Security isn't about safety. The vast majority of passwords are for identification, rather than security. And the ones that are for security, are for a "reasonable" amount of security. The biggest point is to make breaking it an obviously-intentional exercise -- because that can be made illegal. It's not about stopping criminals. It's about defining criminals.
So go ahead and make your twitter account password super-secure so that no one can ever hack in. And then go home to your cylinder lock, easily pickable, next to the big glass window. Then tell us how safe you are -- remembering that whether or not you keep your twitter password on a sticky note, and whether or not your desktop e-mail is accessible within your home without a password, your children and your wife, and your dog are sleeping behind not such password.
And any locksmith can break into any car, as a ten-second paid-for emergency service. And so can anyone who's watched them do it.
Stop trying to feel safe. Just feel safe. It's a lot easier, cheaper, and much more valid.
Soil quality and water supply follow humans -- and we have infinite water supply around here, especially going north. We can carry soil. Greenhouses are easy solutions too.
I am. Cloud services, server management, and hosting in general are things that I've never done. That's why I'm paying for it in the first place. I have zero intention on learning any of it. That's not my job.
I need a lot more than luck. I need a good supplier; and I think I've found one.
Oh, in case that wasn't clear (it wasn't), my business is a web development business that builds-tests-deploys all live, and hence would be doing so on the forth-coming cloud service.
I've spent over ten years on dedicated servers, and have been very happy. Over the next year, I'll be moving into a private cloud scenario -- (not amazon or google, yuck. A local datacentre rolling their own.) I'll have some dedicated hardware (physical servers: CPU, RAM), and be sharing the rest of the cloud (storage, power, network, et cetera.).
It's interesting because there are no actual benefits to me in terms of performance, capacity, stability, or price by moving -- even backups aren't any more fluid. Of course, my platform and business model have been well-tuned over the years, and my sub-industry doesn't have the fluctuations that are typically heralded by cloud services.
So why am I moving? Abstracted hardware. I've reached that point where migrating from one dedicated server to another is a major undertaking. It's days of work, weeks of testing, and a huge risk to my business if I were to move any significant number of clients at one time; that means spreading it out over a year which means paying for the old and the new at the same time with zero additional revenue.
I've got no problem with resource management and capacity planning. I just have trouble actually growing through the transition points. Moving to a private cloud is likely to give me the convenience of being able to upgrade physical servers instantly without any worries -- it's the virtualization layers and load balancing mostly.
Perhaps you aren't familiar with just how much land we're talking about. I don't need to have checked it all. I need to have found more of it than is currently used. Yes. Yes I have. Remembering that currently we don't use even 1% of what's above it. For every degree of climate change, we get basically triple what we have currently. And again, people carry things.
Stop suggesting that I said we would grow corn 2'000 miles north of where we do now. All of global warming is talking about a change of 5 degrees or less. That's about 100 to 200 miles north. We've got plenty of people living all the way up. We're a well-off country, and we've plenty of top-soil. It's not difficult to carry it with us north 100 miles to new pastures. Welcome to new real estate opening up. The nicer it is -- in terms of temperature -- the more readily people will move there. Then they'll be talking about humans as the life-supporting teraformers of earth: able to expedite converting tundra into lucious pasture.
And if you knew what you were talking about, you'd think one step further. It takes two years for top soil to appear on a landscape once the temperature is suitable. It's tundra because it's cold. If it weren't cold, it wouldn't be tundra for very long.
25% reduction in corn yields. 30% increase in amount of no-longer-frozen land. Seems obvious to me: grow the corn in other places.
But hey, I'm all for it. My country gets huge benefits from global warming -- not that we saw any this winter. So I'm rooting for it. Improved economy, improved agriculture, improved tourism, improved fitness, reduced road costs, improved health, reduced traffic accidents, increased real-estate, vast amounts of new land. ..the list goes on and on.
So either way, I don't care about this analysis. Bring on global warming, a good 500 million of us are looking forward to it, and have been waiting for centuries.
