Speaking as someone who does such cost estimating professionally, I can assure you that EVERY project like this has the costs evaluated long before anyone breaks ground. A company would have to be insane to not have conducted the due diligence on every aspect of a project of this scale. They have to evaluate if there is a satisfactory ROI. They have to have some sort of idea what it ought to cost so that they can know how things are going. They have to budget the money. Of course there will be cost variances but you can't even begin to manage a project like this unless you have some idea what it should cost.
Oh, there will be plans. Realistic plans? Well.... I've worked in a supporting role to some fairly big projects and there's a few things that strike me:
1) Huge projects generally have the biggest uncertainties. It'd be easy to think the opposite, the bigger the stakes the more sure you want to be that you're right but that's not really the case. While small to medium projects have some rather tangible goals under current conditions, the huge ones generally involve more conjecture on where the company, market and technology is going and is heavily mixed up with the corporate strategy. In addition they're a lot more one of the kind, unlike smaller projects where you have a lot more guidance and experience on how similar projects have been.
2) Huge projects typically involve a lot of major decisions that may be a boon to some parts of your organization while negatively affecting others, obviously this a major factor in political decisions but also internally you get a lot of actors who act in their own interest rather than the business as a whole, for example because it plans to eliminate or centralize some functions or focus on some technologies, products, services and locations in favor of others. Don't expect your SQL Server guru to be happy for a move to Oracle or vice versa.
3) As a consequence of points 1) and 2) above, you often get a lot of bad data as input. In particular, you tend to get a lot of overly optimistic estimates of costs, schedules and quality or that casually neglects to mention related costs that it is likely to incur and that are hard to fact-check while sales and savings are wildly exaggerated. Naturally the other side is equally biased in the other direction, so real neutral assessments are hard to come by. It doesn't help that the time scale is such that by the time failure is obvious many of the ones who made the decisions have left for other jobs or retired.
What's even worse is that in many cases the people who grossly oversold their position are the ones rewarded because it's incredibly hard to back out of a high visibility project, it's expensive and it makes the executives who agreed to it incompetent. Lesser projects and their owners/managers have the chance to be chewed out by their superiors, but when it goes all the way to the top you're way more likely to throw good money after bad to keep the project going rather than wave the white flag and declare it a miserable failure. That's how you get overruns of hundreds of millions of dollars and up.
NoCrack seems extremely vulnerable to a crack since they create decoys on the fly. It should be fairly trivial to pick it apart and tell when you're getting a real password from the vault. As for the stateless password managers, they operate without any kind of wallet which is their problem. Also you can't change password for any reason, that's a problem too. If you have a wallet most the problems go away. I'm thinking as follows:
The wallet stores a PRNG value to avoid various rainbow attacks. For each site/login the wallet stores a 128-bit PRNG and how to extract the the password from the hash.
Upon entering a password, the software shows you: a) The fingerprint of SHA1(unique key+password) in some user friendly way so you might realize a mistyped password b) For each site/login SHA1(unique key + password + site/login key).toBase64().substring(startPos, length)
For example, When I generate the wallet, there's a random seed. Lets say it's 1234567890abcdef. I add a site/login called "Slashdot" and it generates a site key: 1122334455667788
My password is "go fish" When I type it in, it generates SHA1(1234567890abcdef + "go fish") = "PFr7t9qfAP9PFVG0+Vvbez82rW8=" and I know that if I type the password right it should start with PFr... something.
My hash for slashdot is SHA1(1234567890abcdef + 1122334455667788 + "go fish") = "8ktw2l8XVdI81/6TvEcg5EbxJ90="
I pick some part of that which satisifies this site's requirements like "ktw2l8XV" and the wallet stores (openly) that it'll take startPos = 2, length = 8. If nothing works because the site is weird, I can always generate a new site key and I'll get a new string to choose from.
If you type something other than "go fish", you'll get a different set of passwords but no indication whether it's right or wrong. Some of those passwords might fail the site's passwords requirements, but that's a very weak elimination.
Isn't that what this really boils down, not some bullshit about masculinity? Women watch soap operas because it's more exciting than their boring life, men play video games so we can be greater than the insignificant little peons that we are. And in porn the most beautiful women will perform for you even if you're fatter than the marshmallow man and uglier than a troll. We have immersive enough solutions that the body is fooled to play out almost all its chemical registry with endorphin, adrenaline, dopamine and so on letting you fake all the excitement and rewards as you slay imaginary dragons.
The problem is that it's addictive and desensitizing, if you're on a constant rush of awards and achievements and level-ups and whatnot then real life is a real downer. Not entirely unlike how I hear people on drugs describe coming off their high or how fat people act when they come off a sugar rush. So through a combination of actual reality check, batting outside your league because of failed self-perception and being poor at handling disinterest or rejection the result is often a painful face-plant. Once bitten, twice shy so you rather watch porn and play video games than try again.
You missed a rather significant point in the article. Two of those accidents happened when a human WAS in control of the car (which was how they know it wasn't the car's fault), so NO, a human would not have done better at avoidance. The fact that of the 4 accidents that happened, none of them were the car's fault is more significant than the 10% rat.
I don't see how two of them should be meaningfully counted under any circumstances. They could just have it drive itself out of the parking lot and let a human do the rest, the autonomous system would never be at fault. If the car's not driving, it's just a plain old ordinary human-operated car. You don't count the miles, you don't count the accidents.
When any specific humans has 4 accident driving cars, on average exactly 50% of them were caused by that specific human.
Actually only about 90% of accidents are attributed to driver error, the rest is mechanical failure like a tire blowing out or environmental like a tree falling across the road. And there's solo accidents and chain collisions, so it's not given that there's two parties involved. I don't know what the percentage is, but it's probably not 50%.
The autonomous may not have been at fault, but one wonders whether some of the accidents would have been avoidable by a fleshy driver.
In theory or as in a representative sample of the driving population? I'm guessing it's pretty hard to get a good answer to what we would do. At any rate, my prediction is that we'd do better with one less fleshy driver instead of one more.
