This whole "taking jabs at the original material" bit was engineered on later. They had a plot. They had a property with a recognizable title. They stuck the two together.
Nobody engineered that movie to take swings at the "source material." They changed the names of the characters in an entirely different script to cash in on the recognizability of Heinlein's book.
Robots will *never* live up to the hype. Hype is there to get outsiders excited about something. I'm a robotics researcher, and even *inside* the community, people hype things in order to drum up interest. That's the point of hype.
The fact that things are sometimes overhyped doesn't detract from the fact that significant advancements are being made.
You don't think that having a main wallet containing all of your real money that you tied to a sketchy "financial institution" will reveal your identity when it's the *only* wallet to ever make a transaction with the wallet that you bought your drugs with?
I think that autonomous vehicles will come and go, but they'll be around almost as long as cars with drivers. I'd bet that in the long-long term, urban planning will change such that cars become entirely unnecessary in all but the most remote places. I don't think that we'll ever become so densely populated that the world is one big city, but I'll bet that we'll see large high-rise condos become much much more common, and then it'll be a ride down an elevator to do your shopping and a walk or train ride to school.
It's not that suburbia isn't awesome. It's just the direction I kind of envision things going in. I could be wrong. This sort of radical shift in urban planning would take centuries, to take hold in the west.
A good friend of mine was in the interview process to become an astronaut, and, I have to be honest, I don't think that it hurt her career or her life in any way. She didn't end up an astronaut, but she met a bunch of interesting people, did cool things, and ultimately landed a job at a top university. I doubt she regrets it one bit. If that's what failure looks like, sign me up.
1) Clearly bad passwords will be the most popular. Some people will blow off security and will pick a bad password. 2) There are no data in the article regarding how frequently these passwords are used. 3) There is no representation of what these passwords are protecting. Maybe these are passwords to something harmless like accounts in some children's game. In which case, who cares?
You know, it may sound like a cliche, but the world is becoming more and more reliant on computer technology. You shouldn't look at this as Microsoft looking to churn out cheap help to build Word 2025. That's just not what they're doing. Microsoft engineers aren't poorly compensated for their efforts. Their among the most highly-compensated coders out there.
These are folks who have seen computers completely transform the world around them, and they foresee this trend continuing (probably wisely). There will always be gluts here and there, or shortages here and there, but the fact is that if you want an army of super-intelligent robots cleaning our oceans, helping feed the planet, and maintaining our future space stations, then you're going to need many many more capable coders than we have now.
Ack! Sorry about that! I knew it was an old old webcomic, and that it happened around the time when there were just millions of new UNIX-style operating systems with everyone claiming that theirs was good for a different reason.
This reminds me of the plotline from Userfriendly where one of the techs develops an OS called "The OS That Doesn't Suck." He eventually gives up this pursuit when it, too, begins to suck.
I had the 200-in-1 project lab growing up and recently recommended it to a family friend for his son. I think it is truly fantastic.
Worth noting is that the company offers a 300-in-1 project lab for $30 more. I have no experience with this one, but would imagine that it would be similar, but with more projects!
Not that it would be enough to have an appreciable affect, but it would increase the impact factor of the journal. That would be contrary to the point of such papers.
This is the correct answer. Another company is Otter Box. Build the whole thing, pop it in the case.
Another correct answer, do whatever heavy processing you're doing remotely and have this device just do IO and control. Stick a microcontroller in the box, so it generates less heat.
I could offer a handful of reasons, but the top one would be that they don't want to maintain it. Probably, the developers had Rifts, they wanted to play around with the tech, and they were gambling a bit on the development of the Rift during the development of the game engine (the right time to get involved, if you want to be first-to-market, so a smart move).
However, very few people own Rifts, and so if they left this in, Rift users finding bugs and incompletely-tested code would need to be supported (otherwise, PR nightmare).
When people use the "hack," they have the company has the option of saying, "That's not officially supported, you had to change things in order to do it." So, when there are bugs and things that don't work very well, the company has its hands clean, the enthusiasts still get to fool around with their early-adopter toy, and the company looks better in the long run.
That's not to mention the somewhat unfavorable funding climate at the moment. We're coming off of years of departments being hit with hiring freezes.
This means that there is a big glut of really talented researchers who have been in postdoctoral positions for years. If you can't compete with one of these candidates, you don't have a shot until you can.
Top story on/r/technology right now: "Unhappy Customer: Comcast told my employer about my complaint, got me fired"
The next 2 have the "politics" tag.
The fourth is about a home CNC mill that can finish (or entirely mill out, who cares?) the lower receiver for an AR-15.
Worth noting is that the last isn't exactly high-tech, because you could have done this with a standard desktop milling machine years ago. (In fact, I'd call this particular mill an extremely poor purchase decision, because you can only make one part on it, and that part costs less to simply purchase). The last one is simply a political move showing that modern technology can make it so easy to produce a "ghost gun" that it's pointless to pass laws banning them.