This is all crazy stupid wrong. The only thing "new" here is the term "3D printing" itself. Commonly-available hand-tools meant that anyone could build a table in about day. Few people do. Commonly-available home power tools meant that anyone could build a nice table in about an hour. Few people do.
Right now, odds are that ten people within walking distance in your residential neighbourhood can build your dining room set for half the price that you paid. Again, you won't ask them to and they won't offer.
Society doesn't progress based on what's possible, nor based on what's easy. It progresses based on what influences individuals. Today, that's their feeling of safety. You don't want a table that won't fall apart. You want a table that someone has promised/guaranteed/warranteed won't fall apart. You want someone to sue, someone to blame, and someone who loses money when you aren't happy.
That's why distributors exist today. There's no longer an actual distribution need. Any manufacturer can easily ship your dining room set to you at way less than the cost of target's warehousing and customer service. So much so that often it's drop-shiped that way to you even when you do buy it from target. But the manufacturer doesn't want to deal with you, and target is trained to ignore you -- that's what they get paid to do. That's why they exist.
None of that changes with 3d printing. Just like it didn't with 2d printing, I'll have you note. When was the last time you heard of someone who 2d printed their own wedding invitations? Or billboards? Or big vinyl banners? Or bus bench ads? Or any reasonable number of business cards? You 2d print things today that in the past who'd have hand-written -- like mailbox ads for baby-sitters, lost dogs, and scrap metal collection. Yes, it's more convenient to 2d-print it at home than it was to hand-write it. But that's the only change.
3d printing will be the same way. If you build something today, it'll be easier to build it tomorrow. That's true of all technological advances. But if you don't make shoes today, you won't make shoes tomorrow with a 3d printer -- I promise.
Oh man, don't get me started on lisp. Lisp needs one thing, and possibly one thing only -- to not depend solely on parens. Let me use braces, brackets, and parens and I'll be happy. Of all of the languages that I've ever learned, Lisp was probably the least visually legible.
It was also the fastest to learn and to use. Go figure.
If you select a programming language in which to program, then you run into all of the problems in the article.
If you choose a programming language in which to program, based on the needs of your scenario, then you run into very few of the problems discussed in the article.
If you create a programming language through which to solve the needs of your scenario, then the article simply makes no sense at all any more.
The article goes into multiple iterations of "in the real world, we describe like ; so why do we do it differently in programming?". The most memorable to me is when the author compares a picture of a playing card, the ace of spades, and compares it to "cards[0][12]", asking: "why can't we use the picture in programming?"
But that's just retarded. First off, we don't use the picture of the ace of spades when we speak. We use the words "ace of spades". And since that's incredibly ambiguous outside of a card game, we actually use "the card: the ace of spades", which is absolutely no different from cards[spades][ace], and we often enumerate cards in tutorials for bridge and for blackjack, so cards[spades][12] would be common. And in bridge, the suits have a sequence too, so cards[3][12] would be fine in context.
I think people forget that text came last -- after objects, after pictures, after speech, and way after gestures. Text is better. It's faster to transfer, faster to communicate, faster to scan, seek, read, and understand. It's more specific too.
But in everything in the real world, we manufacture a language specific to the task at hand. The word "grade" is an excellent example. In construction, geography, education, and manufacturing, the same word, with the same meaning, has entirely different semantics, usage, and even syntax. Welcome to jargon -- context/community/application-specific language.
What this article describes is the all-too-common practice is the programming industry of using construction tools (hammers, screwdrivers, nails, i-beams) as tools to teach children how to paint. Sure you can do it. And sure you can complain about how crummy a jack-hammer is at painting a canvas, but that's not the hammer's fault, nor is it the canvas's fault. It's your fault.
5 robots are approximately, by my calculations, 10 times the price of 10 humans in the restaurant business. I don't see Chili's doing that any time soon.
Really, for as long as waitresses are free -- which they are, because they work for tips -- and for as long as there are an infinite number of people looking for waitress jobs -- which there are, because actresses, artists, comedians, writers, and just about every career path involved in generating content has zero income for the first decade -- robots won't be the choice of restaurant owners.