Third type of website is a public service. Maybe you're not making money off it, but people like it. An example of this would be: Capgeek. Its owner got sick and passed away. No one runs it anymore because he put a lot of work into it, and no one could maintain it.
But this is exactly why a zombie site doesn't do any good. You need somebody to be your heir, which goes beyond simply the funds to keep the lights on. If you don't have any line of succession set up, make arrangements in your will to add a message to the site saying I've passed, here's a zip of the entire site, if you want to carry the torch feel free for your own name under your own domain. You can't just offer free money and a domain name, somebody will just take the money and use the domain for squatting for ad revenue. Or you could go the formal route and establish a trust, but I imagine that's overkill and the trust manager will take a fair chunk of cash for that.
Ask your boss. You no doubt signed away the copyright to the code you write for work, so you'll likely need explicit permission from them.
It's already the default, at least in the US any "work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment" belong to the company. That generally means anything done as part of your work duties or using company resources including but not limited to your working hours, computers or intellectual property. The courts will generally side against you if you come up with a solution for something that's naturally related to your job duties too, you can't research the problem at work then go home and write down the solution claiming it was independently developed.
He might be good friends with his boss, but his boss is probably going to send this to legal and from there it can go spectacularly bad. For example they might start to think he's disloyal and holding back things or stealing ideas to put in his own work for his would-be contractor life. I wouldn't try pulling off a stunt like this unless I'm prepared to be fired and anything you do make on your own gone over with a fine tooth comb. It might also go over a lot nicer than that, but I'd rather build a nest egg and take my chances as a contractor. What he's doing now seems high risk compared to that.
Every write, not every read. Reads are satisfied as soon as either drive returns the data. And if the raid controller has a battery or supercap so it can cache writes, you'll almost never notice the difference.
Ah, I thought RAID1 would warn you somehow of bit flips which I assume would be the way heat-deteriorated storage would show up. Guess it won't, you'll need ZFS or something like that.
Bring laptop with SSD to Death Valley, leave it in the car stuck in the sun and go hiking. How long until your data is in trouble? However, I just looked at the specs for the Samsung 840 EVO, since it was the first to pop up:
Temperature Operating: 0C to 70C Non-Operating: -55C to 95C
I would assume the 95C is with data? It would be a rather small caveat if the drive survived but your data was fried.
Uhh... doesn't that mean that the RAID controller has to wait for the HDD on every read/write to verify it's the same as on the SSD, so effectively you get HDD performance?
A large machine that takes a couple of guys a day to set it up on site, and then one babysitter to produce an insulated watertight structure with reinforcement and plumbing/electrical channels already there, eliminating most roofing, bricklaying, cement,... guys seems entirely likely in the 20 year timescale.
Actually it's more traditional mass production at work, I do have a friend that works in the construction industry and modular housing is the big thing. Like for example bathrooms are fairly expensive with membranes, heat cables, tiles, plumbing and whatnot, the smaller ones just come on a trailer from a low cost country. Just hook up electricity, water and sewage and you're done. In apartment blocks they sometimes do whole apartments this way, for more custom buildings there's wall modules and such. Less and less is actually built on site, at best it's assembled.
And at least according to my friend though he might be somewhat biased but he's done both, the modular builds have fewer faults. Instead of unique builds depending on the job performance that day the modules have strong consistency and a pretty decent QA system. Even though the deliveries are more standardized the buyers are usually okay with that, just like there's a limited number of car models usually you're fine with getting one that suits your needs. What you need carpenters/plumbers/electricians for is now often aftermarket repairs/changes, not construction.
Knowing the business? That's what project managers and other management-y types are for (or so they think). You and I know that a software engineer who is well versed in a certain business will design better systems, for example, but I've not once seen a manager that believes this way.
Huh, what? Project managers are typically generic drop-in process experts with PMP/Prince2 certification, there's usually a business analyst or reference group that are the subject matter experts. You might say project managers would do better with domain knowledge too, but that's ofte not the case unless it's just a side job to being the one designing/implementing it.
A lot of tech workers seem to get confused and think their value to their employer is in the skills they have. That's true, partly. But I'd say at least half of being successful at any job -- and maybe even 80 percent -- involves interpersonal skills. How well do you work within the team? How able are you to anticipate what the business needs and act on that? In cases where there's a leadership vacuum, can you fill it? And then when it's time to follow directions, can you still do it?
That's not really how it works, I don't know anyone who outsources one position. You make an assessment of your onshore team, you make an assessment of the offshore offering and you either do it or you don't. It doesn't matter if you're the star of the team or the glue that keeps them all together, if you're kicked to the curb it's all of you or none of you. Even if you're kept on you're just there to smoothen ruffled feathers until the offshore team are the ones running it, your new job is to be their coach until you've made yourself redundant.
For example, thought it's not outsourcing as such my government recently decided to move certain public offices out of the capital. This is a political move far, far above the individual employee and they do expect some competency will be lost but it's still going to happen. Individual skills will not protect against this, only practical or legal reasons why outsourcing is unfeasible. Any sensitive data for example is usually a giant PITA to move out of your jurisdiction to workers who aren't bound by your national laws. More practical reasons can be because you're working too close with the clients, they need on-site availability, it integrates too closely with hardware or anything else that makes on-site presence necessary.
Sadly this is a kick in the nuts to remote workers, as much as I'd really like a job I could do from anywhere I know then I'd also be in intense competition with the whole world. Because the value of my work doesn't come down to any of the above really, it comes down to supply and demand. Of course you can't expect massive demand but a stable niche you know they'll need for a long time where only a few can meet the requirements is usually a very safe spot. Like my current job I can't do shit from home, it's quite inconvenient but hell will freeze over before it's outsourced to India.
People used to complain about 4chan, but when the God damn 70 year olds figured out Disqus they turned out to be much more heartless and disgusting trolls than any 13 year olds. The 13 year olds try to pretend to be racist sexist sh**s but the old people are THE REAL THING. The kids will grow out of it.
I'm not so sure it's about "growing out of it", it's mostly about who really means it and who just kicks where it hurts. The latter is "just" part of bullying and could just as well be that you're fat, skinny, tall, short, glasses, freckles, divorce kid, clothes, anything really. Those who really divide the world into superior and inferior remain bigots, those who just did it to harass mostly grows out of it. Or graduate to internet trolls, where there's apparently no age limit.
