It's totally untrue. There's actually a small positive correlation between IQ and good looks. One hypothesis is both result from good genes. The other is that men attribute intelligence to pretty women. (See halo effect. We also imagine pretty women to be virtuous, witty and nice.)
When they do it, it's equivocation. File sharers are called "thieves" and "pirates." Surely you can't be for "piracy?" And of course you can't think copyright violation is a problem but also think shutting down what could be wholly innocent operations without due process is bad.
At least we were smart enough to understand we didn't want to give the government new powers we didn't understand. That may not be genius level but it ain't stupid.
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by stupidity...
Doubling, tripling; sounds to me like it could be explained by an untrained operator not receiving feedback that an operation has been completed, and so clicking again on the button which initiates the operation. Combine that extremely plausible scenario with software which doesn't bother to check before re-accumulating totals, and you have a likely explanation.
But that wouldn't correlate with location or party.
Spend 4 years in the National Guard or one of the major branches. Learn some discipline and responsibility. Not only will you be a better student, but you'll be more likely to get a job.
And as a bonus, that job is likely to be in Afghanistan or some other war-torn hell-hole getting shot at or dodging roadside bombs. I was ddifferent in the good old days when the purpose of the National Guard was to guard the nation.
Girlfriend highly recommended. By the time you get out of college, most of the good ones will be taken and you'll have to wait for them to divorce the losers they married the first time.
The great thing about coding is you can create your own experience. I would find an open source project and contribute, and start building ups portfolio of published code.
But that experience mostly consists of staring at a computer screen for hours at a time, binging on chips and soda and getting fat.
I know I am going to catch a lot of mod-downs for this but, NEVER GIVE YOUR WORK AWAY FOR FREE.
Working for free establishes the value of the kind of labor you engage in at zero, which means you and others have a more difficult time finding (paying) employment doing that kind of work. It doesn't just hurt you, it also hurts every other person who does that kind of work by increasing supply at zero dollar cost. Not only does it do so for all your potential employers, it also does the same thing in your own mind. The more you work for free, the more convinced you will become that there is no monetary value in your work.
You can do development on your own time and money and then sell the product to anybody willing to pay for it. That puts you in a better position because you can show the prospective clients that it works, but only deliver it if they agree to your terms.
This is not to say that you shouldn't contribute to FOSS software. There are ways of getting paid to develop FOSS and if you want to do that, that's a great idea.
Where do you draw the lines between (legally) secured data that requires "hacking" to copy, private but inadequately secured data and open data?
In this case it seems clear that the hackers were aware that the data was supposed to be secure and their blackmail attempt proves that their intent was to gather and use data that was supposed by its owner to be private.
Here is one example our chair is working on: simulation of dendritic growth. Ever heard of that? Doesn't sound particularly relevant to your everyday life? Well, it is. Material scientist are interested in understanding how crystalline structures form in cooling metal alloys, The crytal structure is ke to building stronger, lighter metal work pieces. Ultimately a solid understanding of this will lead to e.g. higher fuel efficiency in jet planes and lighter cars.
Currently material scientists are building computational models of these processes. To check whether a new models works out we need to simulate it. This takes Terabytes of RAM and Petabytes of disk space. That's what such a machine is good for.
Here is a list of other flagship applications. Most of them are simulation codes that replace experiments which would either be too costly, happen under too extreme physical stress/forces, or simply could not be carried out at all in practice because of scale.
nuclear weapons stewardship (if the nuke sitting in that cupboard for 20 years is ignited tomorrow, will it work, despite the nuclear decay?)
fuel combustion (which compounds will burn in which mixture, pressure, conditions with the highest efficiency?)
weather/climate simulation (will it rain on sunday? and if not, will the Netherlands be flooded by 2100?)