It's three times more expensive than my own kitchen right now. It's also three times more expensive than fast-food places too -- even good fast food places. Mucho burrito is wonderful, and it's three times cheaper than an actual sit-down mexican restaurant.
It's not about cheaper. It's about the quality of the food and of the experience. This is my life. It's not about being efficient. It's about being flamboyant.
You're also running out of things for teenagers to do. Think of all of the careers that don't make any money for ten years, and have new-comers being servers throughout. Think of every actress for starters. You're going to reach the point where the server job is so over-supplied that it will get cheaper and cheaper -- and subsidised to hell as a result.
Employers won't choose a machine over a near-free human, government subsidised.
That's not a fair comparison. Gas stations are a negative experience no matter how you get gas. Restaurants are recreational first. But still, there is the walmart crowd, and they've ruined their own economy for themselves. They forget that they get paid from the same cycle and those they pay. I'm thankful that I'm not in that economy.
Heh, I cook the same way. But I live within a ten-minute drive of 65 farms, so for 6 months of the year, I eat better than any king on the planet. But I've found some proper restaurants that use the very same ingredients -- like the french bistro with the owner/chef who changes his menu based on the morning's farmers' market acquisitions.
They do exist. Just find the proper chef-based restaurants.
When you say "automated", remember that you mean "automated cheaper". At $10/hour, it costs $500 for a week of a human; $1'000 considering benefits, sick days, and supervision. If you want a robot to work for $1'000 per week, you need to remember that maintenance on the robot means paying a skilled worker over $100/hour. That basically means you'll need the robot to operate under $650/week. That includes energy/fuel/fluids, as well as damage caused that you can't take out of their paycheck.
But I think you've forgotten the most important part. Hiring humans for $10/hour is already automation for the employer. The machine version actually removes the hard-sell and the upsell part. A human waitress can easily get a table of customers to spend an additional 20% on a meal. And then get them to tip yet another 20%. The robot won't, because it'll be considered abusive.
So I'll revise my numbers from above. The good waitress doesn't get $10/hour. The good waitress gets a salary of $5/hour -- because minimum wage doesn't actually apply to tip-based jobs in most cities. That same good waitress winds up being paid mainly from tips, and receives closer to $30/hour.
The robot won't get any tips, for the same reason that you don't tip any owner.
So that human actually costs $200/week, $350 after supervision and sick days and benefits. So the robot needs to operate on less than $300 per week in order to be more efficient.
And that, just won't happen for any machine, because it definitely needs one human to supervise, and it'll cost something to operate in fuel and fluids, and it'll cause some kind of accidental damage that you can't pull from its paycheck.
And it won't generate tip revenue, which would otherwise be going to the still-required humans.
This doesn't take into account the one thing that most futurists never take into account. Maybe I'm not the only one who wouldn't enjoy going to a restaurant and not being served. Maybe I'd see that as a low-quality dive, and wouldn't be interested in a steak from a conveyor belt. Maybe the reason that I often go out to restaurants is specifically to be served by someone else. Maybe that's half the value.
So after showing and discussing horror stories, with photographs no less, the person was less interested in the subject of your discussion? Big surprise. Welcome to cognitive dissonance.
you've split, juggled, and then confused three of my counter-comments out of context from the original discussion. I had put forth an example of why 18 year olds don't understand compound interest. you're now three-nested-arguments deeper from there.
try commenting on the original point -- that their parents don't have any idea how much dollars they are paying in interest. That was the only point. Forget about my very rough examples of my situation without any details. I'm in a different country than you, with a different banking system than yours. I never said anything about a HELOC. My mortgage is likely, and apparently, nothing like yours.
I said borrow against my home equity. I never said anything about a line of credit. Why the hell would I ever use a line of credit when a mortgage is so very much cheaper?
Slashdot Mirror
Security isn't about safety. The vast majority of passwords are for identification, rather than security. And the ones that are for security, are for a "reasonable" amount of security. The biggest point is to make breaking it an obviously-intentional exercise -- because that can be made illegal. It's not about stopping criminals. It's about defining criminals.