It is just as much of a logical fallacy to use past examples of times not changing as proof that times are not changing now. If someone cries wolf, past cryings of wolf do not change the probability that there is a wolf.
But it does mean that people moaning about today's youth is a useless indicator, like a broken clock is right twice a day. In fact that's giving it more credit than it deserves because it implies a situation we know is true once in a while. I can cry out about unicorns every day, it doesn't change the probability that there really is a unicorns. Mostly because there's no proof that unicorns exist at all. Has there ever really been a generation that's been so much terribly worse than the last?
Do you have any sources for this "breaking it down on age, education, grades, jobs, actual experience (part-time vs full-time, overtime, time on leave) you find that most these differences disappear"?
I'm afraid most my primary sources are in Norwegian since I live in Norway, but I can start here. On average, women have an income of 326400 NOK and men 487800 NOK so about 67%, unfair right? Well, first of all 5.6% less of working age are in the workforce (77.1% vs 82.7%), I can't be bothered to cross-reference with medical or unemployment data but it's mostly stay-at-home moms, not that they're unable to work or unable to find work. In addition 34.7% of women work part time compared to 13.9% of men and without having the exact data here also overtime is male dominated.
Together when you plug those into the facts and compare full-time equivalents to full-time equivalents you find females make 87% of what men do. Breaking it down further this study (PDF) show that women prefer lower income, more risk adverse educations. This is also reflected in that the private sector is 36% women and the public sector 70% women, which generally is safer and pays less. In the study they find:
While the men in the application data have mean lifetime earnings of 12.46M NOK, weighting with the first choice probabilities, women have a corresponding mean lifetime earnings of 11.20M NOK, or about 10 percent less.
So now you're down to about a 3% unexplained difference. Now I'm entering a very touchy subject which I can't properly back up with data but my guess it's primarily maternity leave, as in Norway you have a total of 52 weeks, usually split into 42 weeks maternal leave and 10 weeks paternal leave and on average 1,78 births per woman. It makes some employers reluctant to hire women around 30 as they can't ask about such things and despite formally holding a job it's going to have consequences for experience and promotion opportunities. I know it would for me if I took that much leave.
What I particularly love about the recent use of the phrase "social justice" is that the people using it seem to think it's a negative one. How the hell can you be against social justice? Are you campaigning for social injustice?
I'm against social justice and for a meritocracy with actual equality. SJWs tend to use statistics to prove injustice against a class merely by the existence of differences. Like for example men generally earn more than women, that's enough to turn on the hate meter and cry about social injustice. If you start breaking it down on age, education, grades, jobs, actual experience (part-time vs full-time, overtime, time on leave) you find that most these differences disappear and you have close to equal pay for equal work. You're not discriminated against, you just want it on a feigned injustice not merit.
Which is of course not to say I support the bigots that want to keep women, minorities and whatnot out of positions of power and you might need to counteract discrimination. But I'm generally opposed to the idea that you should require less of a lesbian black female engineer than a straight white male engineer just to balance out the percentages. Yet that is what happens in education and HR when you make this a qualification. Let's hire her not because she's the best, but because she looks good on the statistics.
I also think it is pretty toxic to everyone involved. It's demeaning to come in on a quota rather than your own merits, it creates resentment from ordinary workers that made it the hard way and is highly unjust to the more skilled people you're replacing. Like having a token black guy in a TV show or write in a female elf into Tolkien so somebody could have a romantic love interest, you're not getting a lot of credit for your character. And I don't see any clear reason, if you're getting equal opportunities and women choose to be nurses and men engineers do we need to force them to swap?
The TL;DR version: Equal pay for equal work - meritocracy Equal pay for unequal work - social justice Unequal pay for equal work - bigotry Unequal pay for unequal work - as it should be
(Personally I think 7 is great, and that 10 is a step in the right direction, but in the public mind new Windows = bad. Remember how people shat all over XP when it came out, but by 2010 it had gained a reputation as the best version of Windows ever?)
Most of those shitting on it was comparing it to win2k, because of the less business-like interface and online activation. Of course most of those weren't running a legit license since 2k was a "professional" and not "consumer" OS. I don't recall anybody suggesting 98 - and particularly not ME - being better than XP. By 2010, Win2k was EOL, so it's not like you had much other choice if you wanted to run Windows and be supported. And they'd actually improved a lot of things, since XP pro was the current OS for 5 years (2001 to 2006) as opposed to 2k (2000 to 2001).
What you get as a user has its ups and downs, but they are improving the core in pretty much every generation. I get consistently beat on load games on games compared to my buddy running Win8 on equal or in some cases better hardware. If they'll just give a normal desktop, I'm inclined to upgrade to Windows 10 even though Win7 is current "the best Windows ever". The road may twist and turn some but eventually it moves forward.
because we might need to look in your house for terrorists. Also get rid of locks on car doors because we might want to randomly search your car
Or because we believe there's a kidnapping victim in your house and we got a warrant. The cops would have a problem if every door was the only way in to an unbreakable fort and they couldn't compel the key because it's in your mind and protected by the 5th amendment. Real world analogies fail because in the real world, they would get blowtorches, bolt cutters and whatnot to execute the search one way or the other. The lock will stand up to casual burglars, but not a full-out assault.
That's the shade of gray between no security and perfect security which in the digital world is turning into a black and white situation. And people either fall down on the "fuck security, we can't have the government snooping on everything" or "fuck privacy, we can't have black boxes and networks the law can't touch everywhere". And both think the other side is completely crazy. Is there a good middle ground? I don't quite see how, but I see why the discussing is becoming so polarized.
Uhhhh...just FYI but Intel has come right out and admitted it rigged the benchmarks so you can trust them about as much as the infamous FX5900 benches with its "quack.exe" back in the day.
