If we had so little protection that we were at risk, the moral landscape would be different. I don't think I would withhold my engineering skills from the war effort in WWII Britain.
But we (in the US where I live now) have an excess of military capability and a very low risk of invasion. The military get deployed in immoral and pretty stupid ways. Adding to it is obviously bad. The badness is a function of the size of the military and the ways in which it gets used.
You can be moral, but don't be so morally rigid that you are naive.
Some of us choose not to design weapons. It isn't theoretical. I've turned down job offers that turned out to be essentially for improving ways to kill people.
Some of us choose to design technologies that work against the NSA's unconstitutional spying rather than for it. Again this isn't theoretical. I've been presented with some choices and taking the high road is ultimately easier to live with, even though people don't thank you for it at the time.
The ethical questions for engineers are far, far simpler than those for doctors or politicians. safe good, unsafe bad. Protects people good, exposes people, bad. Kills or injures people, bad, saves people, good.
Maybe in a world with an agressor and no ready defense technology, the moral landscape would look different. But there is no shortage of military technology. I can choose not to add to it. To add to it is immoral. To not add to it is moral.
It doesn't matter. They are abusing the domain name system to make the dot look like punctuation in the middle of a word. This is a thing the world would be better without.
Right. But it isn't QoS which is the problem. It is the ISP blocking based on vendor or traffic type or device. So they block your video provider in preference to their own. Or they block your choice of device in preference to their own set top box.
He is deliberately muddling net neutrality with QoS. They are not the same thing. It is to the benefit of the telcos that he does this. They can try to kill net neutrality by arguing that QoS is fine (which it is), rather than arguing that blocking based on traffic type is fine (which it isn't).
So what? I pay my ISP for 20Mbits/s so that I can watch Netflix.
This is good for Netflix, the ISP and the consumer. The bandwidth is paid for on both ends.
The alternative is cable or dish, which is way more expensive.
The "percentage of traffic" argument is meaningless when most of that Netflix traffic is cached on Netflix provided boxes at the ISP. The last mile wires are not shared. The incremental cost to use them vs. not use them is 0. The incremental cost for the ethernet in the plant is also 0.
If it wasn't Netflix, it would be someone else. Or spread across multiple someone elses. The streaming is pulled by the viewers and the viewers are going to stream.
Cover your own arse. Document that you were the one reporting the problems and violations. You may lose your job anyway. Prepare for alternative employment. This is always easier while you are still employed. Once you have a reasonable plan for alternative employment you can start making demands. You may either be the hero, or you may end up in the other job.
Also VHDL is still quite popular some places. I've worked for several companies in the last 10-15 years that use it. I suspect VHDL and Verilog will continue to co-exist. As far as tool chains are concerned, they're both essentially front ends. It's not hard to support both, and most do.
As far as I can tell, SystemVerilog won the popularity contest. This imports a number of VHDL ideas into verilog that make life easier. What it fails to do is import the operator overloading and resolution functions that works so effectively in VHDL. In VHDL if you want to define a new logic value, like say 'P' for values driven from unpowered logic, you can simply overload the std_logic operators, or replace std_logic, and the simulator will work for you. No so in Verilog. The logic values (1, 0, H, L, X etc) are wired into the language. You can't add a 'P'. Consequently, SystemVerilog makes it really difficult to verify low power fine-grained power gated designs.
Of course nobody making tool purchasing decisions considers these things.
1) I'm not a West African frog. Humans don't have gender agility. 2) There are physical and mental aspects to gender and sexuality. They can evidently be inconsistent in diverse ways. 3) There are social constructs in society that would not exist if it were not for the physical and mental aspects of gender and sexuality.
To claim gender and sexuality is a social construct is to ignore the other 95% of the issue which is physical and mental.
>because gender and sexuality are social constructs
WTF?
There may be social constructs around gender and sexuality, but for sure no body's bits change gender when they move to a new social situation. Gender and Sexuality are physical constructs. Don't try and inject your social construct voodoo into physical reality.
>We don't have a liberal arts shortage. We have a STEM shortage.
Looking at the state of architecture across all the non-major towns and cities in the US, there are computers everywhere, but the buildings are hideous and the art is non existent. I suggest we have an arts shortage and plenty of STEM.
Not if the hashing and mixing in of the TOD was done locally to the server and the remote input was a separate field in the hash. To manipulate the user field to make the hash match when the TOD field is different would require second preimage attack on the hash function, which is a hard problem if your hash algorithm is good.
Slashdot Mirror
If we had so little protection that we were at risk, the moral landscape would be different. I don't think I would withhold my engineering skills from the war effort in WWII Britain.
But we (in the US where I live now) have an excess of military capability and a very low risk of invasion. The military get deployed in immoral and pretty stupid ways. Adding to it is obviously bad. The badness is a function of the size of the military and the ways in which it gets used.
You can be moral, but don't be so morally rigid that you are naive.
I don't fail to see a problem with designing weapons. So I choose not to.
I'm not imposing my moral framework on anyone else. The world is as it is. Make your own way in it and make choices that work for you.
Some of us choose not to design weapons. It isn't theoretical. I've turned down job offers that turned out to be essentially for improving ways to kill people.
