They have an icon for every possible programming function?
Yep, the environment is completely graphical, and so logic flows (if, while), arithmetic operations (+, -), boolean operations, and string operations, all require you to find the right icon.
He makes very good points: funding is for new results. Attempting to repeat another scientists published work is not a new result (unless you can't), and many places won't even allow you to try...
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"
Even though funding is for new results, to get new results, these days you will almost always need to build on what has gone before. So while scientists generally don't attempt to replicate published results, if the work is important, someone will eventually think of a way to extend the work, and rely on it to build something else. At that point it will become obvious if the original research is flawed.
So good science does eventually win, it just can take a longer time than people would like to spot frauds. Science works, the last century is a testament to that.
Perpetuating ignorance among the public is right. And it isn't limited to sf. One of my pet peeves is that these days, just about everyone believes that uranium glows green because of the Simpsons.
But I am no sure it will ever happen. Will there ever be a Linux exclusive game? If you were a game developper, would you commit to realse your fancy need AAA game ONLY on Linux and not on Windows? That seems like a stupid move unless the company receives a ridiculous amount of money cash for the exclusivity.
I agree that a game developer would probably not want to do it. But if someone like Red Hat or Canonical decide that a good long term strategy to get companies using linux in the workplace is to get linux in the home so that people are familiar with it, then Red Hat or Canonical might decide to pay to get an exclusive game made.
I'm assuming all the usual health insurance stuff. The ability to check ssn, life expectancy calcs, premium calcs, excess calcs, capturing of medical history. Calcs for the costs of doctor's visits, hospital visits, specialist referrals, ambulance coverage, operating theatre time, use of diagnostic equipment (such as mri, xray). Tables of registered medical practitioners. Differences between the states. Interfacing into various hospital and taxation systems, reporting for all of this...
The list of what something like this will have to do is long. I don't know how much of this functionality is available from day one, but a simple gui does not necessarily imply a simple backend.
I know fb is large, now. Fb has over a billion users, now. But tfa is comparing the cost of healthcare.gov to the cost of fb in the first few years from 2004. That's the bit I think is lame.
$600 million doesn't seem that much to me for something like this.
I recently worked on a project that cost >$40 million for a site which is never going to have more than about 20 thousand users.
Cost depends on the the complexity of the business logic, the number of systems that need to be integrated, the amount of hardware that is required to perform complex calculations and algorithms, etc.
Comparing it to the early days of facebook is spurious - facebook is just a messaging and photo-sharing site, it doesn't have the complex logic healthcare.gov needs, and it certainly didn't scale as quickly as healthcare.gov is expected to.
Yeah, if you're going to do something like this, you need to give your developers something to believe in, a reason to work for the company. Otherwise your developers will see it and find another place to work.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was exactly what they are after. Removing existing perks (such as working from home) is a good way to increase the rate of natural attrition. It is a standard management technique: basically you annoy your staff so that they find jobs elsewhere, and you don't replace them. If your company was in enough trouble that you are going to need a round of redundancies, doing this means that you save a money by not having to pay those employees out, as they are the ones that resigned.
My objection to this technique has always been that by doing this, you essentially lose the people that have skills and can get jobs, and keep the people who don't have skills and can't get jobs, weakening your company. I'd generally rather choose who to make redundant, even if it costs a bit more, and keep the people who I know are actually productive around.
But bean-counters rarely seem to have the capacity to understand that argument.
It isn't really a continuous reaction in the way that you are thinking.
The way it works is that lasers fire at a tiny pellet containing a few milligrams of hydrogen fuel. Lasers are fired at the pellet from all sides. These lasers heat the surface of the pellet, which essentially implodes and causes a fusion reaction with the hydrogen. This causes a pulse of energy.
Each laser shot on each pellet generates a fixed amount of power, since there is only a small amount of hydrogen fuel in each pellet.
Getting continuous power means continuously dropping new pellets into the chamber, and firing the lasers at each pellet. So you can't really have a run away reaction in the way that is possible with uranium reactors, as with this design of fusion reactor, if you want to stop the reaction you either stop the pellet feed, stop firing the lasers, or both.
Helium is a byproduct - but the amount generated is tiny - the pellet for each fusion reaction only contains a few milligrams of hydrogen fuel, and so even less helium is generated.
Towards the end he actually mentions the solution: keys. Setting up sshd to not allow passwords solves the brute force issue pretty quickly. But he kind of glosses over it so that he can maintain his narrative.
Just what we need. Another microsoft tax. It's already hard enough for me to buy a decent laptop without paying licensing for a windows OS that I'll never use, now this is going to start happening to phones as well?
