sole parent of a minor?
Went on two weeks vacation to the US from Norway with my cousin when I was 16, zero parents seemed to work just fine. Of course I already had a passport, in Europe that's like travelling to another state. I'm assuming my cousin had some kind of permission slip though I never saw it, but that seems easy to forge. And with all sorts of long-distance relationships and immigrants travelling back and forth I really can't imagine crossing the border with one parent raising any flags unless the child's name already is on a kidnapping victim list.
I call bullshit. This is simply another step down a slippery slope that removes more personal responsibility. This is the very definition of the nanny State.
Well, the article is just a fluff piece saying that how you build the interface affects the results and that this can have consequences. Which is actually not such an unreasonable thing to say, as long as you don't take the concept too far. For one concrete example I know of from a hospital system, the software said pretty much "Nothing more to register so closing healthcare contact" when it actually meant to say "Warning, hospital visit registered but no further patient follow-ups scheduled. If you proceed the patient's treatment will end and case will be closed."
This was in production code found in a review trying to find how the hospital could "lose" patients. The message was technically correct, but it was also extremely misleading when the nurse had forgot to register a follow-up. One seemingly harmless confirmation and the patient could end up not getting chemo for their cancer unless the doctor noticed the patient was missing or the patient followed up himself. So the developers of the system should absolutely take some responsibility for making sure the system makes it easy to do the right thing and very hard to do the wrong thing, not just technically correct.
Another much hotly debated topic is defaults, because people have a tendency to overuse defaults. The problem is when 99.9% are the default but the 0.1% is actually important to register. Did you skip past the point with allergies when the patient actually is hyperallergic to peanuts? Ouch. People are not machines, they hate doing things that are 99.9% unnecessary even if you tell them that you checking that box is their proof that you remembered to ask the patient and a default won't do that. Like security, completeness and correctness often comes at a cost in usability too. It all depends on what matters more.
I don't doubt that there are some exceptions, possibly even some motivated enough to be slightly dangerous; but those people I've met who actively want religion to die out (as opposed to merely being atheists personally, or apathetic toward metaphysics) specifically want it do die out by persuasion rather than persecution.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeell.... not by persecution, but I'm not sure by persuasion either. Most of those fed up with religion consider it just a silly superstition and don't really see the point of discussing it any more than the Loch Ness monster or if a black cat crossing the road brings you bad luck. They realize they can't talk you out of an irrational belief, they just want it to go away and will probably act more with derision than persuasion.
I'm fairly certain humanity would find plenty of reasons to wage war if religions were not around to blame it on.
For sure, there's plenty examples of people of the same religion going to war over various reasons like land, resources, geopolitical reasons, wars of oppression, wars of liberation, power and control with wars of succession and so on. But for most of the genuine atrocities you need more, you need such a burning hate for the opposition that you're willing to slaughter down women and children and burn their cities to the ground. Where simply victory isn't enough, only total submission or even extermination. Religion is a very common fuel for such hate.
When fighting for resources you're also looking for a "return on investment", you have to gain enough to be worth going to war. That you can usually defend against by rational investments in defense, making it too costly to be worth it. Irrational wars fueled by hatred often don't care, a civil war might tear the whole country apart and leave it in ruins as long as the infidels die. The Germans fought the allies all the way back to Berlin, the Japanese until they were nuked. Twice. Neither made sense, it was death before surrender.
Of course you can say that was mostly racism, not religion though I'm pretty sure the Holocaust was a good dose of both though Nazi Germany certainly fought a lot of other nominally Christian nations. Religion is also a very lasting divide. Germany fought most of Europe, now they're a key member of the EU. The US was at war with Mexico, the North was at war with the South but the wounds mostly die with the generation that experienced it. In the middle east they've been fighting for 2000 years and every conflict reopens a wound that never heals.
Of course religion has its good sides, I think a lot of people behave better than they might have because they think God/Allah is watching or it affects their karma. So it's not just irrational evil, it's also irrational good. Mostly just irrational and mostly harmless, really I don't care if you want to bend knee and pray to the FSM or have your own diet because FSM said eating something is unclean or the FSM told you not to work on a Sunday or whatever. As long as you got it dialed down to mostly quaint and charming.
The age of the square, visible pixel was actually a pretty short period between blurry CRTs and retina LCDs. Pixel art was originally created for CRT, which blurs the pixels. Artists developed techniques to take advantage of this.