Yes yes, you spam that to every thread. That's exactly why I compared Intel with Intel. Unless you think they're creating benchmarks that's increasingly inaccurate for each new generation, the point was that AMDs "jump" isn't actually more than Intel has improved through yearly releases since. Do you think the benchmarks are more "rigged" for the 4790k than the 3770k? Is the lack of new FX processors not real? By the way, even Phoronix's conclusion says:
From the initial testing of the brand new AMD FX-8350 "Vishera", the performance was admirable, especially compared to last year's bit of a troubled start with the AMD FX Bulldozer processors. (...)
In other words, the AMD FX-8350 is offered at a rather competitive value for fairly high-end desktops and workstations against Intel's latest Ivy Bridge offerings -- if you're commonly engaging in a workload where AMD CPUs do well.
In not all of the Linux CPU benchmarks did the Piledriver-based FX-8350 do well. For some Linux programs, AMD CPUs simply don't perform well and the 2012 FX CPU was even beaten out by older Core i5 and i7 CPUs.
I guess "bit of troubled" was the most pro-AMD way he could describe the FX-8150. And the FX-8350 is a mixed bag. And there's been zero improvement since. I realize your anger but Bulldozer was a disaster, the number of AMD fanboys that swear to their AMD Phenom II X6s should be a clue. When you can't even sell it to the ones drinking the kool-aid, good luck selling it to everybody else.
None of those other nodes pitches involved dimensions of which quantum mechanical tunneling was the dominant effect, nor of gate thickness being one atom. But that's what 10nm is.
Not even close. They have on the research stage made functional 3nm FinFET transistors, if they can be produced in the billions is unlikely as it requires every atom to be in the right place but 10nm still has some margin of error. The end of the road is in sight though...
Anyone care to extrapolate from current benchmarks as to how this new processor will compare to Intel's desktop offerings? I would like to see Intel have some competition there.
FX-8350: 2012 "Zen": 2016
The 40% jump is more like 0%, 0%, 0%, 40%.
If you compare a 3770K (best of 2012) to a 4790K (best of today) you get a ~15% frequency boost and another ~10% IPC improvements. If the leaked roadmaps are to believed Skylake for the desktop is imminent which will bring a new 14nm process and a refined micro-architecture at the same time as Broadwell missed their tick for the desktop, so in the same timeframe Intel will have improved 30-40% too.
Anyway you asked about AMD and I answered with Intel but it's a lot easier to get a meaningful answer without getting into the AMD vs Intel flame war. In short, even if AMD comes through on that roadmap they're only back to 2012 levels of competitiveness and honestly speaking it wasn't exactly great and AMD wasn't exactly profitable. They're so far behind that you honestly couldn't expect less if they weren't giving up on that market completely, which honestly thinking I thought they had. And I wonder how credible this roadmap is, I remember an equally impressive upwards curve for Bulldozer...
It's not a big mystery. Linus released a primitive kernel that worked, at the right time, with the right license, and then diligently kept rolling up contributions and releasing the result. (...)
These days he writes very little code himself; almost all he does is manage patches. I'm not sure how much code he wrote in the early days, but I think his diligent application of patches sent to him helped Linux to become stable and useful.
He wrote huge parts of it himself and in 2006 about 2% was still written by himself. I can't find how many LOCs it had then, but it was 5 million in 2003 and 11 million in 2009 so 8 million-ish. That means in the ballpark of 160.000 lines of code over 15 years, along with managing the whole project. And when that's not enough, he bootstraps what's possibly the most widely used source control management system today.
Now I've met people who are absolutely brilliant, they're rare. I've met people who truly excels at making everybody pull in the same direction, they're rare too. But I've never met one that's both, he could have been overly possessive and not let anyone else work on his pet project. It's one thing to say you want contributions, it's another thing to mean it in practice. Or he could have been the one pointing out a direction with nobody to do the heavy lifting.
Most of us don't even want to do both, the more I have to rely on others to get something done the more I realize how much I'd hate it if everything I did was manage other people. Those who want to run the business/organization/project get out of the doer role quickly, those who don't avoid management and get into some kind of technical guru role, to use a military analogy more like the special forces than a general. If you find one that both can do both and want to do both, you've hit the jackpot.
It is just not these indecipherable codes on the bills. I typically get explanation-of-benefits that runs like, "X-Ray radiology 800$, Paid by insurance company 100$, discount to insurance 685$, you owe them 15$". Any one without an insurance will be billed 800$. No body would pay such an insane bill. They will sell it to some debt collector at some 20 cents a dollar. The bill collector would hound the patient, add all sorts of fees and penalties and dun payments. About two thirds of the bankruptcies in USA are due to medical costs. If the lab billed honestly and charged 150$ for uninsured, 100$+15$ copay for insured, things will not spin out of control this badly.
The price out to the collection agency reflects the likelihood that an uninsured person - a pretty good indicator that he can't pay - will pay a huge bill, not what the costs are. Now the US system is fucked but proper medical care is expensive, here in Norway we have universal healthcare and it's 11% of the national budget. It is three times the size of our defense budget, for example.
In large parts of your life, particularly until you finish college or you plan to take the money to your grave you don't have a chance at footing the bill for a major medical emergency. And if your parents don't have the money the first part is easily 25 years of your life. Particularly the final years are nothing but rolling the dice, some people drop dead with hardly any cost to the healthcare system while others have long-winded slides into terminal care.
Only 50 years ago you'd need a small army of people to do my job, simply because we have computers to do 99% of the legwork. One doctor is still treating one patient and the standard of adequate care has actually gone significantly up as we gain more knowledge, tests and treatments. And the narrower the scope, usually the more expensive the care.
In my country it's been hotly debated whether we should spend $100.000+ per patient per year to prolong the life of certain very rare diseases with extraordinarily expensive medication. I know we've sent children with brain tumors to the US for proton therapy many hundred thousands of dollars per patient, because the estimated cost of establishing our own is 200 million dollars to treat 200 patients/year.
And we want the best care, it's real hard to hear there's treatment that can help but we're not going to that because it's too expensive. Yet that is increasingly the case, it's not that the treatment doesn't exist it's that if everyone gets everything the system chokes. P.S. A modern medical X-ray machine is not cheap at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking as someone who does such cost estimating professionally, I can assure you that EVERY project like this has the costs evaluated long before anyone breaks ground. A company would have to be insane to not have conducted the due diligence on every aspect of a project of this scale. They have to evaluate if there is a satisfactory ROI. They have to have some sort of idea what it ought to cost so that they can know how things are going. They have to budget the money. Of course there will be cost variances but you can't even begin to manage a project like this unless you have some idea what it should cost.
