1. We have a set of rules for interacting with arrays of char, and a set of rules for interacting with strings. Although they both derive from a distantly common structure and each has appropriate uses, mixing the two often yields undesirable and unintended consequences, so we must incur great costs if we try to use or cast one as the other. Including this ambiguity in a tightly coupled distributed system multiplies such frictions and costs for every element of the system.
2. Strategic ambiguity about whether one acts as a state, a nation, a religion, an ethnicity, a culture, or some other category (combination) is undoubtedly an advantage for the actor who gets to choose the rules of engagement. In what ways do the benefits to the broader communities of peoples justify (or not) the ongoing costs of socially permitting a small number of states to exercise this kind of extraordinary freedom?
It amazes me that the conversation is still framed in terms of those binary opposites when the earth's most vibrant societies clearly combine ideas from capitalism, socialism, and many other frameworks.
The approach of specifying fixed rates is not sustainable.
Several dozen wars were successfully fought and nations built in the 18-20c on far less than 30bps. Umpteen years from now, there would be complaints that $state's ISP's are backwards because they are mandated to provide _only_ 100Tb/s when the prevailing daily needs require 100Zb/s access.
And of course, almost everyone forgets that decreases in latency brought about by the modern Internet have provided far more value than increases in throughput.
Whereas this app only funnels a commission through http://connectionpoint.ca/sendmoney and other intermediaries, so that you end up using PayPal as an external service anyway. This app is pointless for anyone in civilized countries where direct account to account transfers or things like Interac are free through your bank's online services.
Yes, that is the point. Groups of creatures die, classes of vehicles crash, etc. pretty much all the time, whether or not they are reported in the media. Such events are not thereby linked in reality, nor should such events be of much scientific or practical interest unless they deviate from long-term expectations.
Intelligence networks have been trying like clockwork to get Wikileaks shut down ever since their parent governments started getting embarrassed by the leaks.
If this were the case, the best way to shut down WL would not have been through a protracted series of half-blunders through the media and courts over three years across a dozen jurisdictions. A commercial off the shelf solution to cleanly eliminate all crucial members of the WL organization can be hand for well under 10,000 euro per head. Heck, hundreds of supposedly embarrassed rich and powerful, or simply angry, individuals who would have had a beef with WL could have ordered similar services online in the time elapsed.
I think you overestimate the importance of WL and its activities.
The important questions to ask are: What are the expected rates of accidents involving lorries? What has been the change in the number of bee lorrie miles travelled or bee lorrie hours on highways? and does this apparent cluster violate expectations based on those numbers?
I would first guess that this is explained better by cognitive biases relating to our casual misunderstanding of statistics than by statistics on a handful of cases. This time last year, everyone thought there was a pattern when several mass bird deaths were both noticed and reported within a short period. However, there was no underlying cause or connection among them.
Thank you for this. Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity theory appears to help me bridge some concepts on the computability of social laws for some ongoing work.
That "always" qualifier was unfortunately introduced by whomever summarized the article for submission here. TFA's research was about how steady states are achieved given networks of potential opinion holders with particular characteristics. TFA also lists disclaimers such as "conditioned on the survival of the system" and ways in which the network could change along with the opinions it contains.
The conclusion observes that the (American) civil rights movement took off after the African American population reached 10% after the Civil War. The authors also mention important sociological theory in their introduction. Together, I would read that as an awareness that factors beyond the edges and nodes of the (simulated) networks are important, but also that Phys. Rev. E isn't the best place to apply an approach from critical theory or the like.
You might consider thinking more precisely about the degree to which systems are closed, the characteristics of activity, and their scales.
A brain that only interacts with itself for 70 years will have some interesting dynamics.
Our solar system has been reliably running calculations and resisted assaults on it for several billion years longer than the class of processes commonly called "organic".
It's a legitimate question, and 10 hours at slashdot saves an hour creeping @sandmonkey or @telecomix or any of the other places where this has been discussed, or an hour at the library.
He knows that a small portion of a big pie is generally more satisfying than the entirety of a minuscule one; that there are no opcodes for sympathy or empathy; and that interaction with society is not a trapdoor function.