Going by your UID, I'm guessing you were too young to have been there. The glory days of pixel art was the 80s and early 90s with resolutions of 320x240 and less as well as 4-256 colors simply because you had no other choice. Those were very visible, even on the CRT. A good example is comparing TES II: Daggerfall, released in 1996 which was the last of the "pixelated" generation with 320x200x256 color and TES III: Morrowind in 2002, which was a damn beauty with up to 1600x1200x16.7mio color and all of this while CRTs were dominating.
Of course you could still see here and there that it was pixels and not retina-class, anti-aliased super smooth ultra realistic graphics - it's not hard to see it's a computer game and not real life, but clearly they were going for being as realistic as possible and not a stylized "pixel art" form. LCDs might have raised the standard a bit on the level of detail you need, but they aren't very relevant at all as to why pixel art exists in the first place. It's more like a game board piece, enough to see what it is and make it an interactive part of the game but not even trying to be realistic.
Of course the usual way has just been to use Flash, Java, Silverlight or some other NPAPI plug-in to provide the DRM. That API is 20 years old from Netscape Navigator 2.0 and honestly nobody likes it much. Microsoft has always pushed ActiveX for IE, Chrome prefers their PPAPI they launched 6 years ago and Firefox calls plug-ins a legacy technology. Many mobile browsers don't support traditional plug-ins of any kind. But it's not going to go away as long as it's the only way to play DRM'd content under Firefox.
So it's a compromise, you get the EME which is going to be a far more limited API isolated in a security sandbox to decrypt DRM'd video and audio streams and with that Firefox hopes to deprecate NPAPI and proprietary plugins for everything else. No flash, no java, no silverlight or anything like that just HTML/CSS/Javascript (open source) + EME (sandbox + closed source). It's just that it has never been in Mozilla's nature to compromise when there's overwhelming evidence they can't win, they'd rather stick by their guns and lose.
According to StatCounter, they had 32% marketshare in November 2009, now they're down to 17%. If you add in mobile where they have nearly no presence they're now fourth after Safari and IE. They're not going to achieve much of anything by pushing their remaining users away from them, it's the curse of populism. To actually be in a position to change anything, you must have the support of enough people to enact change. And in this particular case, I don't think they'll get many to join them in a boycott of Netflix and other DRM-using services.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost no nation can pay off all of their debts right now. The Greeks are basically being told to either capitulate or find some way, without further borrowing, to pay off all of their debts in short order. To put this in prospective, what if somebody told you that you had to pay off all of your student loans this month and your home mortgage next month. Even people with good jobs couldn't do this. The same with nations.
Bullshit. The largest creditor to Greece is the EFSF and they're not paying a dime on the principal until 2023. They're choking just trying to pay interest and no, taking up more credit card debt to pay off this month's credit card bill is not a sustainable way to go. They do have a problem in that their GDP is going down, meaning they earn less to pay interest with. That will eventually make paying back the principal harder too, but that's not their short or even medium-term problem. They can't even manage their debt, much less repay any of it.
Keep in mind that the past four years of bank loans from the ECB have not been to save Greece. What they were really designed to do was to keep the card game running long enough to let EU insiders and favored national banks unload Greek bonds, and to reduce their exposure to Greek default risks long enough to put European taxpayers onto the hook in the inevitable event of a Greek default. They pretended to save Greece, and Greece pretended to reform. And now here we are.
Yes, today >75% of Greek's debt is either the EFSF, ECB, bilateral loans from EU members or the IMF. Some was bought significantly below the nominal value though, so the net loss will be somewhat less. Of course at the time they very reasonably feared another wave of dominoes falling, either in the banking market or due to a jump in national debt interest rates. They bought time to show the other countries are past the peak and on a slow recovery and they built a giant insulating buffer. Some got bailed out, but Greece may also fall without triggering another crisis in the EU economy.
This is why I don't think Greece really understands the position they're in now compared to the position they were in a few years ago. The Greek government is pushing the EU into a corner where it would be politically unacceptable to make it look like Syriza won. At the same time everybody can see that the austerity isn't working very well, so if the EU decides it's better to let them crash and rebuild and at the same time put the blame at Syriza's feet now might be a great time. They're not just playing with fire, they've set themselves on fire and is gambling that the EU will put it out.