Some of us choose to design technologies that work against the NSA's unconstitutional spying rather than for it. Again this isn't theoretical. I've been presented with some choices and taking the high road is ultimately easier to live with, even though people don't thank you for it at the time.
The ethical questions for engineers are far, far simpler than those for doctors or politicians. safe good, unsafe bad. Protects people good, exposes people, bad. Kills or injures people, bad, saves people, good.
Maybe in a world with an agressor and no ready defense technology, the moral landscape would look different. But there is no shortage of military technology. I can choose not to add to it. To add to it is immoral. To not add to it is moral.
Technically it isn't my America. I'm just a long term visitor.
You seem to be a bit over sensitive today.Is your real name will.i.am?
It doesn't matter. They are abusing the domain name system to make the dot look like punctuation in the middle of a word. This is a thing the world would be better without.
Oh you're one of those people who doesn't know what 'your' means.
Because leverage is not a verb.
I c.an pu.t ina.pprop.riate punctua.tion in my wr.iting too.
Right. But it isn't QoS which is the problem. It is the ISP blocking based on vendor or traffic type or device. So they block your video provider in preference to their own. Or they block your choice of device in preference to their own set top box.
He is deliberately muddling net neutrality with QoS. They are not the same thing. It is to the benefit of the telcos that he does this. They can try to kill net neutrality by arguing that QoS is fine (which it is), rather than arguing that blocking based on traffic type is fine (which it isn't).
So what? I pay my ISP for 20Mbits/s so that I can watch Netflix.
This is good for Netflix, the ISP and the consumer. The bandwidth is paid for on both ends.
The alternative is cable or dish, which is way more expensive.
The "percentage of traffic" argument is meaningless when most of that Netflix traffic is cached on Netflix provided boxes at the ISP. The last mile wires are not shared. The incremental cost to use them vs. not use them is 0. The incremental cost for the ethernet in the plant is also 0.
If it wasn't Netflix, it would be someone else. Or spread across multiple someone elses. The streaming is pulled by the viewers and the viewers are going to stream.
This is America. We don't have public transport.
But the feds don't want to pay for bridges on the I5.
Cover your own arse. Document that you were the one reporting the problems and violations. You may lose your job anyway. Prepare for alternative employment. This is always easier while you are still employed. Once you have a reasonable plan for alternative employment you can start making demands. You may either be the hero, or you may end up in the other job.
Verilog won the popularity contest
Does that make it a better language?
Also VHDL is still quite popular some places. I've worked for several companies in the last 10-15 years that use it. I suspect VHDL and Verilog will continue to co-exist. As far as tool chains are concerned, they're both essentially front ends. It's not hard to support both, and most do.
As far as I can tell, SystemVerilog won the popularity contest. This imports a number of VHDL ideas into verilog that make life easier. What it fails to do is import the operator overloading and resolution functions that works so effectively in VHDL. In VHDL if you want to define a new logic value, like say 'P' for values driven from unpowered logic, you can simply overload the std_logic operators, or replace std_logic, and the simulator will work for you. No so in Verilog. The logic values (1, 0, H, L, X etc) are wired into the language. You can't add a 'P'. Consequently, SystemVerilog makes it really difficult to verify low power fine-grained power gated designs.
Of course nobody making tool purchasing decisions considers these things.
>So where can I get a copy of all the episodes of Robert Morse's wonderul show "That's Life"?
Or Esther Rantzen's
1) I'm not a West African frog. Humans don't have gender agility.
2) There are physical and mental aspects to gender and sexuality. They can evidently be inconsistent in diverse ways.
3) There are social constructs in society that would not exist if it were not for the physical and mental aspects of gender and sexuality.
To claim gender and sexuality is a social construct is to ignore the other 95% of the issue which is physical and mental.
I don't see it as a macho endurance event. My bike is cheap and has flat handlebars and 5 gears. I use it to go places. I am far from fit.
Not getting sweaty is achievable by adding a motor, or pedaling less hard. It seems to me that the latter is cheaper and more convenient.
>because gender and sexuality are social constructs
WTF?
There may be social constructs around gender and sexuality, but for sure no body's bits change gender when they move to a new social situation. Gender and Sexuality are physical constructs. Don't try and inject your social construct voodoo into physical reality.
I'm in two minds about having to walk around with a corpus callostomy bag.
Why bother? My bike works fine without an electric wheel.
>We don't have a liberal arts shortage. We have a STEM shortage.
Looking at the state of architecture across all the non-major towns and cities in the US, there are computers everywhere, but the buildings are hideous and the art is non existent. I suggest we have an arts shortage and plenty of STEM.
Scan round this random sample I plucked from google street view. https://maps.google.com/?ll=45.499826,-122.411803&spn=0.001209,0.001953&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=45.499826,-122.411803&panoid=JdP0_uUuQKlpc5GyXvkw9w&cbp=12,125.12,,0,0
Not if the hashing and mixing in of the TOD was done locally to the server and the remote input was a separate field in the hash. To manipulate the user field to make the hash match when the TOD field is different would require second preimage attack on the hash function, which is a hard problem if your hash algorithm is good.
Or a hash of the quantised TOD of the hosting system is factored into the key derivation function.
Why would anyone possibly think of doing it any other way? Sheesh!