Oh, there will be plans. Realistic plans? Well.... I've worked in a supporting role to some fairly big projects and there's a few things that strike me:
1) Huge projects generally have the biggest uncertainties. It'd be easy to think the opposite, the bigger the stakes the more sure you want to be that you're right but that's not really the case. While small to medium projects have some rather tangible goals under current conditions, the huge ones generally involve more conjecture on where the company, market and technology is going and is heavily mixed up with the corporate strategy. In addition they're a lot more one of the kind, unlike smaller projects where you have a lot more guidance and experience on how similar projects have been.
2) Huge projects typically involve a lot of major decisions that may be a boon to some parts of your organization while negatively affecting others, obviously this a major factor in political decisions but also internally you get a lot of actors who act in their own interest rather than the business as a whole, for example because it plans to eliminate or centralize some functions or focus on some technologies, products, services and locations in favor of others. Don't expect your SQL Server guru to be happy for a move to Oracle or vice versa.
3) As a consequence of points 1) and 2) above, you often get a lot of bad data as input. In particular, you tend to get a lot of overly optimistic estimates of costs, schedules and quality or that casually neglects to mention related costs that it is likely to incur and that are hard to fact-check while sales and savings are wildly exaggerated. Naturally the other side is equally biased in the other direction, so real neutral assessments are hard to come by. It doesn't help that the time scale is such that by the time failure is obvious many of the ones who made the decisions have left for other jobs or retired.
What's even worse is that in many cases the people who grossly oversold their position are the ones rewarded because it's incredibly hard to back out of a high visibility project, it's expensive and it makes the executives who agreed to it incompetent. Lesser projects and their owners/managers have the chance to be chewed out by their superiors, but when it goes all the way to the top you're way more likely to throw good money after bad to keep the project going rather than wave the white flag and declare it a miserable failure. That's how you get overruns of hundreds of millions of dollars and up.
NoCrack seems extremely vulnerable to a crack since they create decoys on the fly. It should be fairly trivial to pick it apart and tell when you're getting a real password from the vault. As for the stateless password managers, they operate without any kind of wallet which is their problem. Also you can't change password for any reason, that's a problem too. If you have a wallet most the problems go away. I'm thinking as follows:
The wallet stores a PRNG value to avoid various rainbow attacks. For each site/login the wallet stores a 128-bit PRNG and how to extract the the password from the hash.
Upon entering a password, the software shows you:
a) The fingerprint of SHA1(unique key+password) in some user friendly way so you might realize a mistyped password
b) For each site/login SHA1(unique key + password + site/login key).toBase64().substring(startPos, length)
For example,
When I generate the wallet, there's a random seed. Lets say it's
1234567890abcdef.
I add a site/login called "Slashdot" and it generates a site key:
1122334455667788
My password is "go fish"
When I type it in, it generates SHA1(1234567890abcdef + "go fish") = "PFr7t9qfAP9PFVG0+Vvbez82rW8=" and I know that if I type the password right it should start with PFr... something.
My hash for slashdot is SHA1(1234567890abcdef + 1122334455667788 + "go fish") = "8ktw2l8XVdI81/6TvEcg5EbxJ90="
I pick some part of that which satisifies this site's requirements like "ktw2l8XV" and the wallet stores (openly) that it'll take startPos = 2, length = 8. If nothing works because the site is weird, I can always generate a new site key and I'll get a new string to choose from.
If you type something other than "go fish", you'll get a different set of passwords but no indication whether it's right or wrong. Some of those passwords might fail the site's passwords requirements, but that's a very weak elimination.
Isn't that what this really boils down, not some bullshit about masculinity? Women watch soap operas because it's more exciting than their boring life, men play video games so we can be greater than the insignificant little peons that we are. And in porn the most beautiful women will perform for you even if you're fatter than the marshmallow man and uglier than a troll. We have immersive enough solutions that the body is fooled to play out almost all its chemical registry with endorphin, adrenaline, dopamine and so on letting you fake all the excitement and rewards as you slay imaginary dragons.
The problem is that it's addictive and desensitizing, if you're on a constant rush of awards and achievements and level-ups and whatnot then real life is a real downer. Not entirely unlike how I hear people on drugs describe coming off their high or how fat people act when they come off a sugar rush. So through a combination of actual reality check, batting outside your league because of failed self-perception and being poor at handling disinterest or rejection the result is often a painful face-plant. Once bitten, twice shy so you rather watch porn and play video games than try again.
You missed a rather significant point in the article. Two of those accidents happened when a human WAS in control of the car (which was how they know it wasn't the car's fault), so NO, a human would not have done better at avoidance. The fact that of the 4 accidents that happened, none of them were the car's fault is more significant than the 10% rat.
I don't see how two of them should be meaningfully counted under any circumstances. They could just have it drive itself out of the parking lot and let a human do the rest, the autonomous system would never be at fault. If the car's not driving, it's just a plain old ordinary human-operated car. You don't count the miles, you don't count the accidents.
When any specific humans has 4 accident driving cars, on average exactly 50% of them were caused by that specific human.
Actually only about 90% of accidents are attributed to driver error, the rest is mechanical failure like a tire blowing out or environmental like a tree falling across the road. And there's solo accidents and chain collisions, so it's not given that there's two parties involved. I don't know what the percentage is, but it's probably not 50%.
The autonomous may not have been at fault, but one wonders whether some of the accidents would have been avoidable by a fleshy driver.
In theory or as in a representative sample of the driving population? I'm guessing it's pretty hard to get a good answer to what we would do. At any rate, my prediction is that we'd do better with one less fleshy driver instead of one more.
Third type of website is a public service. Maybe you're not making money off it, but people like it. An example of this would be: Capgeek. Its owner got sick and passed away. No one runs it anymore because he put a lot of work into it, and no one could maintain it.