Millions of subscribers? You have trouble nowadays convincing people that we went to the moon in the first place. Even the worst television series has more views than any (real) space-related stuff.
That aside, watching a mars rover live is like watching paint dry. Opportunity has a top speed of 0.18 km/h and on average it has moved 10 meters a day. It spent over 11 years on a marathon that runners on Earth do in two hours. Everything else it does is equally slow, it makes a sloth seem energetic. The reason is of course that it's running on a tiiiiiiiny trickle of power, but it doesn't make for great entertainment. It's like for example CERN, you get a huge splash when they find the Higgs boson but between that it's months and years between something newsworthy happening.
And while I'm not inclined to draw a conclusion from this, it is interesting that we've had quite a few very high intelligences in our society over time. None of them have posed an "existential crisis" for the the planet, the the human race, or my cats. Smart people tend ot have better things to do than annoy others... also, they can anticipate consequences. Will this apply to "very smart machines"? Your guess (might be) as good as mine. It's almost certainly better than Musk's or Gates', since we know they were clueless enough to speak out definitively on a subject they don't (can't) know anything about. Hawking likewise, didn't mean to leave him out.
Well, maybe not the actual scientists but there are quite a few dead cultures and species wiped out because guns and bullets beats spears and claws. And I don't think anyone doubts Oppenheimer was a bright guy, even though he wasn't the one dropping the nukes. Since you mention cats, would you like an AI treating you like you treat the cats? My guess is you would not, particularly not when they decide we're too fickle and resource hungry and would rather not have cats.
The reason I'm not worried is because we have no clue on how to build systems with self-awareness. The software is running, but the computer can't look at itself in the mirror and realize I need electricity and CPUs and RAM sticks to "live". Wake me up when we have a computer that can actually refuse me from hitting the off switch.
As for trapped AI, you should all see Ex Machina, great movie.
The scripture from earlier confirms to those of us who trust in the promise of God's kingdom --and who see dozens of bible promises already fulfilled-
Pardon me, I might be one of those godless heathens but I suffered through quite a few years of Christian teachings - what exactly has the Bible promised us apart from forgiveness from our sins and heavenly bliss in the afterlife? The old testament was as I remember it mostly punishments. Punishment for eating the apple, building Babel's tower, Sodom and Gomorrah and of course the flood to wipe out everything. We're all sinners from the original sin and if we don't repent it's hell.
The new testament was pretty much all allegories on how we should live, there were a few "one-off" miracles while Jesus lived but all those who saw him raise the dead, turn water to wine or walk on water has been dead for 2000 years. So there's good and evil in the world, but that's pretty indistinguishable from good and bad people with free will without God or Satan pulling anyone's strings.
So I'm curious, what is it you feel God has promised? And what do see that makes you feel he's delivered? Because I can't find a lick of difference, the devout believers get injured, sick and die like the rest of us and terrible sins go by without being struck down from the heavens. It's of course possible that all of this gets tallied up and justice is served in the afterlife, but here and now in this life I can't find any sign of God. Maybe I should ask this in the opposite direction, if you were to envision a world without God what exactly would be different?
Look, I understand what you're trying to say. If they're trying to hide their atrocities we should expose them, if they're using them as propaganda and to terrorize we should suppress them. But as a guideline that would be very confusing and hard to live by since it assumes you know the details of every conflict and who wants what, assuming they're all in agreement which they're probably not. Not to mention the answer is probably (d) all of the above, some are inspired to fight against the atrocities, some are frightened by them and some are cheering them on.
Every year we send busloads of teens to visit Nazi concentration camps, not because we have some morbid fascination with death camps and genocide but because at some point you have to learn how cruel human beings can be to each other. But that is quickly fading out of living memory, it's 70 years since the war ended so those who really remember the war is in their 80s and 90s by now. Very soon it'll be "museum" knowledge that you read about in a book and look at an exhibit and it's going to be filed away as ancient history. But it's not, because there's still shit like that going on but we're not sure if we want to see it or not.
I'll admit that watching cruelty will make you die a little inside. You will want to punch something or maybe cry a bit, but at the end of the day I want the truth about the world not the PG-rated version. Which is of course not to say you should lose perspective, with 7 billion people it'll seem like anything you focus on happens a lot even if it deals with 0.01% of the population or less. And I'm here in the safety of my living room looking at a screen, I'm not the one in a war zone getting shot at. I'm not the one hoping nobody will bomb the market I go to. I'm not the soldier who needs to pull the trigger risking that innocents die if I do or die if I don't. I still got it easy.