In the past the whales had been able to sing to each other across whole oceans, even from one ocean to another because sound travels such huge distances underwater. But now, again because of the way in which sound travels, there is no part of the ocean that is not constantly jangling with the hubbub of ships’ motors, through which it is now virtually impossible for the whales to hear each other’s songs or messages.
So fucking what, is pretty much the way that people tend to view this problem, and understandably so, thought Dirk. After all, who wants to hear a bunch of fat fish, oh all right, mammals, burping at each other?
But for a moment Dirk had a sense of infinite loss and sadness that somewhere amongst the frenzy of information noise that daily rattled the lives of men he thought he might have heard a few notes that denoted the movements of gods.
Douglas Adams, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul, 1988
"They're looking at it wrong." "Apple products just aren't for everybody." etc.
Heh. He would have gone on to explain that Apple makes premium products for premium people, and if you are susceptible to motion sickness, then perhaps you are not worthy of owning the Apple brand...:-)
I was under the impression that Wii Speak could talk only to other Wii Speak users, Xbox Live voice chat could talk only to other Xbox 360 users, and PS3 voice chat could talk only to other PS3 users. Is this true? And I know two wrongs don't make a right, but still, how is it any better or worse than the proprietary nature of FaceTime?
I don't game - so I don't know if that is true - do you mean people playing the same multiplayer game on different consoles can't talk to each other? Seems lame.
I guess I consider FaceTime worse because the iPhone is first and foremost a communications device, whilst those others are gaming devices first, and communications are just a nice to have add-on. So IMHO it is that little bit more disgusting that the video calling solution for iPhone can't talk to non-Apple devices.
Alternatively, why don't they implement video conferencing software that uses open sip standards, rather than the walled-garden iUser only hell that is facetime. If they did that, the patent problem would certainly go away.
Seriously, what is the point of communications software that only talks to devices from one brand???
Slashdot Mirror
Mexicans in general aren't, but politicians in general, are.
You could literately route packets in circles, for what purpose I can't imagine.
Here is the best purpose for routing packets in circles I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkcdstw0qxU
They have an icon for every possible programming function?
Yep, the environment is completely graphical, and so logic flows (if, while), arithmetic operations (+, -), boolean operations, and string operations, all require you to find the right icon.
Actually, sounds more like LabView.
Fishing through that programming environment's icon set for the correct function is very close to what I imagine hell must be like.
Or is this simply a case of making using hindsight to construct an argument that fits a general argument that BTC is worth investing in?
Economics. The science of explaining tomorrow why the predictions you made yesterday didn't come true today.
He makes very good points: funding is for new results. Attempting to repeat another scientists published work is not a new result (unless you can't), and many places won't even allow you to try...
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"
Even though funding is for new results, to get new results, these days you will almost always need to build on what has gone before. So while scientists generally don't attempt to replicate published results, if the work is important, someone will eventually think of a way to extend the work, and rely on it to build something else. At that point it will become obvious if the original research is flawed.
So good science does eventually win, it just can take a longer time than people would like to spot frauds. Science works, the last century is a testament to that.
In other words, a slow jog.
My Amstrad 6128 smokes your Sinclair.
Perpetuating ignorance among the public is right. And it isn't limited to sf. One of my pet peeves is that these days, just about everyone believes that uranium glows green because of the Simpsons.
They glow deep violet, damn it.
But I am no sure it will ever happen. Will there ever be a Linux exclusive game? If you were a game developper, would you commit to realse your fancy need AAA game ONLY on Linux and not on Windows? That seems like a stupid move unless the company receives a ridiculous amount of money cash for the exclusivity.
I agree that a game developer would probably not want to do it. But if someone like Red Hat or Canonical decide that a good long term strategy to get companies using linux in the workplace is to get linux in the home so that people are familiar with it, then Red Hat or Canonical might decide to pay to get an exclusive game made.
I'm assuming all the usual health insurance stuff. The ability to check ssn, life expectancy calcs, premium calcs, excess calcs, capturing of medical history. Calcs for the costs of doctor's visits, hospital visits, specialist referrals, ambulance coverage, operating theatre time, use of diagnostic equipment (such as mri, xray). Tables of registered medical practitioners. Differences between the states. Interfacing into various hospital and taxation systems, reporting for all of this...
The list of what something like this will have to do is long. I don't know how much of this functionality is available from day one, but a simple gui does not necessarily imply a simple backend.
I know fb is large, now. Fb has over a billion users, now. But tfa is comparing the cost of healthcare.gov to the cost of fb in the first few years from 2004. That's the bit I think is lame.
$600 million doesn't seem that much to me for something like this.