But this is exactly why a zombie site doesn't do any good. You need somebody to be your heir, which goes beyond simply the funds to keep the lights on. If you don't have any line of succession set up, make arrangements in your will to add a message to the site saying I've passed, here's a zip of the entire site, if you want to carry the torch feel free for your own name under your own domain. You can't just offer free money and a domain name, somebody will just take the money and use the domain for squatting for ad revenue. Or you could go the formal route and establish a trust, but I imagine that's overkill and the trust manager will take a fair chunk of cash for that.
Ask your boss. You no doubt signed away the copyright to the code you write for work, so you'll likely need explicit permission from them.
It's already the default, at least in the US any "work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment" belong to the company. That generally means anything done as part of your work duties or using company resources including but not limited to your working hours, computers or intellectual property. The courts will generally side against you if you come up with a solution for something that's naturally related to your job duties too, you can't research the problem at work then go home and write down the solution claiming it was independently developed.
He might be good friends with his boss, but his boss is probably going to send this to legal and from there it can go spectacularly bad. For example they might start to think he's disloyal and holding back things or stealing ideas to put in his own work for his would-be contractor life. I wouldn't try pulling off a stunt like this unless I'm prepared to be fired and anything you do make on your own gone over with a fine tooth comb. It might also go over a lot nicer than that, but I'd rather build a nest egg and take my chances as a contractor. What he's doing now seems high risk compared to that.
Probably something to do with average winnings/hand, playing more hands with the total winnings not increasing much makes the significance weaker.
Every write, not every read. Reads are satisfied as soon as either drive returns the data. And if the raid controller has a battery or supercap so it can cache writes, you'll almost never notice the difference.
Ah, I thought RAID1 would warn you somehow of bit flips which I assume would be the way heat-deteriorated storage would show up. Guess it won't, you'll need ZFS or something like that.
Bring laptop with SSD to Death Valley, leave it in the car stuck in the sun and go hiking. How long until your data is in trouble? However, I just looked at the specs for the Samsung 840 EVO, since it was the first to pop up:
Temperature
Operating: 0C to 70C
Non-Operating: -55C to 95C
I would assume the 95C is with data? It would be a rather small caveat if the drive survived but your data was fried.
My personal solution is mixed HDD/SSD Raid1
Uhh... doesn't that mean that the RAID controller has to wait for the HDD on every read/write to verify it's the same as on the SSD, so effectively you get HDD performance?
A large machine that takes a couple of guys a day to set it up on site, and then one babysitter to produce an insulated watertight structure with reinforcement and plumbing/electrical channels already there, eliminating most roofing, bricklaying, cement, ... guys seems entirely likely in the 20 year timescale.
Actually it's more traditional mass production at work, I do have a friend that works in the construction industry and modular housing is the big thing. Like for example bathrooms are fairly expensive with membranes, heat cables, tiles, plumbing and whatnot, the smaller ones just come on a trailer from a low cost country. Just hook up electricity, water and sewage and you're done. In apartment blocks they sometimes do whole apartments this way, for more custom buildings there's wall modules and such. Less and less is actually built on site, at best it's assembled.
And at least according to my friend though he might be somewhat biased but he's done both, the modular builds have fewer faults. Instead of unique builds depending on the job performance that day the modules have strong consistency and a pretty decent QA system. Even though the deliveries are more standardized the buyers are usually okay with that, just like there's a limited number of car models usually you're fine with getting one that suits your needs. What you need carpenters/plumbers/electricians for is now often aftermarket repairs/changes, not construction.
Knowing the business? That's what project managers and other management-y types are for (or so they think). You and I know that a software engineer who is well versed in a certain business will design better systems, for example, but I've not once seen a manager that believes this way.
Huh, what? Project managers are typically generic drop-in process experts with PMP/Prince2 certification, there's usually a business analyst or reference group that are the subject matter experts. You might say project managers would do better with domain knowledge too, but that's ofte not the case unless it's just a side job to being the one designing/implementing it.
A lot of tech workers seem to get confused and think their value to their employer is in the skills they have. That's true, partly. But I'd say at least half of being successful at any job -- and maybe even 80 percent -- involves interpersonal skills. How well do you work within the team? How able are you to anticipate what the business needs and act on that? In cases where there's a leadership vacuum, can you fill it? And then when it's time to follow directions, can you still do it?
That's not really how it works, I don't know anyone who outsources one position. You make an assessment of your onshore team, you make an assessment of the offshore offering and you either do it or you don't. It doesn't matter if you're the star of the team or the glue that keeps them all together, if you're kicked to the curb it's all of you or none of you. Even if you're kept on you're just there to smoothen ruffled feathers until the offshore team are the ones running it, your new job is to be their coach until you've made yourself redundant.
For example, thought it's not outsourcing as such my government recently decided to move certain public offices out of the capital. This is a political move far, far above the individual employee and they do expect some competency will be lost but it's still going to happen. Individual skills will not protect against this, only practical or legal reasons why outsourcing is unfeasible. Any sensitive data for example is usually a giant PITA to move out of your jurisdiction to workers who aren't bound by your national laws. More practical reasons can be because you're working too close with the clients, they need on-site availability, it integrates too closely with hardware or anything else that makes on-site presence necessary.
Sadly this is a kick in the nuts to remote workers, as much as I'd really like a job I could do from anywhere I know then I'd also be in intense competition with the whole world. Because the value of my work doesn't come down to any of the above really, it comes down to supply and demand. Of course you can't expect massive demand but a stable niche you know they'll need for a long time where only a few can meet the requirements is usually a very safe spot. Like my current job I can't do shit from home, it's quite inconvenient but hell will freeze over before it's outsourced to India.
People used to complain about 4chan, but when the God damn 70 year olds figured out Disqus they turned out to be much more heartless and disgusting trolls than any 13 year olds. The 13 year olds try to pretend to be racist sexist sh**s but the old people are THE REAL THING. The kids will grow out of it.