Not really. I believe there is a clean hands doctrine that says if your inaction has amplified the harm then you might not get relief for that. For example if you live in the downstairs apartment and notice water is leaking from the upstairs apartment but don't do anything to stop it or limit the damage because you'd rather get the insurance money you can get cut short. It's a lot trickier with an IP issue, is it a lump transfer or an ongoing violation but I think it has most the characteristics of the former where you take a half-finished product and hand it to someone else to finish. In that case there's no harm in delaying apart from the statute of limitations.
Let's say I'm in an accident with you, but it seems at first to not be a big deal and I don't sue for damages. However it turns out it won't heal properly and I lose a lot of money and decide to sue anyway. Am I too late? No, those costs aren't caused by the delay, they'd come no matter what and it won't count against me. Of course I'm not in the US, there you find the nearest ambulance chaser and sue for $millions, unless it was a hobo that hurt you.
And yet it's an obvious case for cheap political rhetoric, "What do you mean that's never going to happen? You're sitting there making plans for it right now!" I don't think you should underestimate the explosive power of contingency plans. For example in a supply chain you might have a contingency plan in case your business partners, vendor or distribution network turn shit but nobody's going to like that you have a plan to stab them in the back. And there's always those who willingly or unintentionally confuse planning in case of failure with planning for failure.
TL;DR: Some things you should just keep your mouth shut about, even if makes sense.
Well, we sure didn't get into it to write boring business applications except a few in the dotcom years who quickly moved on when it went bust. As I remember it though, there were many who just wanted to play games and only a few who wanted work with code and I don't think pushing them to play more would have brought them over. Of course you needed the opportunity, but there are a lot of games that are mod-friendly if you're so inclined. I'd sure encourage and test if tweaking a game peeks their interest, but if it doesn't I wouldn't try with more game time.
It means it's closed source!
Missing codecs: AAC, H.264, MP3
Missing plug-in: flash
So either patents or not their code, if you got a good solution for that I'm sure Google would like to hear it.
I don't think you have to come up with that many conspiracy theories, Mozilla's "problem" is that they won. They broke Microsoft's monopoly, made HTML/CSS properly standardized and together with KHTML/WebKit/Blink some 80% use an open source renderer though many use it in a closed source binary. Microsoft would be laughed at if they tried any new proprietary extensions and for the rest the implementation details are all in the open.
I'm talking of the unwanted UI changes. Then there were the release frequency changes that broke extensions every release for a long time. Then there were more unwanted UI changes, cumulating in the despised Australis UI. Then there was the switch to Yahoo for searches. There were the grid advertisements. Then there was the mandatory HTTPS proposal. Now there's this nonsense. All of this is being done when there are still many bugs to fix, some of them existing for years.
Their problem can be summed up in two words: "Now what?" and it turns out they didn't really have any other goal in common than slaying the dragon and now the dragon's dead. Some UX designers get to make an art project. Some cowboy coders thinks more releases is better. Some will do anything to get away from the reliance on their biggest competitor. Some security nuts get to go overboard. Some want to go after Android/Chrome OS with Firefox OS, but this time they're not competing against proprietary and neglected shovelware and barking up a tree Ubuntu has made essentially no progress on.
Let's face it, Mozilla mainly won because Microsoft was trying to keep the web from competing with local applications so they could sell Windows licenses, they got to the head of the pack and grinded it to a halt. They didn't want to compete, they wanted to put a spanner in the works for as long as possible. It annoyed many and gave Firefox enormous amounts of goodwill even when it didn't work properly, out of spite for Microsoft people kept using it and pushing for sites to support it. They don't have a clue on how to compete with someone that puts up a fight, which is their second biggest problem.
An asteroid may kill a lot of people, but it will not cause global extinction. No asteroid strike has ever completely wiped out life on earth.
Isn't that argument a bit like "I plan to live forever, so far so good"? After all, if it did wipe out all life well then we'd be dead so obviously it hasn't happened yet. Some large extinction event seem to happen once every 50-100 million years, what does a once in a billion year event look like? Ceres, the biggest object in the asteroid belt is about a million times bigger (10^20 kg vs 10^14 kg) than the dino killer. That one isn't going anywhere, but there's clearly quite a few potential total extinction candidates if they came to intersect with Earth's orbit.
