It's not pure nostalgia for pre "web 2.0". We're moving further away from the ideal of separating content and presentation. This whole story is a consequence of turning the web from documents to application delivery, except that the applications aren't quite as good as their desktop equivalents. That would be fine if the applications were truly cross platform, but you still encounter sites that don't work properly on all browsers. Pages that go "oh sorry some unrecoverable error occurred: Please reload".
You can develop some nifty things with AJAX, but all it boils down to is a cool hack, because the restrictions are largely artificial, incurred as a consequence of deciding on a web application. We/re slowly moving towards a stable platform by adding layers to hide the complexity and browser differences. But all we're really doing is plugging holes in a leaky abstraction.
ASIC declining to regulate HFT shouldn't be considered an endorsement of the practice. As it is, they are flat out trying to root out insider trading and abuses of Corporations Law. (e.g. Trading while insolvent; embezzlement etc etc). It doesn't have a great reputation on either front. There's the odd successful case now and then, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
Having said that, I'd rather have it than not, but it would be nice if it could be made a little more effective.
Unfortunately following our Great and Powerful friends into whatever folly they get themselves into has been Australia's foreign policy since federation.
At the university I attended, courses did include some of that material, and I doubt it's curriculum was anything out of the ordinary. I recall a project where we had to document sed, the UNIX utility, using only it's source code for reference. (I know that doesn't count as a large code base, but there's limited time available) Even if the only point was to experience the feeling of being handed a vast code base to maintain with no documentation, I'd say it was a success:)
I think I'd rather try to prove programs correct using Hoare logic than do something like document sed again.
This attitude explains why software still sucks so badly - people making exactly the same mistakes they were making forty years ago. Mistakes which could have been avoided had they spent a day reading "The Mythical Man Month".
I don't know where you learned your Software Engineering, but at my university, the SE courses included lots of case studies as well as studying the various methodologies. Our professors had a very good understanding why some large project failed, yet again. So be dismissive of the Ivory Tower if you want, but don't fool yourself into thinking they know nothing.
I'll grant there's lot of things to get right, but can we at least learn from previous failures and stop repeating the same mistakes again and again?
I like this idea, except it would probably have to use something where mining takes "less work", otherwise, as AC pointed out below, you'd have to have millions of users just to get epsilon money.
But if you make mining easier, then everyone else pulls out their old mining rigs and exhausts the supply of coins that much quicker. Unless you build a large amount of inflation into the system, or put an expiry on the coins.
It would be nice if distributed problems had a standard value. (E.g. The solution to this protein folding problem is worth $1, incidentally giving the currency an intrinsic value). Then some one like Google could distribute the problems ("DistWords"), and website operators would collect the revenue of solved problems.
When I first learnt about Bitcoin, I considered starting an online shop to provide the sort of goods that people said weren't available through Bitcoin payments. (e.g. You can only buy drugs/WOW gold/play poker etc etc).
Considering the idea, one of the challenges I faced was how to handle the volatility. I thought I had solved that issue, except a few weeks later the first of the bubbles popped, and I realised my solution wouldn't work.
At the time, I thought it was the outcome of manipulation - a classic Pump and Dump. Even if it wasn't, I wondered if there was anything preventing anyone from manipulating the markets in this way. In the "Fiat Money" world, there are institutions like the SEC and ASIC, and, as ineffective as they are, seem to be better than nothing.
Bitcoin, by design, lacks such a central authority. How do we ensure fairness of the Bitcoin markets? I asked this question then, and a satisfactory answer has not appeared yet.
As I was previewing this post, it occurred to me that the above institutions could step in and regulate the Bitcoin exchanges. Except they haven't yet, and I don't see why they would volunteer for the responsibility.
So firstly, by tying the hot wire first does that mean there's no return path/path to ground, so any current flow could go anywhere, particularly through the person who's plugging in some equipment?
And does the second part mean not assuming that neutral/ground wires are labeled correctly? And if it is wrong and you connect it anyway what happens?
I wonder if flying the probe between Jupiter and Io would be enough to sterilize the probe? Of course, the radiation and magnetic field might be enough to ruin the probe as well...
This is not the first time they've done stuff like this.
If you update your JDK using Software Update, it overwrites all previous versions and turns them into symbolic links to the current version. You then receive an unpleasant surprise when software which relies on a particular JDK breaks for no apparent reason.