I would argue that that's not really what happened. When CmdrTaco left, the tone of/. was possibly more political than it is now. CmdrTaco did a lot to try to bring/. back to its roots, but the users kept on pushing the content in a more political direction. I don't blame CmdrTaco or the mods, though I agree that some more strict moderation would help the situation as it stands.
I would say that it was two factors: 1) Heavy internet use became mainstream. 2) 9/11
On the first point. Slashdot started in the heat of the first dotcom boom. People wanted to know what was going on in tech. The audience was a self-selecting group made up of developers, open-source users and devs, and entrepreneurs. As time went on, more entrepreneurs and people seeking to get rich (think RedHat IPO) came to Slashdot, and diluted the audience. Now, there's nothing wrong with being one of these people, but they're not the sort who are going to post comments that are deeply embedded in an interest in tech.
Fast-forward a little, and you've got quite a few sites that basically coopted Slashdot's model that popped up. K5 was an early one, but you've got reddit.com, digg.com, fark.com, and now the comments section on cnn.com, all the way to college newspapers like the Yale Daily News website. Link aggregation, or simply sticking a comments section on every single thing posted to the internet became mainstream.
Activity like that diluted what you can get out of a purely democratized content model. True, Slashdot has always had moderation, but a lot of the mod activity is from users, and Slashdot has always taken a gentle hand in these matters. If we're to compare to another website, reddit.com is also heavily driven by user-submitted content. It's, despite what the average redditor would claim, primarily a website about politics, atheism, and pictures, with a little science and tech sprinkled in. That said, the truly aggressively-moderated subreddits are the ones that stay on-topic.
The second factor is 9/11. I'd say that things were basically under control prior to that. On 9/11, the attacks were the big news of the day. I couldn't find the reference, but I think that that is still the most actively commented on story of all time. It pulled in a big crowd of people who wanted to discuss the attacks in real-time, and then they stayed. This was an instant dilution of Slashdot's content, and it stayed that way. For years to come, you'd see political commenters who, for the most part, only wanted to discuss politics. If you'd ask them to stay on-topic, they would give you an excuse along the lines of, "More important stuff is going on than science and technology." These people really seemed to want for the world to grind to a halt until they were happy with the political situation. They're still around.
Measure's were taken. CmdrTaco made several posts both requesting community input and suggesting measures and solutions to the problem. Eventually he stepped down.
In short, Slashdot's problem, if you're looking for a site to discuss science and technology, where people are passionate about these matters, is an audience problem. Folks like us are in the minority now. We always have been, but the internet grew, and is no longer a place where "early adopters" congregate. It is very difficult to have a site like what Slashdot was these days, because a self-selecting audience will include a majority of people who aren't all that invested in either science or technology.
Even with heavy moderation, you would have a difficult time curating the site, to be honest. If you look over recent top stories, the question of, "at what point is moderation fair?" would be kind of difficult to answer. Undoubtedly a new space mission makes the cut, right? Okay, what about discussion of the NSA's activities? Given the volume of communication that is performed online, one could make an argument that every story about their activity is relevant, but it's political material. Of course, there are some clear "rejects." The story that we're all commenting on hasn't got anything to do with technology.
This course is an introductory course for non-majors. That's why it's not like "Intro to Computer Science."
The big deal with Harvard's CS50 course isn't that everyone wants to enroll in computer science, but that it is being taught in a very unorthodox way. Students have the option of attending lectures or watching video lectures online. There is a great deal of supplementary online material. They have all night coding sessions with food and games which are sponsored by businesses such as Microsoft and Google.
Where did you go that theory *wasn't* part of your core?
Also worth noting is that the reason that we teach so much programming is because that's the job associated with the degree. If you don't plan on programming with your degree in computer science, then you'd probably better plan on some graduate school. I suppose you could treat it as an, "I just needed a degree" subject, but it's a lot of work if all you're after is the ability to say that you finished your BS.
California already has number of big, powerful companies headquartered there. They've got a number of great universities. Why pull out all of the stops to get Tesla to set up shop in-state? The US is a big country, and a few other states might want a share of the wealth that a company like Telsa could bring in.
Just a quick note. You probably won't make much on the proceeds for a sale for parts. Used tablet parts don't fetch very much on the open market. If the tablet is non-working, there is no guarantee which parts work and which don't. Taking tablets apart is difficult and time-consuming, so there is a lot of labor involved. Also, due to the ways that tablets tend to be assembled (lots of epoxies and thin plastics), it is very easy to damage the parts during disassembly.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple was doomed from the start. The hood was welded shut and Microsoft tried to sue them over features that were too similar to Windows.