Excessive hyperbole is silly, yes...
Each year that passes sees roughly a 0.0000005% chance of a species-threatening asteroid coming our way, while real threatsâS - âSenvironmental, medical and political (i.e., war)âS -âScould literally wipe us off the face of the Earth in the blink of an eye.
Global warming is a sloooooooooooooooooow process and even if you burned every bit of coal and oil you wouldn't make Canada into Sahara, it's hardly an extinction level event. A modern day pandemic could presumably kill millions, but it's hardly an existential threat to the human race. Same goes for total thermonuclear war, there's be a lot of direct deaths and many more indirects deads from nuclear winter and starvation but not enough to wipe us out.
Tsar Bomba (most powerful nuke): 50 MT
Chicxulub asteroid (dino killer): 100,000,000 MT
We're not even remotely in the same league. The odds are small that it happens tomorrow but in terms of "worst case" asteroids have everything us humans can come up with beat by far.
I can only come up with the obvious client-side encryption, but will the network as a whole still be able to use the data as it's supposed to (in this case; find adult friends)?
This. It seems sexual preferences, age and location is rather essential for the service they provide and email, well how else are they going to notify you that someone has taken an interest in you or that you got a reply? You can't ask a doctor to not work with medical data, there's of course good and poor security but at the end of the day if there's a total system compromise you're screwed.
How could you protect against this?
Best practice seems to be as follows:
1. Public facing server makes web service call to locked down proxy server.
2. Proxy server validates every request thoroughly, everything that looks even remotely funny is rejected.
3. Proxy server queries stored procedure in locked down database, no SELECT * for you.
4. The results are serialized back to XML and sent to the public facing server for display.
A lot of work if you want to do it right, but you get a fairly good barrier to a total breach from the outside. Of course they could compromise your web server and start harvesting data, but you should have some sort of tripwire system for that with audits and logs checking for abnormal activity.
The other way in is of course from your network, if they can compromise someone on the inside with database access or developers to plant vulnerabilities that'll go into the production system. But that's usually a much tougher route and really no different from breaking into any other secure network.
I could go on an on about the differences between an Engineer, a Tech, a Manager, and a Team lead. It sounds like what you are looking for in a manager is really a team lead position.
Formally, you could be right. Informally, both the team leader and manager hat usually end up on the same person, even if he lacks one title or the other. If you haven't got a team lead it's pretty obvious, if you do have a team lead then in my experience the manager does the HR/administrative bits and leave the actual work management to the team lead or the project manager if you work on a project.
For example, with no formal title I basically had the responsibility to:
1) Execute the actual project
2) Delegate as possible to the two juniors
3) Support the two juniors
4) Train the two juniors
Sure, there was a project manager dealing with the contract and formal contact with the client. There was a manager dealing with formal HR bits. But I felt I was a bit project manager, a bit team lead, a bit manager and a bit mentor all at once. It was a constant prioritization between:
1) What must I do to get the project done?
2) What can I delegate to free up my time?
3) What should I delegate to teach them?
4) What should we walk through together?
When you're in practice managing 100% of their time, you get all the hats whether you want to or not.
"More useful" by whose definition? Money is llike water - it can only generate power if it's moving. That 'useful stuff' you speak of often looks like putting the money behind a dam, where it does nothing to stimulate the economy. Consumption, on the other hand, drives the economy.
That's a fairly flawed interpretation, globally all that is consumed must be produced so the only way to raise total consumption is to increase total production. If we consume more than we produce we run a deficit and are either living off means we already have or incurring a debt, which means we've spent less in the past or will spend less in the future. Increasing consumption won't grow the economy as such.
However circulation helps the economy find the most efficient means to produce what we want so I pay McDonald's because it's cheaper than growing and harvesting and cooking my own meal. They again buy from their suppliers and so on stretching your money so you get more for less, but all of this is because of advantages of scale. The value-add comes from us being more efficient when we're specialized, not because we play musical chairs with our money.
One has to give it to AMD. Despite their stock and sales taking a battering, they have consistently refused to let go of cutting edge innovation. If anything, their CPU team should learn something from their GPU team.
Well unlike their CPU division the GPU division hasn't been the one bleeding massive amounts of cash, at least not until the GTX 970/980 generation from nVidia. Though with the R300 OEM series being a R200 rebrand they seem to be running out of steam, one limited quantity HBM card won't fix their lineup.