I recently worked on a project that cost >$40 million for a site which is never going to have more than about 20 thousand users.
Cost depends on the the complexity of the business logic, the number of systems that need to be integrated, the amount of hardware that is required to perform complex calculations and algorithms, etc.
Comparing it to the early days of facebook is spurious - facebook is just a messaging and photo-sharing site, it doesn't have the complex logic healthcare.gov needs, and it certainly didn't scale as quickly as healthcare.gov is expected to.
Yeah, if you're going to do something like this, you need to give your developers something to believe in, a reason to work for the company. Otherwise your developers will see it and find another place to work.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was exactly what they are after. Removing existing perks (such as working from home) is a good way to increase the rate of natural attrition. It is a standard management technique: basically you annoy your staff so that they find jobs elsewhere, and you don't replace them. If your company was in enough trouble that you are going to need a round of redundancies, doing this means that you save a money by not having to pay those employees out, as they are the ones that resigned.
My objection to this technique has always been that by doing this, you essentially lose the people that have skills and can get jobs, and keep the people who don't have skills and can't get jobs, weakening your company. I'd generally rather choose who to make redundant, even if it costs a bit more, and keep the people who I know are actually productive around.
But bean-counters rarely seem to have the capacity to understand that argument.
It isn't really a continuous reaction in the way that you are thinking. The way it works is that lasers fire at a tiny pellet containing a few milligrams of hydrogen fuel. Lasers are fired at the pellet from all sides. These lasers heat the surface of the pellet, which essentially implodes and causes a fusion reaction with the hydrogen. This causes a pulse of energy.
Each laser shot on each pellet generates a fixed amount of power, since there is only a small amount of hydrogen fuel in each pellet.
Getting continuous power means continuously dropping new pellets into the chamber, and firing the lasers at each pellet. So you can't really have a run away reaction in the way that is possible with uranium reactors, as with this design of fusion reactor, if you want to stop the reaction you either stop the pellet feed, stop firing the lasers, or both.
You are quoting figures from the August experimental results. I'm guessing the latest experiment that the BBC is reporting on is better than that.
I'd also like to see some actual figures though.
Helium is a byproduct - but the amount generated is tiny - the pellet for each fusion reaction only contains a few milligrams of hydrogen fuel, and so even less helium is generated.
Towards the end he actually mentions the solution: keys. Setting up sshd to not allow passwords solves the brute force issue pretty quickly. But he kind of glosses over it so that he can maintain his narrative.
Just what we need. Another microsoft tax. It's already hard enough for me to buy a decent laptop without paying licensing for a windows OS that I'll never use, now this is going to start happening to phones as well?
No thanks.
At some point you have to do a risk and cost benefit analysis. Sure I lock my door, but am I willing to spend >50% of my income on locks for my door?
In the past the whales had been able to sing to each other across whole oceans, even from one ocean to another because sound travels such huge distances underwater. But now, again because of the way in which sound travels, there is no part of the ocean that is not constantly jangling with the hubbub of ships’ motors, through which it is now virtually impossible for the whales to hear each other’s songs or messages.
So fucking what, is pretty much the way that people tend to view this problem, and understandably so, thought Dirk. After all, who wants to hear a bunch of fat fish, oh all right, mammals, burping at each other?
But for a moment Dirk had a sense of infinite loss and sadness that somewhere amongst the frenzy of information noise that daily rattled the lives of men he thought he might have heard a few notes that denoted the movements of gods.
Douglas Adams, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul, 1988
What Would Jobs Have Said?
"They're looking at it wrong." "Apple products just aren't for everybody." etc.
Heh. He would have gone on to explain that Apple makes premium products for premium people, and if you are susceptible to motion sickness, then perhaps you are not worthy of owning the Apple brand... :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLlUgilKqms
I was under the impression that Wii Speak could talk only to other Wii Speak users, Xbox Live voice chat could talk only to other Xbox 360 users, and PS3 voice chat could talk only to other PS3 users. Is this true? And I know two wrongs don't make a right, but still, how is it any better or worse than the proprietary nature of FaceTime?
I don't game - so I don't know if that is true - do you mean people playing the same multiplayer game on different consoles can't talk to each other? Seems lame.
I guess I consider FaceTime worse because the iPhone is first and foremost a communications device, whilst those others are gaming devices first, and communications are just a nice to have add-on. So IMHO it is that little bit more disgusting that the video calling solution for iPhone can't talk to non-Apple devices.
Alternatively, why don't they implement video conferencing software that uses open sip standards, rather than the walled-garden iUser only hell that is facetime. If they did that, the patent problem would certainly go away.
Seriously, what is the point of communications software that only talks to devices from one brand???