This whole "taking jabs at the original material" bit was engineered on later. They had a plot. They had a property with a recognizable title. They stuck the two together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Nobody engineered that movie to take swings at the "source material." They changed the names of the characters in an entirely different script to cash in on the recognizability of Heinlein's book.
Robots will *never* live up to the hype. Hype is there to get outsiders excited about something. I'm a robotics researcher, and even *inside* the community, people hype things in order to drum up interest. That's the point of hype.
The fact that things are sometimes overhyped doesn't detract from the fact that significant advancements are being made.
You don't think that having a main wallet containing all of your real money that you tied to a sketchy "financial institution" will reveal your identity when it's the *only* wallet to ever make a transaction with the wallet that you bought your drugs with?
I think that autonomous vehicles will come and go, but they'll be around almost as long as cars with drivers. I'd bet that in the long-long term, urban planning will change such that cars become entirely unnecessary in all but the most remote places. I don't think that we'll ever become so densely populated that the world is one big city, but I'll bet that we'll see large high-rise condos become much much more common, and then it'll be a ride down an elevator to do your shopping and a walk or train ride to school.
It's not that suburbia isn't awesome. It's just the direction I kind of envision things going in. I could be wrong. This sort of radical shift in urban planning would take centuries, to take hold in the west.
A good friend of mine was in the interview process to become an astronaut, and, I have to be honest, I don't think that it hurt her career or her life in any way. She didn't end up an astronaut, but she met a bunch of interesting people, did cool things, and ultimately landed a job at a top university. I doubt she regrets it one bit. If that's what failure looks like, sign me up.
I see what you did there!
Exactly!
1) Clearly bad passwords will be the most popular. Some people will blow off security and will pick a bad password.
2) There are no data in the article regarding how frequently these passwords are used.
3) There is no representation of what these passwords are protecting. Maybe these are passwords to something harmless like accounts in some children's game. In which case, who cares?
With all due respect, your post does not seem to have much to do with what I posted at all.
You know, it may sound like a cliche, but the world is becoming more and more reliant on computer technology. You shouldn't look at this as Microsoft looking to churn out cheap help to build Word 2025. That's just not what they're doing. Microsoft engineers aren't poorly compensated for their efforts. Their among the most highly-compensated coders out there.
These are folks who have seen computers completely transform the world around them, and they foresee this trend continuing (probably wisely). There will always be gluts here and there, or shortages here and there, but the fact is that if you want an army of super-intelligent robots cleaning our oceans, helping feed the planet, and maintaining our future space stations, then you're going to need many many more capable coders than we have now.
Ack! Sorry about that! I knew it was an old old webcomic, and that it happened around the time when there were just millions of new UNIX-style operating systems with everyone claiming that theirs was good for a different reason.
This reminds me of the plotline from Userfriendly where one of the techs develops an OS called "The OS That Doesn't Suck." He eventually gives up this pursuit when it, too, begins to suck.
I had the 200-in-1 project lab growing up and recently recommended it to a family friend for his son. I think it is truly fantastic.
Worth noting is that the company offers a 300-in-1 project lab for $30 more. I have no experience with this one, but would imagine that it would be similar, but with more projects!
Not that it would be enough to have an appreciable affect, but it would increase the impact factor of the journal. That would be contrary to the point of such papers.
This is the correct answer. Another company is Otter Box. Build the whole thing, pop it in the case.
Another correct answer, do whatever heavy processing you're doing remotely and have this device just do IO and control. Stick a microcontroller in the box, so it generates less heat.
I could offer a handful of reasons, but the top one would be that they don't want to maintain it. Probably, the developers had Rifts, they wanted to play around with the tech, and they were gambling a bit on the development of the Rift during the development of the game engine (the right time to get involved, if you want to be first-to-market, so a smart move).
However, very few people own Rifts, and so if they left this in, Rift users finding bugs and incompletely-tested code would need to be supported (otherwise, PR nightmare).
When people use the "hack," they have the company has the option of saying, "That's not officially supported, you had to change things in order to do it." So, when there are bugs and things that don't work very well, the company has its hands clean, the enthusiasts still get to fool around with their early-adopter toy, and the company looks better in the long run.
That's not to mention the somewhat unfavorable funding climate at the moment. We're coming off of years of departments being hit with hiring freezes.
This means that there is a big glut of really talented researchers who have been in postdoctoral positions for years. If you can't compete with one of these candidates, you don't have a shot until you can.
Top story on /r/technology right now: "Unhappy Customer: Comcast told my employer about my complaint, got me fired"
The next 2 have the "politics" tag.
The fourth is about a home CNC mill that can finish (or entirely mill out, who cares?) the lower receiver for an AR-15.
Worth noting is that the last isn't exactly high-tech, because you could have done this with a standard desktop milling machine years ago. (In fact, I'd call this particular mill an extremely poor purchase decision, because you can only make one part on it, and that part costs less to simply purchase). The last one is simply a political move showing that modern technology can make it so easy to produce a "ghost gun" that it's pointless to pass laws banning them.