So go ahead and make your twitter account password super-secure so that no one can ever hack in. And then go home to your cylinder lock, easily pickable, next to the big glass window. Then tell us how safe you are -- remembering that whether or not you keep your twitter password on a sticky note, and whether or not your desktop e-mail is accessible within your home without a password, your children and your wife, and your dog are sleeping behind not such password.
And any locksmith can break into any car, as a ten-second paid-for emergency service. And so can anyone who's watched them do it.
Stop trying to feel safe. Just feel safe. It's a lot easier, cheaper, and much more valid.
Did you leave your oven on?
Soil quality and water supply follow humans -- and we have infinite water supply around here, especially going north. We can carry soil. Greenhouses are easy solutions too.
I am. Cloud services, server management, and hosting in general are things that I've never done. That's why I'm paying for it in the first place. I have zero intention on learning any of it. That's not my job.
I need a lot more than luck. I need a good supplier; and I think I've found one.
Oh, in case that wasn't clear (it wasn't), my business is a web development business that builds-tests-deploys all live, and hence would be doing so on the forth-coming cloud service.
I've spent over ten years on dedicated servers, and have been very happy. Over the next year, I'll be moving into a private cloud scenario -- (not amazon or google, yuck. A local datacentre rolling their own.) I'll have some dedicated hardware (physical servers: CPU, RAM), and be sharing the rest of the cloud (storage, power, network, et cetera.).
It's interesting because there are no actual benefits to me in terms of performance, capacity, stability, or price by moving -- even backups aren't any more fluid. Of course, my platform and business model have been well-tuned over the years, and my sub-industry doesn't have the fluctuations that are typically heralded by cloud services.
So why am I moving? Abstracted hardware. I've reached that point where migrating from one dedicated server to another is a major undertaking. It's days of work, weeks of testing, and a huge risk to my business if I were to move any significant number of clients at one time; that means spreading it out over a year which means paying for the old and the new at the same time with zero additional revenue.
I've got no problem with resource management and capacity planning. I just have trouble actually growing through the transition points. Moving to a private cloud is likely to give me the convenience of being able to upgrade physical servers instantly without any worries -- it's the virtualization layers and load balancing mostly.
Wish me luck.
Perhaps you aren't familiar with just how much land we're talking about. I don't need to have checked it all. I need to have found more of it than is currently used. Yes. Yes I have. Remembering that currently we don't use even 1% of what's above it. For every degree of climate change, we get basically triple what we have currently. And again, people carry things.
Stop suggesting that I said we would grow corn 2'000 miles north of where we do now. All of global warming is talking about a change of 5 degrees or less. That's about 100 to 200 miles north. We've got plenty of people living all the way up. We're a well-off country, and we've plenty of top-soil. It's not difficult to carry it with us north 100 miles to new pastures. Welcome to new real estate opening up. The nicer it is -- in terms of temperature -- the more readily people will move there. Then they'll be talking about humans as the life-supporting teraformers of earth: able to expedite converting tundra into lucious pasture.
And if you knew what you were talking about, you'd think one step further. It takes two years for top soil to appear on a landscape once the temperature is suitable. It's tundra because it's cold. If it weren't cold, it wouldn't be tundra for very long.
25% reduction in corn yields. 30% increase in amount of no-longer-frozen land. Seems obvious to me: grow the corn in other places.
But hey, I'm all for it. My country gets huge benefits from global warming -- not that we saw any this winter. So I'm rooting for it. Improved economy, improved agriculture, improved tourism, improved fitness, reduced road costs, improved health, reduced traffic accidents, increased real-estate, vast amounts of new land. . .the list goes on and on.
So either way, I don't care about this analysis. Bring on global warming, a good 500 million of us are looking forward to it, and have been waiting for centuries.
This is all crazy stupid wrong. The only thing "new" here is the term "3D printing" itself. Commonly-available hand-tools meant that anyone could build a table in about day. Few people do. Commonly-available home power tools meant that anyone could build a nice table in about an hour. Few people do.