But what do I know, I've only lead (successively) the marketing, sales, support, and research divisions of a multi-national firm through scaling from 10e2 to 10e5 desktops with only a modest linear growth in technology costs.
Because some of us work with multi-TB scratch data on our workstations, and it it would be really nice not to have use do disk arrays to approach even one gigabyte per second, especially when even low-end memory and CPU busses can handle data at several times that rate.
There's adding new features, which is invention at best. The bazillion features in an office suite are certainly inventive, but most are irrelevant to most users. Then there's innovation. Innovation occurs when those inventions change how other people do things, whether or not they appear in a product or service produced by the inventor.
To the extent that almost any slightly clued user of any product could suggest improvements or inventions to their tools and be copied, almost everything that goes on with technology may be called innovative, but not all innovations are of the same impact.
Opera is inventive by making many new gadgets for web browsing, and Opera is innovative by changing how a portion of their comparative handful of users interact online. Google and the other browser makers are massively innovative by inducing users to change their browsing habits of hundreds of millions of people by popularly implementing analogous features to those invented by Opera.
Please read any of the OECD innovation manuals, and in particular, focus on the differential impacts of innovations at different scopes (new to the world, new to the region, new to the industry, etc.).
With respect to disabling parts of memory that are not in use to save heat and/or energy, that is certainly inventive, if not original. (Designers of embedded devices and software have used similar tactics for decades.) Will it change the computing habits of millions of users? Will most Linux users even know or notice that the feature exists? Probably not.
Also, pointing out that Linux is mostly derivative in no way diminishes its accomplishments. There just aren't (m)any new ideas in the world that are not based on previous concepts. Most of Apple's designs strongly take after Bauhaus design patterns.
I'd give the cookie for coining "open innovation" to von Hippel (for making it popular, regardless of who "invented" it) but the concept and practice has been around for decades.
Fairchild Semiconductor (and many other electronics concerns) practiced open innovation in the 1960s by involving customers in the design, manufacture, and specification of their products, providing royalty-free reusable circuit and implementation designs and libraries, hosting user groups and forums, etc. (See Brock, 2010's "Makers of the Microchip", MIT press.)
Before semiconductors, agricultural machinists in the 19th century shared comparable information and enabled users to collaborate to increase user satisfaction and thereby customer loyalty, etc.
The only news here is that the software, the most portable and easy to replicate of modern industrial technologies, took decades to adopt open innovation as mostly a token gesture. But that's only if you believe the article and ignore all the microcomputer zines and technical bulletins starting from the 50s in which computer operators from IBM and big institutions down to the basement delay line memory hacker openly shared code and implementation details with each other.
Speaking of tokens, take a guess at what year the first two digits of IEEE 802.x designate.
Why go to that much effort when TPP has conveniently concentrated much dissident activity into a small number of open text egresses into the public internet that can be easily monitored under existing technologies and legislation domestically or by allied agencies?
dateTimeOriginal Label: DateTimeOriginal Comment: The date and time when the original image data was generated. For a DSC the date and time the picture was taken are recorded.
dateTimeDigitized Label: DateTimeDigitized Comment: The date and time when the image was stored as digital data. If, for example, an image was captured by DSC and at the same time the file was recorded, then the DateTimeOriginal and DateTimeDigitized will have the same contents.
A short file header which typically contains an indicator of the byte-ordering of the file, a file identifier and an offset into the main file data Camera sensor metadata which is required to interpret the sensor image data. This includes the size of the sensor, the attributes of the CFA and its color profile Image metadata which is required for inclusion in any CMS environment or database. These include the exposure settings, camera/scanner/lens model, date (and, optionally, place) of shoot/scan, authoring information and other. Some raw files contain a standardized metadata section with data in Exif format. An image thumbnail Optionally a reduced-size image in JPEG format, which can be used for a quick and less computing-intensive preview. In the case of motion picture film scans, either the timecode, keycode or frame number in the file sequence which represents the frame sequence in a scanned reel; this is the most important metadata item, because it allows the file to be ordered in a frame sequence (without relying on its filename). The sensor image data
I get runs such as:
<exif:DateTimeOriginal>2011-04-05T20:03:21.80-06:00</exif:DateTimeOriginal>
<exif:DateTimeOriginal>2011-04-05T20:03:22.00-06:00</exif:DateTimeOriginal>
<exif:DateTimeOriginal>2011-04-05T20:03:22.20-06:00</exif:DateTimeOriginal>
Granted, this is only 1/100 second resolution, not the 1/1000 second resolution indicated in the article, but the newer speeding cameras presumably include better purpose-built technology.