I would argue that that's not really what happened. When CmdrTaco left, the tone of /. was possibly more political than it is now. CmdrTaco did a lot to try to bring /. back to its roots, but the users kept on pushing the content in a more political direction. I don't blame CmdrTaco or the mods, though I agree that some more strict moderation would help the situation as it stands.
I would say that it was two factors:
1) Heavy internet use became mainstream.
2) 9/11
On the first point. Slashdot started in the heat of the first dotcom boom. People wanted to know what was going on in tech. The audience was a self-selecting group made up of developers, open-source users and devs, and entrepreneurs. As time went on, more entrepreneurs and people seeking to get rich (think RedHat IPO) came to Slashdot, and diluted the audience. Now, there's nothing wrong with being one of these people, but they're not the sort who are going to post comments that are deeply embedded in an interest in tech.
Fast-forward a little, and you've got quite a few sites that basically coopted Slashdot's model that popped up. K5 was an early one, but you've got reddit.com, digg.com, fark.com, and now the comments section on cnn.com, all the way to college newspapers like the Yale Daily News website. Link aggregation, or simply sticking a comments section on every single thing posted to the internet became mainstream.
Activity like that diluted what you can get out of a purely democratized content model. True, Slashdot has always had moderation, but a lot of the mod activity is from users, and Slashdot has always taken a gentle hand in these matters. If we're to compare to another website, reddit.com is also heavily driven by user-submitted content. It's, despite what the average redditor would claim, primarily a website about politics, atheism, and pictures, with a little science and tech sprinkled in. That said, the truly aggressively-moderated subreddits are the ones that stay on-topic.
The second factor is 9/11. I'd say that things were basically under control prior to that. On 9/11, the attacks were the big news of the day. I couldn't find the reference, but I think that that is still the most actively commented on story of all time. It pulled in a big crowd of people who wanted to discuss the attacks in real-time, and then they stayed. This was an instant dilution of Slashdot's content, and it stayed that way. For years to come, you'd see political commenters who, for the most part, only wanted to discuss politics. If you'd ask them to stay on-topic, they would give you an excuse along the lines of, "More important stuff is going on than science and technology." These people really seemed to want for the world to grind to a halt until they were happy with the political situation. They're still around.
Measure's were taken. CmdrTaco made several posts both requesting community input and suggesting measures and solutions to the problem. Eventually he stepped down.
In short, Slashdot's problem, if you're looking for a site to discuss science and technology, where people are passionate about these matters, is an audience problem. Folks like us are in the minority now. We always have been, but the internet grew, and is no longer a place where "early adopters" congregate. It is very difficult to have a site like what Slashdot was these days, because a self-selecting audience will include a majority of people who aren't all that invested in either science or technology.
Even with heavy moderation, you would have a difficult time curating the site, to be honest. If you look over recent top stories, the question of, "at what point is moderation fair?" would be kind of difficult to answer. Undoubtedly a new space mission makes the cut, right? Okay, what about discussion of the NSA's activities? Given the volume of communication that is performed online, one could make an argument that every story about their activity is relevant, but it's political material. Of course, there are some clear "rejects." The story that we're all commenting on hasn't got anything to do with technology.
I can shed some light on this.
This course is an introductory course for non-majors. That's why it's not like "Intro to Computer Science."
The big deal with Harvard's CS50 course isn't that everyone wants to enroll in computer science, but that it is being taught in a very unorthodox way. Students have the option of attending lectures or watching video lectures online. There is a great deal of supplementary online material. They have all night coding sessions with food and games which are sponsored by businesses such as Microsoft and Google.
More info can be found here: https://cs50.harvard.edu/
Where did you go that theory *wasn't* part of your core?
Also worth noting is that the reason that we teach so much programming is because that's the job associated with the degree. If you don't plan on programming with your degree in computer science, then you'd probably better plan on some graduate school. I suppose you could treat it as an, "I just needed a degree" subject, but it's a lot of work if all you're after is the ability to say that you finished your BS.
California already has number of big, powerful companies headquartered there. They've got a number of great universities. Why pull out all of the stops to get Tesla to set up shop in-state? The US is a big country, and a few other states might want a share of the wealth that a company like Telsa could bring in.
Really? You're shooting an AR-15 from the hip at a range where a trackpoint system would be helpful?
Just a quick note. You probably won't make much on the proceeds for a sale for parts. Used tablet parts don't fetch very much on the open market. If the tablet is non-working, there is no guarantee which parts work and which don't. Taking tablets apart is difficult and time-consuming, so there is a lot of labor involved. Also, due to the ways that tablets tend to be assembled (lots of epoxies and thin plastics), it is very easy to damage the parts during disassembly.