Right now, odds are that ten people within walking distance in your residential neighbourhood can build your dining room set for half the price that you paid. Again, you won't ask them to and they won't offer.
Society doesn't progress based on what's possible, nor based on what's easy. It progresses based on what influences individuals. Today, that's their feeling of safety. You don't want a table that won't fall apart. You want a table that someone has promised/guaranteed/warranteed won't fall apart. You want someone to sue, someone to blame, and someone who loses money when you aren't happy.
That's why distributors exist today. There's no longer an actual distribution need. Any manufacturer can easily ship your dining room set to you at way less than the cost of target's warehousing and customer service. So much so that often it's drop-shiped that way to you even when you do buy it from target. But the manufacturer doesn't want to deal with you, and target is trained to ignore you -- that's what they get paid to do. That's why they exist.
None of that changes with 3d printing. Just like it didn't with 2d printing, I'll have you note. When was the last time you heard of someone who 2d printed their own wedding invitations? Or billboards? Or big vinyl banners? Or bus bench ads? Or any reasonable number of business cards? You 2d print things today that in the past who'd have hand-written -- like mailbox ads for baby-sitters, lost dogs, and scrap metal collection. Yes, it's more convenient to 2d-print it at home than it was to hand-write it. But that's the only change.
3d printing will be the same way. If you build something today, it'll be easier to build it tomorrow. That's true of all technological advances. But if you don't make shoes today, you won't make shoes tomorrow with a 3d printer -- I promise.
Oh man, don't get me started on lisp. Lisp needs one thing, and possibly one thing only -- to not depend solely on parens. Let me use braces, brackets, and parens and I'll be happy. Of all of the languages that I've ever learned, Lisp was probably the least visually legible.
It was also the fastest to learn and to use. Go figure.
If you select a programming language in which to program, then you run into all of the problems in the article.
If you choose a programming language in which to program, based on the needs of your scenario, then you run into very few of the problems discussed in the article.
If you create a programming language through which to solve the needs of your scenario, then the article simply makes no sense at all any more.
The article goes into multiple iterations of "in the real world, we describe like ; so why do we do it differently in programming?". The most memorable to me is when the author compares a picture of a playing card, the ace of spades, and compares it to "cards[0][12]", asking: "why can't we use the picture in programming?"
But that's just retarded. First off, we don't use the picture of the ace of spades when we speak. We use the words "ace of spades". And since that's incredibly ambiguous outside of a card game, we actually use "the card: the ace of spades", which is absolutely no different from cards[spades][ace], and we often enumerate cards in tutorials for bridge and for blackjack, so cards[spades][12] would be common. And in bridge, the suits have a sequence too, so cards[3][12] would be fine in context.
I think people forget that text came last -- after objects, after pictures, after speech, and way after gestures. Text is better. It's faster to transfer, faster to communicate, faster to scan, seek, read, and understand. It's more specific too.
But in everything in the real world, we manufacture a language specific to the task at hand. The word "grade" is an excellent example. In construction, geography, education, and manufacturing, the same word, with the same meaning, has entirely different semantics, usage, and even syntax. Welcome to jargon -- context/community/application-specific language.
What this article describes is the all-too-common practice is the programming industry of using construction tools (hammers, screwdrivers, nails, i-beams) as tools to teach children how to paint. Sure you can do it. And sure you can complain about how crummy a jack-hammer is at painting a canvas, but that's not the hammer's fault, nor is it the canvas's fault. It's your fault.
5 robots are approximately, by my calculations, 10 times the price of 10 humans in the restaurant business. I don't see Chili's doing that any time soon.
Really, for as long as waitresses are free -- which they are, because they work for tips -- and for as long as there are an infinite number of people looking for waitress jobs -- which there are, because actresses, artists, comedians, writers, and just about every career path involved in generating content has zero income for the first decade -- robots won't be the choice of restaurant owners.
Regarding the "decimated": http://www.etymonline.com/inde...
Decimated mean by 10%. That's not significant enough to care.