This kind of power savings combined with increased bandwidth cna be a potential game changer. You can finally have a lightweight thin gaming laptop that can still do 1080p resolution at high detail levels for modern games.
You still need power for shaders that is about 80-90% of a GPU's power consumption. In fact, AMDs problem is that even if they could swap out the GDDR5 for HBM today they still lose on performance/watt to nVidia's Maxwell 2. And the interposer is basically a giant semi-processed silicon die, it might be good for performance but it's probably not good for cost.
Anyway, the slides are kinda impressive just like with their Zen processor and whatnot. But AMD has a rather poor track record of delivering products on schedule that live up to their hype. It's now been eight months since nVidia launched the GTX970/980 and we're still waiting for something new from AMD. You can't win if you don't get your tech into products and ship them.
Smart phones killed dead time, if you have five minutes riding the bus or whatever and you can rather instantly find/read/check anything you might need which is rather convenient. It's rather limited how entertained you can get while driving a car, since your attention is legally required to be on the road. And if you're only two you're usually socially required to be in the front seat making conversation, not zone out in the entertainment system. Really it's most kids in the back seat who get to do that and then why not on their cell phone or tablet or 3DS or whatever? You need a significant value-add to make up for the fact that it's stuck in the car. And as long as you're driving, the car's handling is going to be a big deal.
Now if we're talking a self-driving car where it's really my en-route entertainment center that's an entirely different matter. You just tell the car where to go and it goes, how it is to drive doesn't matter. It probably doesn't even matter if it takes a few minutes longer because you got to play another round of Candy Crush. In this case, yes having an Android/iPhone dock so it could integrate with the rest of my entertainment world makes sense. Until then, I'll be busy limping along bumper-to-bumper listening to the radio....
Unlike what Hollywood thinks not all problems are solved simply by running across a border. Have you ever: tried to get a passport for a minor without the other parent's signature? tried to travel as the sole parent of a minor? tried to enter a country as the sole parent of a minor?
Went on two weeks vacation to the US from Norway with my cousin when I was 16, zero parents seemed to work just fine. Of course I already had a passport, in Europe that's like travelling to another state. I'm assuming my cousin had some kind of permission slip though I never saw it, but that seems easy to forge. And with all sorts of long-distance relationships and immigrants travelling back and forth I really can't imagine crossing the border with one parent raising any flags unless the child's name already is on a kidnapping victim list.
I call bullshit. This is simply another step down a slippery slope that removes more personal responsibility. This is the very definition of the nanny State.
Well, the article is just a fluff piece saying that how you build the interface affects the results and that this can have consequences. Which is actually not such an unreasonable thing to say, as long as you don't take the concept too far. For one concrete example I know of from a hospital system, the software said pretty much "Nothing more to register so closing healthcare contact" when it actually meant to say "Warning, hospital visit registered but no further patient follow-ups scheduled. If you proceed the patient's treatment will end and case will be closed."
This was in production code found in a review trying to find how the hospital could "lose" patients. The message was technically correct, but it was also extremely misleading when the nurse had forgot to register a follow-up. One seemingly harmless confirmation and the patient could end up not getting chemo for their cancer unless the doctor noticed the patient was missing or the patient followed up himself. So the developers of the system should absolutely take some responsibility for making sure the system makes it easy to do the right thing and very hard to do the wrong thing, not just technically correct.
Another much hotly debated topic is defaults, because people have a tendency to overuse defaults. The problem is when 99.9% are the default but the 0.1% is actually important to register. Did you skip past the point with allergies when the patient actually is hyperallergic to peanuts? Ouch. People are not machines, they hate doing things that are 99.9% unnecessary even if you tell them that you checking that box is their proof that you remembered to ask the patient and a default won't do that. Like security, completeness and correctness often comes at a cost in usability too. It all depends on what matters more.
I don't doubt that there are some exceptions, possibly even some motivated enough to be slightly dangerous; but those people I've met who actively want religion to die out (as opposed to merely being atheists personally, or apathetic toward metaphysics) specifically want it do die out by persuasion rather than persecution.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeell.... not by persecution, but I'm not sure by persuasion either. Most of those fed up with religion consider it just a silly superstition and don't really see the point of discussing it any more than the Loch Ness monster or if a black cat crossing the road brings you bad luck. They realize they can't talk you out of an irrational belief, they just want it to go away and will probably act more with derision than persuasion.
