Dumb 'pipes' (routers) with any application you can think of and build at the edges (hosts).
And yet the typical user uses it mainly for Netflix and Facebook on their iPhone. So while "permissionless innovation" is one model that the internet supports, it also supports the "government enforced copyright monopoly" model and the "ask permission from big corporations" model. There is an old saying that democracies like capitalism, but capitalism doesn't necessarily like democracy. The relationship between the internet and corporations is somewhat similar.
I second all this and would also add that this attitude has much worse repercussions than just to insult parent poster's "senile geezer ass." It also lulls people into a sense of complacency, with the thought that once the old guys retire and new blood gets in everything will be all better. That is certainly not true. For example, as pp points out, the Facebook generation isn't going to fight for open and interchangeable standards, since they hardly even know what those are. And one of my favorite/. sigs is the Woz quote about the cloud that ownership is what made America different than the USSR during the cold war.
I remember in being in (a US) college near the Canadian border, and since the drinking age in Canada was lower than in the US, a lot of times students would take road trips to Canada. When asked why you were going up to Canada, the *wrong* answer was "Oh, we're just going up for tourism/to drive around." Better was "We are going to the bars to get drunk!" But you would get waved right on through if you said "We're going to Rafferty's/Black Bear/Mintz." Specifics (and honesty) were definitely best.
It's not about conformity. It's about wearing an article of clothing whose very name is now used to describe the action to hide; conceal. Maybe he was just trying to figure out what was being cloaked.
Nighttime strategic bombing of German targets was widely used during the war regardless of the quality of German fighters; to the extent that it was ineffective (and that is a debatable premise) is mostly because of the inaccuracy of hitting individual factories or power plants at night (which needless to say would have been less of an issue with nuclear weapons). And something like MAD theory has been discussed just about every time a new "superweapon" has been developed (in fact, some "superweapons" were developed for the express purpose of making war so horrible that it would never be waged in the first place), and yet the weapon gets used anyways. There is little reason to believe that in the middle of a hot war, the first combatant to develop a nuclear weapon would have been swayed by these arguments any more than combatants with earlier technological advancements had been in previous conflicts.
Yes you are correct and I don't want to overstate the quality of GM management in the 70's; I was just refuting ggp post "Hardly, you were never number 1 in anything" by pointing out that at least American education was world class. It's a win-win!
Another commenter makes an excellent point about the Soviets, but I have to take issue with your statement
I know we Americans have for generations grown up thinking that Allied victory in Europe was a sure thing, but it wasn't. It could have gone either way.
from another angle. There is almostnowaythatavirulentlyanti-SemiticculturewasgoingtowinWWII. One of the effects of having a "bat-shit crazy" leader is to drive out scientists (and the parents and spouses of scientists) who were capable of developing a superweapon that could destroy every city in Europe. And while you are correct that scientific and engineering prowess existed on all sides (particularly the underappreciated Russians, whose T-34s were arguably the finest armored unit in the war, all things considered), WWII occurred at a time in the history of physics and engineering such that whoever developed the first nuclear bombs was going to win that war.
Did it ever occur to you why American rockets were built by Nazis? It's because of the scientific and industrial might of the USA that defeated those Nazis during WWII. And why are German and Japanese cars so good? Might have something to do with the billions that America spent on those countries after their well-deserved butt-kicking. I doubt there is anyone who wouldn't prefer to be an average citizen in a Germany or Japan defeated by the US, than an average citizen in a Russia, the UK, or China defeated by the Germans or Japanese?
But go ahead an complain. Complaining about America is one of the first freedoms guaranteed in America, and how we keep getting better. Someone points out a problem and we fix it (although, to paraphrase Churchill, not until after we've tried everything else).
New York also received a threat but didn't deem it "credible" and therefore didn't act on it. My guess is that on any given day, any or all of New York, LA, and Chicago schools probably deal with some kind of threat.
So for LA to close the schools there is likely some other intelligence that they are acting on. Considering that authorities in that area are still getting information about recent terrorist activity in the area, I think the first knee jerk reaction to closing the schools should be "Hmm I wonder what they found out," not "Why are they overreacting?" (Of course, we should avoid knee-jerk reactions altogether, but then there would be nothing to talk about)
True, but I am assuming that somehow we are restricted to a conventional war. Otherwise, this whole debate about the quality of your bomber force versus air defenses is made moot by ICBM's.
Most of the best projects that were designed for WWII like your Tigers and your P-51 Mustangs were the result of programs that had started before the war
Germany was already on the kind of "full mobilization for war" footing that I am talking about in the mid 30's, in violation of the treaty of Versailles. They were sending plenty of materiel to fight in the Spanish Civil War, and were taking over territory by 1938. So while America entered the war in 1941, Germany had already been going through a military buildup for about 5 years, and advances like the Tiger tank were designed and produced while the German economy was fully mobilized for war.