And again, tehy aren't cheaper. Waitresses work for well-below minimum wage. You can't get cheaper than $5/hour.
huh?
It's three times more expensive than my own kitchen right now. It's also three times more expensive than fast-food places too -- even good fast food places. Mucho burrito is wonderful, and it's three times cheaper than an actual sit-down mexican restaurant.
It's not about cheaper. It's about the quality of the food and of the experience. This is my life. It's not about being efficient. It's about being flamboyant.
You're also running out of things for teenagers to do. Think of all of the careers that don't make any money for ten years, and have new-comers being servers throughout. Think of every actress for starters. You're going to reach the point where the server job is so over-supplied that it will get cheaper and cheaper -- and subsidised to hell as a result.
Employers won't choose a machine over a near-free human, government subsidised.
That's not a fair comparison. Gas stations are a negative experience no matter how you get gas. Restaurants are recreational first. But still, there is the walmart crowd, and they've ruined their own economy for themselves. They forget that they get paid from the same cycle and those they pay. I'm thankful that I'm not in that economy.
Heh, I cook the same way. But I live within a ten-minute drive of 65 farms, so for 6 months of the year, I eat better than any king on the planet. But I've found some proper restaurants that use the very same ingredients -- like the french bistro with the owner/chef who changes his menu based on the morning's farmers' market acquisitions.
They do exist. Just find the proper chef-based restaurants.
When you say "automated", remember that you mean "automated cheaper". At $10/hour, it costs $500 for a week of a human; $1'000 considering benefits, sick days, and supervision. If you want a robot to work for $1'000 per week, you need to remember that maintenance on the robot means paying a skilled worker over $100/hour. That basically means you'll need the robot to operate under $650/week. That includes energy/fuel/fluids, as well as damage caused that you can't take out of their paycheck.
But I think you've forgotten the most important part. Hiring humans for $10/hour is already automation for the employer. The machine version actually removes the hard-sell and the upsell part. A human waitress can easily get a table of customers to spend an additional 20% on a meal. And then get them to tip yet another 20%. The robot won't, because it'll be considered abusive.
So I'll revise my numbers from above. The good waitress doesn't get $10/hour. The good waitress gets a salary of $5/hour -- because minimum wage doesn't actually apply to tip-based jobs in most cities. That same good waitress winds up being paid mainly from tips, and receives closer to $30/hour.
The robot won't get any tips, for the same reason that you don't tip any owner.
So that human actually costs $200/week, $350 after supervision and sick days and benefits. So the robot needs to operate on less than $300 per week in order to be more efficient.
And that, just won't happen for any machine, because it definitely needs one human to supervise, and it'll cost something to operate in fuel and fluids, and it'll cause some kind of accidental damage that you can't pull from its paycheck.
And it won't generate tip revenue, which would otherwise be going to the still-required humans.
You might try spending your money in better places. Try smaller businesses, where the "employees" aren't.
I have no idea what that means.
This doesn't take into account the one thing that most futurists never take into account. Maybe I'm not the only one who wouldn't enjoy going to a restaurant and not being served. Maybe I'd see that as a low-quality dive, and wouldn't be interested in a steak from a conveyor belt. Maybe the reason that I often go out to restaurants is specifically to be served by someone else. Maybe that's half the value.
So after showing and discussing horror stories, with photographs no less, the person was less interested in the subject of your discussion? Big surprise. Welcome to cognitive dissonance.
you've split, juggled, and then confused three of my counter-comments out of context from the original discussion. I had put forth an example of why 18 year olds don't understand compound interest. you're now three-nested-arguments deeper from there.
try commenting on the original point -- that their parents don't have any idea how much dollars they are paying in interest. That was the only point. Forget about my very rough examples of my situation without any details. I'm in a different country than you, with a different banking system than yours. I never said anything about a HELOC. My mortgage is likely, and apparently, nothing like yours.
I said borrow against my home equity. I never said anything about a line of credit. Why the hell would I ever use a line of credit when a mortgage is so very much cheaper?
damn, no mod points. mod up please.