Yeah, I worry about dendritic growth all the time, and tin-finger growth. That's a big concern too; much more so now that there's no lead in most of my electronics and they've changed my fluxes and cleaning processes. (Effing ROHS!) But dendritic and tin-finger growth are easily tested with real world models as opposed to simulations and I always trust real world models more than simulations. It's too easy for a tiny error in a mathematical model to cause big errors in results. Numerical simulations are for conditions that aren't easy or cheap (or allowed) to test in physical reality.
So nuke-degradation sim makes sense. So do weather sims (always wrong but getting better), climate (always more wrong but also getting better). It may be possible to do biological sims of drug effects eventually.
The trouble with all of them is that because of the high cost of the machines that can run them, the class of problems that can be cost-effectively simulated is limited. A more useful metric might be million-floatinng-point-operations-per-dollar. (MegaFLOpD).
I think Einstein and Planck would be edge cases. The "god" each of them seemed to believe in doesn't seem to have been a personal god concerned with what human beings do.
I like this because unlike most candidates for missing mass, it can be falsified. Congrats to Berezhiani and Nesti for having the balls to propose something that other scientists can measure! It should be feasible to distinguish neutrons that decay, neutrons that hypothetically oscillate into a non-interacting state and back, and those that simply escape the trap.
You can have private ownership of goods in a socialist or collectivist system of production. In fact, that was the case in the Soviet Union. People worked, were paid in rubles and bought goods from state enterprises and collectives with their rubles. It may be though that for a system to remain socialist or collectivist, private ownership of goods has to be limited.
Selling your used iPhone is not capitalism. Capitalism is the use of capital to build or gain control of the means of production so that other people work for you to produce more capital.
I doubt this computer is specifically designed for code breaking because it's being measured against a floating-point operations benchmark. A computer optimized for code breaking doesn't need to support floating-point. It sounds like this machine would be good for large physics simulations: simulating nifty new atomic bomb technologies, nuclear fusion, weather, Dick Cheney's neural network and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
Try moving out of of Daddy's house.
It's totally untrue. There's actually a small positive correlation between IQ and good looks. One hypothesis is both result from good genes. The other is that men attribute intelligence to pretty women. (See halo effect. We also imagine pretty women to be virtuous, witty and nice.)
Yeah then they'll explicitly forbid you to write any program whatsoever on or off company equipment and time.
When they do it, it's equivocation. File sharers are called "thieves" and "pirates." Surely you can't be for "piracy?" And of course you can't think copyright violation is a problem but also think shutting down what could be wholly innocent operations without due process is bad.
At least we were smart enough to understand we didn't want to give the government new powers we didn't understand. That may not be genius level but it ain't stupid.
She's not IN Congress. She's a staffer. Call her boss.
More like they targeted other things. They were in it for the show, not a serious attempt to bring down the government.
Any software Can be used for an illegal purpose. It's up to the user to constrain his own activities to what's legal.
Depends. For technology workers, not so. http://fileunemployment.org/unemployment-benefits-comparison-by-state
And really ugly.
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by stupidity... Doubling, tripling; sounds to me like it could be explained by an untrained operator not receiving feedback that an operation has been completed, and so clicking again on the button which initiates the operation. Combine that extremely plausible scenario with software which doesn't bother to check before re-accumulating totals, and you have a likely explanation.
But that wouldn't correlate with location or party.
Spend 4 years in the National Guard or one of the major branches. Learn some discipline and responsibility. Not only will you be a better student, but you'll be more likely to get a job.
And as a bonus, that job is likely to be in Afghanistan or some other war-torn hell-hole getting shot at or dodging roadside bombs. I was ddifferent in the good old days when the purpose of the National Guard was to guard the nation.
Girlfriend highly recommended. By the time you get out of college, most of the good ones will be taken and you'll have to wait for them to divorce the losers they married the first time.
The great thing about coding is you can create your own experience. I would find an open source project and contribute, and start building ups portfolio of published code.
But that experience mostly consists of staring at a computer screen for hours at a time, binging on chips and soda and getting fat.