Yes. The basic problem in this problem is that at present, mobs can expend X units of work to cause FB to expend Y > X work to investigate the complaint, or to cause the Z > X work to be further expended to fight the complaint (for Y and Z being not more than a few times, say 10, larger than X). The solution proposes that FB avoids spending that 10X work by enabling mobs to expend 100X units of work to cause FB to incur some exponential of X work through community moderators. (The amount of work the jurors spend is exponential to the number of complaints received, if the jurors are of a statistically significant size.)
As a mob, the exponential works in my favour. I can easily spawn 200 complaints a day as an individual without tool assists, each costing FB or its community 100X (=20000X) but costing me 200X in total, I've used each of member of your jury pool once in a day. If my mob of 100 each spawns 400 tool-assisted complaints a day, 400*100*100, my mobs's 400 units of work costs FB or its community 4,000,000 units of work.
With just a little more effort, my mob could spam your new abuse detection system until its effectiveness returns to previous levels, while causing the entire community to incur exponentially greater costs for this new system.
Slashdot Mirror
How about a marketplace that efficiently clears?
1. We have a set of rules for interacting with arrays of char, and a set of rules for interacting with strings. Although they both derive from a distantly common structure and each has appropriate uses, mixing the two often yields undesirable and unintended consequences, so we must incur great costs if we try to use or cast one as the other. Including this ambiguity in a tightly coupled distributed system multiplies such frictions and costs for every element of the system.
2. Strategic ambiguity about whether one acts as a state, a nation, a religion, an ethnicity, a culture, or some other category (combination) is undoubtedly an advantage for the actor who gets to choose the rules of engagement. In what ways do the benefits to the broader communities of peoples justify (or not) the ongoing costs of socially permitting a small number of states to exercise this kind of extraordinary freedom?
It amazes me that the conversation is still framed in terms of those binary opposites when the earth's most vibrant societies clearly combine ideas from capitalism, socialism, and many other frameworks.
The approach of specifying fixed rates is not sustainable.
Several dozen wars were successfully fought and nations built in the 18-20c on far less than 30bps. Umpteen years from now, there would be complaints that $state's ISP's are backwards because they are mandated to provide _only_ 100Tb/s when the prevailing daily needs require 100Zb/s access.
And of course, almost everyone forgets that decreases in latency brought about by the modern Internet have provided far more value than increases in throughput.
> fraud and straight up money laundering
Whereas this app only funnels a commission through http://connectionpoint.ca/sendmoney and other intermediaries, so that you end up using PayPal as an external service anyway. This app is pointless for anyone in civilized countries where direct account to account transfers or things like Interac are free through your bank's online services.
Careful: You're dangerously close to describing the originalist vs constructivist interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.
Yes, that is the point. Groups of creatures die, classes of vehicles crash, etc. pretty much all the time, whether or not they are reported in the media. Such events are not thereby linked in reality, nor should such events be of much scientific or practical interest unless they deviate from long-term expectations.
Sure it's affecting other people. In this housing crisis, there are plenty who would love to live rent-free in his head.
Intelligence networks have been trying like clockwork to get Wikileaks shut down ever since their parent governments started getting embarrassed by the leaks.
If this were the case, the best way to shut down WL would not have been through a protracted series of half-blunders through the media and courts over three years across a dozen jurisdictions. A commercial off the shelf solution to cleanly eliminate all crucial members of the WL organization can be hand for well under 10,000 euro per head. Heck, hundreds of supposedly embarrassed rich and powerful, or simply angry, individuals who would have had a beef with WL could have ordered similar services online in the time elapsed.