The problem is not the changes themselves, but just unilaterally making these decisions and then not telling anyone. If I was working in an enterprise environment and this happened, I too would be incandescent with rage.
It will be 2 million people needing food, shelter, and likely medical attention. In one place, at the same time. I'd expect that it would test the logistics of any well organised country.
Coonabarabran is a nice little town for active geeks - great hiking during the day, actual starlight at night. I can't wait to visit in the Wintertime.
Interestingly enough, this exact state of affairs was predicted by Cliff in "Silicon Snake Oil", having seen the same thing happen with CB, and in Usenet and the fledging web.
His previous book lamented the sad state of computer security at the time, and if anything it's gotten worse.
That sounds intuitive, but when I think about it a little deeper it doesn't make sense. For instance, I can't decide not to eat today on the basis that tomorrow my staples will be cheaper.
I grant that for luxuries one would decide against purchasing now. But in the majority that happens now anyway, excepting those with poor impulse control or large wealth.
In as far as they are rational, people don't really decide to purchase now on the basis of a declining purchasing power.
They'll wait for a sale, or until they've built up their savings.
In the "worst case" deflationary scenario, that shiny new Mac I've been desiring will cost half us much in a month's time. But with new equipment, there are things I could do now, that I wouldn't otherwise be able to do. So why I am more likely to purchase in a deflationary scenario? Because everything else is similarly deflating (including my wages) but I'm able to save more by putting off other purchases. In the normal situation, I don't have the option to buy now because I have to account for rising energy, fuel and food costs.
In the end, price is an important consideration, but not the only one in deciding to make a purchase, and in a deflationary scenario, it doesn't take long for the utility of having the thing now to exceed the savings made.
Slashdot Mirror
Quick; portable; reliable. Pick any two.
It's not pure nostalgia for pre "web 2.0". We're moving further away from the ideal of separating content and presentation. This whole story is a consequence of turning the web from documents to application delivery, except that the applications aren't quite as good as their desktop equivalents. That would be fine if the applications were truly cross platform, but you still encounter sites that don't work properly on all browsers. Pages that go "oh sorry some unrecoverable error occurred: Please reload".
You can develop some nifty things with AJAX, but all it boils down to is a cool hack, because the restrictions are largely artificial, incurred as a consequence of deciding on a web application. We/re slowly moving towards a stable platform by adding layers to hide the complexity and browser differences. But all we're really doing is plugging holes in a leaky abstraction.
It's spelled "cache" but pronounced "cash" or "cayche".
ASIC declining to regulate HFT shouldn't be considered an endorsement of the practice. As it is, they are flat out trying to root out insider trading and abuses of Corporations Law. (e.g. Trading while insolvent; embezzlement etc etc). It doesn't have a great reputation on either front. There's the odd successful case now and then, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
Having said that, I'd rather have it than not, but it would be nice if it could be made a little more effective.
Unfortunately following our Great and Powerful friends into whatever folly they get themselves into has been Australia's foreign policy since federation.
At the university I attended, courses did include some of that material, and I doubt it's curriculum was anything out of the ordinary. I recall a project where we had to document sed, the UNIX utility, using only it's source code for reference. (I know that doesn't count as a large code base, but there's limited time available) Even if the only point was to experience the feeling of being handed a vast code base to maintain with no documentation, I'd say it was a success :)
I think I'd rather try to prove programs correct using Hoare logic than do something like document sed again.
This attitude explains why software still sucks so badly - people making exactly the same mistakes they were making forty years ago. Mistakes which could have been avoided had they spent a day reading "The Mythical Man Month".
I don't know where you learned your Software Engineering, but at my university, the SE courses included lots of case studies as well as studying the various methodologies. Our professors had a very good understanding why some large project failed, yet again. So be dismissive of the Ivory Tower if you want, but don't fool yourself into thinking they know nothing.
I'll grant there's lot of things to get right, but can we at least learn from previous failures and stop repeating the same mistakes again and again?
I like this idea, except it would probably have to use something where mining takes "less work", otherwise, as AC pointed out below, you'd have to have millions of users just to get epsilon money.
But if you make mining easier, then everyone else pulls out their old mining rigs and exhausts the supply of coins that much quicker. Unless you build a large amount of inflation into the system, or put an expiry on the coins.