I know I am going to catch a lot of mod-downs for this but, NEVER GIVE YOUR WORK AWAY FOR FREE.
Working for free establishes the value of the kind of labor you engage in at zero, which means you and others have a more difficult time finding (paying) employment doing that kind of work. It doesn't just hurt you, it also hurts every other person who does that kind of work by increasing supply at zero dollar cost. Not only does it do so for all your potential employers, it also does the same thing in your own mind. The more you work for free, the more convinced you will become that there is no monetary value in your work.
You can do development on your own time and money and then sell the product to anybody willing to pay for it. That puts you in a better position because you can show the prospective clients that it works, but only deliver it if they agree to your terms.
This is not to say that you shouldn't contribute to FOSS software. There are ways of getting paid to develop FOSS and if you want to do that, that's a great idea.
Where do you draw the lines between (legally) secured data that requires "hacking" to copy, private but inadequately secured data and open data? In this case it seems clear that the hackers were aware that the data was supposed to be secure and their blackmail attempt proves that their intent was to gather and use data that was supposed by its owner to be private.
But it's OK for me to take a picture of it, no?
Here is one example our chair is working on: simulation of dendritic growth. Ever heard of that? Doesn't sound particularly relevant to your everyday life? Well, it is. Material scientist are interested in understanding how crystalline structures form in cooling metal alloys, The crytal structure is ke to building stronger, lighter metal work pieces. Ultimately a solid understanding of this will lead to e.g. higher fuel efficiency in jet planes and lighter cars.
Currently material scientists are building computational models of these processes. To check whether a new models works out we need to simulate it. This takes Terabytes of RAM and Petabytes of disk space. That's what such a machine is good for.
Here is a list of other flagship applications. Most of them are simulation codes that replace experiments which would either be too costly, happen under too extreme physical stress/forces, or simply could not be carried out at all in practice because of scale.
Yeah, I worry about dendritic growth all the time, and tin-finger growth. That's a big concern too; much more so now that there's no lead in most of my electronics and they've changed my fluxes and cleaning processes. (Effing ROHS!) But dendritic and tin-finger growth are easily tested with real world models as opposed to simulations and I always trust real world models more than simulations. It's too easy for a tiny error in a mathematical model to cause big errors in results. Numerical simulations are for conditions that aren't easy or cheap (or allowed) to test in physical reality.
So nuke-degradation sim makes sense. So do weather sims (always wrong but getting better), climate (always more wrong but also getting better). It may be possible to do biological sims of drug effects eventually.
The trouble with all of them is that because of the high cost of the machines that can run them, the class of problems that can be cost-effectively simulated is limited. A more useful metric might be million-floatinng-point-operations-per-dollar. (MegaFLOpD).
I think Einstein and Planck would be edge cases. The "god" each of them seemed to believe in doesn't seem to have been a personal god concerned with what human beings do.
Disagree. If it interacts *at all* with what we can observe and measure it's part of our universe.
I like this because unlike most candidates for missing mass, it can be falsified. Congrats to Berezhiani and Nesti for having the balls to propose something that other scientists can measure! It should be feasible to distinguish neutrons that decay, neutrons that hypothetically oscillate into a non-interacting state and back, and those that simply escape the trap.
You can have private ownership of goods in a socialist or collectivist system of production. In fact, that was the case in the Soviet Union. People worked, were paid in rubles and bought goods from state enterprises and collectives with their rubles. It may be though that for a system to remain socialist or collectivist, private ownership of goods has to be limited.
That doesn't change the definition of what capitalism is.
Selling your used iPhone is not capitalism. Capitalism is the use of capital to build or gain control of the means of production so that other people work for you to produce more capital.
I doubt this computer is specifically designed for code breaking because it's being measured against a floating-point operations benchmark. A computer optimized for code breaking doesn't need to support floating-point. It sounds like this machine would be good for large physics simulations: simulating nifty new atomic bomb technologies, nuclear fusion, weather, Dick Cheney's neural network and the like.