I think you overestimate the importance of WL and its activities.
The important questions to ask are: What are the expected rates of accidents involving lorries? What has been the change in the number of bee lorrie miles travelled or bee lorrie hours on highways? and does this apparent cluster violate expectations based on those numbers?
I would first guess that this is explained better by cognitive biases relating to our casual misunderstanding of statistics than by statistics on a handful of cases. This time last year, everyone thought there was a pattern when several mass bird deaths were both noticed and reported within a short period. However, there was no underlying cause or connection among them.
Thank you for this. Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity theory appears to help me bridge some concepts on the computability of social laws for some ongoing work.
That "always" qualifier was unfortunately introduced by whomever summarized the article for submission here. TFA's research was about how steady states are achieved given networks of potential opinion holders with particular characteristics. TFA also lists disclaimers such as "conditioned on the survival of the system" and ways in which the network could change along with the opinions it contains.
The conclusion observes that the (American) civil rights movement took off after the African American population reached 10% after the Civil War. The authors also mention important sociological theory in their introduction. Together, I would read that as an awareness that factors beyond the edges and nodes of the (simulated) networks are important, but also that Phys. Rev. E isn't the best place to apply an approach from critical theory or the like.
You might consider thinking more precisely about the degree to which systems are closed, the characteristics of activity, and their scales.
A brain that only interacts with itself for 70 years will have some interesting dynamics.
Our solar system has been reliably running calculations and resisted assaults on it for several billion years longer than the class of processes commonly called "organic".
You must be looking for 4chan.
It's a legitimate question, and 10 hours at slashdot saves an hour creeping @sandmonkey or @telecomix or any of the other places where this has been discussed, or an hour at the library.
Also, I concur with Mathinker at (#36718270)
He knows that a small portion of a big pie is generally more satisfying than the entirety of a minuscule one; that there are no opcodes for sympathy or empathy; and that interaction with society is not a trapdoor function.
But what do I know, I've only lead (successively) the marketing, sales, support, and research divisions of a multi-national firm through scaling from 10e2 to 10e5 desktops with only a modest linear growth in technology costs.
Because some of us work with multi-TB scratch data on our workstations, and it it would be really nice not to have use do disk arrays to approach even one gigabyte per second, especially when even low-end memory and CPU busses can handle data at several times that rate.
There's adding new features, which is invention at best. The bazillion features in an office suite are certainly inventive, but most are irrelevant to most users. Then there's innovation. Innovation occurs when those inventions change how other people do things, whether or not they appear in a product or service produced by the inventor.
To the extent that almost any slightly clued user of any product could suggest improvements or inventions to their tools and be copied, almost everything that goes on with technology may be called innovative, but not all innovations are of the same impact.
Opera is inventive by making many new gadgets for web browsing, and Opera is innovative by changing how a portion of their comparative handful of users interact online. Google and the other browser makers are massively innovative by inducing users to change their browsing habits of hundreds of millions of people by popularly implementing analogous features to those invented by Opera.
Please read any of the OECD innovation manuals, and in particular, focus on the differential impacts of innovations at different scopes (new to the world, new to the region, new to the industry, etc.).
With respect to disabling parts of memory that are not in use to save heat and/or energy, that is certainly inventive, if not original. (Designers of embedded devices and software have used similar tactics for decades.) Will it change the computing habits of millions of users? Will most Linux users even know or notice that the feature exists? Probably not.
Also, pointing out that Linux is mostly derivative in no way diminishes its accomplishments. There just aren't (m)any new ideas in the world that are not based on previous concepts. Most of Apple's designs strongly take after Bauhaus design patterns.
What a completely forgetful article.
I'd give the cookie for coining "open innovation" to von Hippel (for making it popular, regardless of who "invented" it) but the concept and practice has been around for decades.