I'm not so sure it's about "growing out of it", it's mostly about who really means it and who just kicks where it hurts. The latter is "just" part of bullying and could just as well be that you're fat, skinny, tall, short, glasses, freckles, divorce kid, clothes, anything really. Those who really divide the world into superior and inferior remain bigots, those who just did it to harass mostly grows out of it. Or graduate to internet trolls, where there's apparently no age limit.
It is just as much of a logical fallacy to use past examples of times not changing as proof that times are not changing now. If someone cries wolf, past cryings of wolf do not change the probability that there is a wolf.
But it does mean that people moaning about today's youth is a useless indicator, like a broken clock is right twice a day. In fact that's giving it more credit than it deserves because it implies a situation we know is true once in a while. I can cry out about unicorns every day, it doesn't change the probability that there really is a unicorns. Mostly because there's no proof that unicorns exist at all. Has there ever really been a generation that's been so much terribly worse than the last?
Do you have any sources for this "breaking it down on age, education, grades, jobs, actual experience (part-time vs full-time, overtime, time on leave) you find that most these differences disappear"?
I'm afraid most my primary sources are in Norwegian since I live in Norway, but I can start here. On average, women have an income of 326400 NOK and men 487800 NOK so about 67%, unfair right? Well, first of all 5.6% less of working age are in the workforce (77.1% vs 82.7%), I can't be bothered to cross-reference with medical or unemployment data but it's mostly stay-at-home moms, not that they're unable to work or unable to find work. In addition 34.7% of women work part time compared to 13.9% of men and without having the exact data here also overtime is male dominated.
Together when you plug those into the facts and compare full-time equivalents to full-time equivalents you find females make 87% of what men do. Breaking it down further this study (PDF) show that women prefer lower income, more risk adverse educations. This is also reflected in that the private sector is 36% women and the public sector 70% women, which generally is safer and pays less. In the study they find:
While the men in the application data have mean lifetime earnings of 12.46M NOK, weighting with the first choice probabilities, women have a corresponding mean lifetime earnings of 11.20M NOK, or about 10 percent less.
So now you're down to about a 3% unexplained difference. Now I'm entering a very touchy subject which I can't properly back up with data but my guess it's primarily maternity leave, as in Norway you have a total of 52 weeks, usually split into 42 weeks maternal leave and 10 weeks paternal leave and on average 1,78 births per woman. It makes some employers reluctant to hire women around 30 as they can't ask about such things and despite formally holding a job it's going to have consequences for experience and promotion opportunities. I know it would for me if I took that much leave.
What I particularly love about the recent use of the phrase "social justice" is that the people using it seem to think it's a negative one. How the hell can you be against social justice? Are you campaigning for social injustice?
I'm against social justice and for a meritocracy with actual equality. SJWs tend to use statistics to prove injustice against a class merely by the existence of differences. Like for example men generally earn more than women, that's enough to turn on the hate meter and cry about social injustice. If you start breaking it down on age, education, grades, jobs, actual experience (part-time vs full-time, overtime, time on leave) you find that most these differences disappear and you have close to equal pay for equal work. You're not discriminated against, you just want it on a feigned injustice not merit.
Which is of course not to say I support the bigots that want to keep women, minorities and whatnot out of positions of power and you might need to counteract discrimination. But I'm generally opposed to the idea that you should require less of a lesbian black female engineer than a straight white male engineer just to balance out the percentages. Yet that is what happens in education and HR when you make this a qualification. Let's hire her not because she's the best, but because she looks good on the statistics.
I also think it is pretty toxic to everyone involved. It's demeaning to come in on a quota rather than your own merits, it creates resentment from ordinary workers that made it the hard way and is highly unjust to the more skilled people you're replacing. Like having a token black guy in a TV show or write in a female elf into Tolkien so somebody could have a romantic love interest, you're not getting a lot of credit for your character. And I don't see any clear reason, if you're getting equal opportunities and women choose to be nurses and men engineers do we need to force them to swap?
The TL;DR version:
Equal pay for equal work - meritocracy
Equal pay for unequal work - social justice
Unequal pay for equal work - bigotry
Unequal pay for unequal work - as it should be
(Personally I think 7 is great, and that 10 is a step in the right direction, but in the public mind new Windows = bad. Remember how people shat all over XP when it came out, but by 2010 it had gained a reputation as the best version of Windows ever?)
Most of those shitting on it was comparing it to win2k, because of the less business-like interface and online activation. Of course most of those weren't running a legit license since 2k was a "professional" and not "consumer" OS. I don't recall anybody suggesting 98 - and particularly not ME - being better than XP. By 2010, Win2k was EOL, so it's not like you had much other choice if you wanted to run Windows and be supported. And they'd actually improved a lot of things, since XP pro was the current OS for 5 years (2001 to 2006) as opposed to 2k (2000 to 2001).
What you get as a user has its ups and downs, but they are improving the core in pretty much every generation. I get consistently beat on load games on games compared to my buddy running Win8 on equal or in some cases better hardware. If they'll just give a normal desktop, I'm inclined to upgrade to Windows 10 even though Win7 is current "the best Windows ever". The road may twist and turn some but eventually it moves forward.
because we might need to look in your house for terrorists. Also get rid of locks on car doors because we might want to randomly search your car
Or because we believe there's a kidnapping victim in your house and we got a warrant. The cops would have a problem if every door was the only way in to an unbreakable fort and they couldn't compel the key because it's in your mind and protected by the 5th amendment. Real world analogies fail because in the real world, they would get blowtorches, bolt cutters and whatnot to execute the search one way or the other. The lock will stand up to casual burglars, but not a full-out assault.
That's the shade of gray between no security and perfect security which in the digital world is turning into a black and white situation. And people either fall down on the "fuck security, we can't have the government snooping on everything" or "fuck privacy, we can't have black boxes and networks the law can't touch everywhere". And both think the other side is completely crazy. Is there a good middle ground? I don't quite see how, but I see why the discussing is becoming so polarized.
Uhhhh...just FYI but Intel has come right out and admitted it rigged the benchmarks so you can trust them about as much as the infamous FX5900 benches with its "quack.exe" back in the day.