It would be nice if distributed problems had a standard value. (E.g. The solution to this protein folding problem is worth $1, incidentally giving the currency an intrinsic value). Then some one like Google could distribute the problems ("DistWords"), and website operators would collect the revenue of solved problems.
When I first learnt about Bitcoin, I considered starting an online shop to provide the sort of goods that people said weren't available through Bitcoin payments. (e.g. You can only buy drugs/WOW gold/play poker etc etc).
Considering the idea, one of the challenges I faced was how to handle the volatility. I thought I had solved that issue, except a few weeks later the first of the bubbles popped, and I realised my solution wouldn't work.
At the time, I thought it was the outcome of manipulation - a classic Pump and Dump. Even if it wasn't, I wondered if there was anything preventing anyone from manipulating the markets in this way. In the "Fiat Money" world, there are institutions like the SEC and ASIC, and, as ineffective as they are, seem to be better than nothing.
Bitcoin, by design, lacks such a central authority. How do we ensure fairness of the Bitcoin markets? I asked this question then, and a satisfactory answer has not appeared yet.
As I was previewing this post, it occurred to me that the above institutions could step in and regulate the Bitcoin exchanges. Except they haven't yet, and I don't see why they would volunteer for the responsibility.
So firstly, by tying the hot wire first does that mean there's no return path/path to ground, so any current flow could go anywhere, particularly through the person who's plugging in some equipment?
And does the second part mean not assuming that neutral/ground wires are labeled correctly? And if it is wrong and you connect it anyway what happens?
This is currently modded funny, but that might actually work. Even if it's just an interim step to generate a little income.
I wonder if flying the probe between Jupiter and Io would be enough to sterilize the probe? Of course, the radiation and magnetic field might be enough to ruin the probe as well...
Even better, make them self assemble from raw materials found in the Solar System.
This is not the first time they've done stuff like this.
If you update your JDK using Software Update, it overwrites all previous versions and turns them into symbolic links to the current version. You then receive an unpleasant surprise when software which relies on a particular JDK breaks for no apparent reason.
The problem is not the changes themselves, but just unilaterally making these decisions and then not telling anyone. If I was working in an enterprise environment and this happened, I too would be incandescent with rage.
It will be 2 million people needing food, shelter, and likely medical attention. In one place, at the same time. I'd expect that it would test the logistics of any well organised country.
First Stromlo, now Coonabarabran.
Coonabarabran is a nice little town for active geeks - great hiking during the day, actual starlight at night. I can't wait to visit in the Wintertime.
Seriously, what is it about the Attorney General's department that turns ordinary politicians into authoritarian arseholes?
Interestingly enough, this exact state of affairs was predicted by Cliff in "Silicon Snake Oil", having seen the same thing happen with CB, and in Usenet and the fledging web.
His previous book lamented the sad state of computer security at the time, and if anything it's gotten worse.
It's a sort of threat, you see.
Your user exceeded his quota today. No more light cycling until the account is back within limits.
Good Horse.
(I don't claim credit for this; It's just such a useful retort to the whole "language evolves" excuse for poor spelling and grammar.)
That sounds intuitive, but when I think about it a little deeper it doesn't make sense. For instance, I can't decide not to eat today on the basis that tomorrow my staples will be cheaper. I grant that for luxuries one would decide against purchasing now. But in the majority that happens now anyway, excepting those with poor impulse control or large wealth.
In as far as they are rational, people don't really decide to purchase now on the basis of a declining purchasing power. They'll wait for a sale, or until they've built up their savings. In the "worst case" deflationary scenario, that shiny new Mac I've been desiring will cost half us much in a month's time. But with new equipment, there are things I could do now, that I wouldn't otherwise be able to do. So why I am more likely to purchase in a deflationary scenario? Because everything else is similarly deflating (including my wages) but I'm able to save more by putting off other purchases. In the normal situation, I don't have the option to buy now because I have to account for rising energy, fuel and food costs.
In the end, price is an important consideration, but not the only one in deciding to make a purchase, and in a deflationary scenario, it doesn't take long for the utility of having the thing now to exceed the savings made.
All my perfectly functioning peripherals are soooo 2010. And a new dock!
What's that, I need a new Mac as well? Brilliant. It's already more than two years old. Apparently, "that's like, so old, Grandpa".
Derek Smalls is Spinal Tap's bass player.
I'm rather surprised I had to scroll down this far before encountering this Tap reference.
Now that would look interesting: "That man is either dreaming or playing track and field"