Fairchild Semiconductor (and many other electronics concerns) practiced open innovation in the 1960s by involving customers in the design, manufacture, and specification of their products, providing royalty-free reusable circuit and implementation designs and libraries, hosting user groups and forums, etc. (See Brock, 2010's "Makers of the Microchip", MIT press.)
Before semiconductors, agricultural machinists in the 19th century shared comparable information and enabled users to collaborate to increase user satisfaction and thereby customer loyalty, etc.
The only news here is that the software, the most portable and easy to replicate of modern industrial technologies, took decades to adopt open innovation as mostly a token gesture. But that's only if you believe the article and ignore all the microcomputer zines and technical bulletins starting from the 50s in which computer operators from IBM and big institutions down to the basement delay line memory hacker openly shared code and implementation details with each other.
Speaking of tokens, take a guess at what year the first two digits of IEEE 802.x designate.
I think the important insight is that Parkinson's Law applies not just to the quantity of data, but also to the varieties of data.
Peace is easy as long as everyone lives under my rules.
Why go to that much effort when TPP has conveniently concentrated much dissident activity into a small number of open text egresses into the public internet that can be easily monitored under existing technologies and legislation domestically or by allied agencies?
Read the fine spec. It distinguishes between taking and recording of an image to file:
http://www.w3.org/2003/12/exif/
dateTimeOriginal
Label: DateTimeOriginal
Comment: The date and time when the original image data was generated. For a DSC the date and time the picture was taken are recorded.
dateTimeDigitized
Label: DateTimeDigitized
Comment: The date and time when the image was stored as digital data. If, for example, an image was captured by DSC and at the same time the file was recorded, then the DateTimeOriginal and DateTimeDigitized will have the same contents.
Meta data stored by my seven year old dSLR's burst mode and non-burst mode RAW files include pretty much what is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format
A short file header which typically contains an indicator of the byte-ordering of the file, a file identifier and an offset into the main file data
Camera sensor metadata which is required to interpret the sensor image data. This includes the size of the sensor, the attributes of the CFA and its color profile
Image metadata which is required for inclusion in any CMS environment or database. These include the exposure settings, camera/scanner/lens model, date (and, optionally, place) of shoot/scan, authoring information and other. Some raw files contain a standardized metadata section with data in Exif format.
An image thumbnail
Optionally a reduced-size image in JPEG format, which can be used for a quick and less computing-intensive preview.
In the case of motion picture film scans, either the timecode, keycode or frame number in the file sequence which represents the frame sequence in a scanned reel; this is the most important metadata item, because it allows the file to be ordered in a frame sequence (without relying on its filename).
The sensor image data
I get runs such as:
<exif:DateTimeOriginal>2011-04-05T20:03:21.80-06:00</exif:DateTimeOriginal>
<exif:DateTimeOriginal>2011-04-05T20:03:22.00-06:00</exif:DateTimeOriginal>
<exif:DateTimeOriginal>2011-04-05T20:03:22.20-06:00</exif:DateTimeOriginal>
Granted, this is only 1/100 second resolution, not the 1/1000 second resolution indicated in the article, but the newer speeding cameras presumably include better purpose-built technology.
Yes. The basic problem in this problem is that at present, mobs can expend X units of work to cause FB to expend Y > X work to investigate the complaint, or to cause the Z > X work to be further expended to fight the complaint (for Y and Z being not more than a few times, say 10, larger than X). The solution proposes that FB avoids spending that 10X work by enabling mobs to expend 100X units of work to cause FB to incur some exponential of X work through community moderators. (The amount of work the jurors spend is exponential to the number of complaints received, if the jurors are of a statistically significant size.)
As a mob, the exponential works in my favour. I can easily spawn 200 complaints a day as an individual without tool assists, each costing FB or its community 100X (=20000X) but costing me 200X in total, I've used each of member of your jury pool once in a day. If my mob of 100 each spawns 400 tool-assisted complaints a day, 400*100*100, my mobs's 400 units of work costs FB or its community 4,000,000 units of work.
With just a little more effort, my mob could spam your new abuse detection system until its effectiveness returns to previous levels, while causing the entire community to incur exponentially greater costs for this new system.