Yes yes, you spam that to every thread. That's exactly why I compared Intel with Intel. Unless you think they're creating benchmarks that's increasingly inaccurate for each new generation, the point was that AMDs "jump" isn't actually more than Intel has improved through yearly releases since. Do you think the benchmarks are more "rigged" for the 4790k than the 3770k? Is the lack of new FX processors not real? By the way, even Phoronix's conclusion says:
From the initial testing of the brand new AMD FX-8350 "Vishera", the performance was admirable, especially compared to last year's bit of a troubled start with the AMD FX Bulldozer processors.
(...)
In other words, the AMD FX-8350 is offered at a rather competitive value for fairly high-end desktops and workstations against Intel's latest Ivy Bridge offerings -- if you're commonly engaging in a workload where AMD CPUs do well.
In not all of the Linux CPU benchmarks did the Piledriver-based FX-8350 do well. For some Linux programs, AMD CPUs simply don't perform well and the 2012 FX CPU was even beaten out by older Core i5 and i7 CPUs.
I guess "bit of troubled" was the most pro-AMD way he could describe the FX-8150. And the FX-8350 is a mixed bag. And there's been zero improvement since. I realize your anger but Bulldozer was a disaster, the number of AMD fanboys that swear to their AMD Phenom II X6s should be a clue. When you can't even sell it to the ones drinking the kool-aid, good luck selling it to everybody else.
None of those other nodes pitches involved dimensions of which quantum mechanical tunneling was the dominant effect, nor of gate thickness being one atom. But that's what 10nm is.
Not even close. They have on the research stage made functional 3nm FinFET transistors, if they can be produced in the billions is unlikely as it requires every atom to be in the right place but 10nm still has some margin of error. The end of the road is in sight though...
Anyone care to extrapolate from current benchmarks as to how this new processor will compare to Intel's desktop offerings? I would like to see Intel have some competition there.
FX-8350: 2012
"Zen": 2016
The 40% jump is more like 0%, 0%, 0%, 40%.
If you compare a 3770K (best of 2012) to a 4790K (best of today) you get a ~15% frequency boost and another ~10% IPC improvements. If the leaked roadmaps are to believed Skylake for the desktop is imminent which will bring a new 14nm process and a refined micro-architecture at the same time as Broadwell missed their tick for the desktop, so in the same timeframe Intel will have improved 30-40% too.
Anyway you asked about AMD and I answered with Intel but it's a lot easier to get a meaningful answer without getting into the AMD vs Intel flame war. In short, even if AMD comes through on that roadmap they're only back to 2012 levels of competitiveness and honestly speaking it wasn't exactly great and AMD wasn't exactly profitable. They're so far behind that you honestly couldn't expect less if they weren't giving up on that market completely, which honestly thinking I thought they had. And I wonder how credible this roadmap is, I remember an equally impressive upwards curve for Bulldozer...
It's not a big mystery. Linus released a primitive kernel that worked, at the right time, with the right license, and then diligently kept rolling up contributions and releasing the result.
(...)
These days he writes very little code himself; almost all he does is manage patches. I'm not sure how much code he wrote in the early days, but I think his diligent application of patches sent to him helped Linux to become stable and useful.
He wrote huge parts of it himself and in 2006 about 2% was still written by himself. I can't find how many LOCs it had then, but it was 5 million in 2003 and 11 million in 2009 so 8 million-ish. That means in the ballpark of 160.000 lines of code over 15 years, along with managing the whole project. And when that's not enough, he bootstraps what's possibly the most widely used source control management system today.
Now I've met people who are absolutely brilliant, they're rare. I've met people who truly excels at making everybody pull in the same direction, they're rare too. But I've never met one that's both, he could have been overly possessive and not let anyone else work on his pet project. It's one thing to say you want contributions, it's another thing to mean it in practice. Or he could have been the one pointing out a direction with nobody to do the heavy lifting.
Most of us don't even want to do both, the more I have to rely on others to get something done the more I realize how much I'd hate it if everything I did was manage other people. Those who want to run the business/organization/project get out of the doer role quickly, those who don't avoid management and get into some kind of technical guru role, to use a military analogy more like the special forces than a general. If you find one that both can do both and want to do both, you've hit the jackpot.
It is just not these indecipherable codes on the bills. I typically get explanation-of-benefits that runs like, "X-Ray radiology 800$, Paid by insurance company 100$, discount to insurance 685$, you owe them 15$". Any one without an insurance will be billed 800$. No body would pay such an insane bill. They will sell it to some debt collector at some 20 cents a dollar. The bill collector would hound the patient, add all sorts of fees and penalties and dun payments. About two thirds of the bankruptcies in USA are due to medical costs. If the lab billed honestly and charged 150$ for uninsured, 100$+15$ copay for insured, things will not spin out of control this badly.
The price out to the collection agency reflects the likelihood that an uninsured person - a pretty good indicator that he can't pay - will pay a huge bill, not what the costs are. Now the US system is fucked but proper medical care is expensive, here in Norway we have universal healthcare and it's 11% of the national budget. It is three times the size of our defense budget, for example.
In large parts of your life, particularly until you finish college or you plan to take the money to your grave you don't have a chance at footing the bill for a major medical emergency. And if your parents don't have the money the first part is easily 25 years of your life. Particularly the final years are nothing but rolling the dice, some people drop dead with hardly any cost to the healthcare system while others have long-winded slides into terminal care.
Only 50 years ago you'd need a small army of people to do my job, simply because we have computers to do 99% of the legwork. One doctor is still treating one patient and the standard of adequate care has actually gone significantly up as we gain more knowledge, tests and treatments. And the narrower the scope, usually the more expensive the care.
In my country it's been hotly debated whether we should spend $100.000+ per patient per year to prolong the life of certain very rare diseases with extraordinarily expensive medication. I know we've sent children with brain tumors to the US for proton therapy many hundred thousands of dollars per patient, because the estimated cost of establishing our own is 200 million dollars to treat 200 patients/year.
And we want the best care, it's real hard to hear there's treatment that can help but we're not going to that because it's too expensive. Yet that is increasingly the case, it's not that the treatment doesn't exist it's that if everyone gets everything the system chokes. P.S. A modern medical X-ray machine is not cheap at all.