I'm fairly certain humanity would find plenty of reasons to wage war if religions were not around to blame it on.
For sure, there's plenty examples of people of the same religion going to war over various reasons like land, resources, geopolitical reasons, wars of oppression, wars of liberation, power and control with wars of succession and so on. But for most of the genuine atrocities you need more, you need such a burning hate for the opposition that you're willing to slaughter down women and children and burn their cities to the ground. Where simply victory isn't enough, only total submission or even extermination. Religion is a very common fuel for such hate.
When fighting for resources you're also looking for a "return on investment", you have to gain enough to be worth going to war. That you can usually defend against by rational investments in defense, making it too costly to be worth it. Irrational wars fueled by hatred often don't care, a civil war might tear the whole country apart and leave it in ruins as long as the infidels die. The Germans fought the allies all the way back to Berlin, the Japanese until they were nuked. Twice. Neither made sense, it was death before surrender.
Of course you can say that was mostly racism, not religion though I'm pretty sure the Holocaust was a good dose of both though Nazi Germany certainly fought a lot of other nominally Christian nations. Religion is also a very lasting divide. Germany fought most of Europe, now they're a key member of the EU. The US was at war with Mexico, the North was at war with the South but the wounds mostly die with the generation that experienced it. In the middle east they've been fighting for 2000 years and every conflict reopens a wound that never heals.
Of course religion has its good sides, I think a lot of people behave better than they might have because they think God/Allah is watching or it affects their karma. So it's not just irrational evil, it's also irrational good. Mostly just irrational and mostly harmless, really I don't care if you want to bend knee and pray to the FSM or have your own diet because FSM said eating something is unclean or the FSM told you not to work on a Sunday or whatever. As long as you got it dialed down to mostly quaint and charming.
The age of the square, visible pixel was actually a pretty short period between blurry CRTs and retina LCDs. Pixel art was originally created for CRT, which blurs the pixels. Artists developed techniques to take advantage of this.
Going by your UID, I'm guessing you were too young to have been there. The glory days of pixel art was the 80s and early 90s with resolutions of 320x240 and less as well as 4-256 colors simply because you had no other choice. Those were very visible, even on the CRT. A good example is comparing TES II: Daggerfall, released in 1996 which was the last of the "pixelated" generation with 320x200x256 color and TES III: Morrowind in 2002, which was a damn beauty with up to 1600x1200x16.7mio color and all of this while CRTs were dominating.
Of course you could still see here and there that it was pixels and not retina-class, anti-aliased super smooth ultra realistic graphics - it's not hard to see it's a computer game and not real life, but clearly they were going for being as realistic as possible and not a stylized "pixel art" form. LCDs might have raised the standard a bit on the level of detail you need, but they aren't very relevant at all as to why pixel art exists in the first place. It's more like a game board piece, enough to see what it is and make it an interactive part of the game but not even trying to be realistic.
Of course the usual way has just been to use Flash, Java, Silverlight or some other NPAPI plug-in to provide the DRM. That API is 20 years old from Netscape Navigator 2.0 and honestly nobody likes it much. Microsoft has always pushed ActiveX for IE, Chrome prefers their PPAPI they launched 6 years ago and Firefox calls plug-ins a legacy technology. Many mobile browsers don't support traditional plug-ins of any kind. But it's not going to go away as long as it's the only way to play DRM'd content under Firefox.
So it's a compromise, you get the EME which is going to be a far more limited API isolated in a security sandbox to decrypt DRM'd video and audio streams and with that Firefox hopes to deprecate NPAPI and proprietary plugins for everything else. No flash, no java, no silverlight or anything like that just HTML/CSS/Javascript (open source) + EME (sandbox + closed source). It's just that it has never been in Mozilla's nature to compromise when there's overwhelming evidence they can't win, they'd rather stick by their guns and lose.
According to StatCounter, they had 32% marketshare in November 2009, now they're down to 17%. If you add in mobile where they have nearly no presence they're now fourth after Safari and IE. They're not going to achieve much of anything by pushing their remaining users away from them, it's the curse of populism. To actually be in a position to change anything, you must have the support of enough people to enact change. And in this particular case, I don't think they'll get many to join them in a boycott of Netflix and other DRM-using services.