Interestingly, even though the P51 is seen as a piece of quintessentially American tech of WWII, its initial development was done at the impetus of the British with British funding. So even though it was developed while America was still at peace (and technically neutral), the resources that produced it came from Britain, which because of its proximity to Germany, had established a war footing much earlier than the US did.
I'd hate to imagine what building an aircraft like that on a scale large enough to match a B-52 would cost.
Your entire post is spot on, but I would add that if we ever did have to fight a war against "remotely competent air defenses," we are probably talking about a major war. In that case, it is not unreasonable to expect a major mobilization of huge parts of the economy, including, say, reallocating nearly all civilian engineers to work on military projects, as was done during WWII. In that case, it is acceptable that we didn't invest in more modern technology before such a war, because the B-52 replacement will be designed to deal with a specific threat in mind, instead of trying to worry about the Chinese, and the Russians, and the Indians, and the Germans, and the British, and the French, and whoever else could field serious air defenses in the near future. Sometimes, it is better *for the military* to leave resources under civilian control unless and until it is absolutely necessary.
Nice link. But how can one deny the beauty of this new language?
Example: Hello world stack overflow java hello world
Example: Print Fibonacci numbers python generate fibonacci numbers
python how to print a list
Example: Normalize a vector to length 1 c++ callback function fill array with values
c++ array out of bounds error
c++ how to install boost
c++ smart pointer initialize array with zeros
c++ normalize multidimensional vector
c++ how to install gsl
c++ convert array to gsl vector
c++ how to end function and return value
c++ how to compile to a shared library
That brings up a great idea for a new language. It could have the syntax of any language that you want to start with, but the compiler ensures that copied code Just Works(tm). Or even better, you don't even have to copy the code, you just need to type the google terms that result in the appropriate SO question as the first hit.
That's exactly the point. If, based upon my observations of your response to stimuli (a simple discussion), I come to the conclusion that you have a mind, then you have a mind. There is no "deeper" sense of something called "your understanding" that I could ever possibly have access to. And that's how it works for artificial intelligences - if, based on my observations, it appears to have a mind, then it has a mind. The ggp concerns about whether it really "understands" is a meaningless question.
Note that it ends up that we are talking about a Turing test here. Genius, that.
The problem with this argument is Wittgenstein's beetle. I can't even be sure that you are sentient, aware, and able to understand; all I can do is observe your actions and if those actions seem to be consistent with you having what we typically label as a "mind," then I pretty much accept that you have a mind.
We are currently very far away from having machines that can perform general actions consistent with having a mind, except in very artificial and controlled situations (e.g. a chess game, the Jeopardy! game show), but I would hardly say that it will never happen. And if it does, then how can you be sure it doesn't understand things, at least in the same way that I assume that you understand things? If the actions of the machine are the same as the actions of a person (who I believe does understand things), then why wouldn't I say there is a beetle in the box?
What kind of competition are you talking about? A canonical pseudorandom number generator like the WELL family can't be predicted based on the number of draws that you will see in any application that currently uses dice. Unless the settings are poorly chosen, a few hundred or a few thousand draws won't allow you to have any predictive power for the next roll. Further, a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator like Blum Blum Shub is resistant to pretty much any analytics for prediction.
Anyways it is a lot easier to test the randomness of software based pseudorandom number generators than it is to test dice, so whatever battery of tests you would have run on your die to test its fairness you can run on the generator and get the same level of confidence.
There are certainly some applications for real random numbers (mostly to seed pseudorandom generators to get the most bang for your buck from the necessarily limited supply of entropy that you can harvest), but it's not dice rolling based competitions.
Oh yes I forgot to mention the need to secure access to natural resources. The growing economic power that I was thinking of was China, who gets into kinetic operations once access to petroleum is threatened.
Yes, but WWI was caused by many factors, including a network of western alliances, a rapid advance in communication technologies and globalization, a multiethnic region where nobody seemed to be able to get along, a rising industrial and economic power challenging the existing hegemon, and the last straw, Russia coming to the aid of a long time ally amidst a campaign of terrorist acts.
Fortunately that sounds nothing like the world today!
Slashdot Mirror
Dumb 'pipes' (routers) with any application you can think of and build at the edges (hosts).
And yet the typical user uses it mainly for Netflix and Facebook on their iPhone. So while "permissionless innovation" is one model that the internet supports, it also supports the "government enforced copyright monopoly" model and the "ask permission from big corporations" model. There is an old saying that democracies like capitalism, but capitalism doesn't necessarily like democracy. The relationship between the internet and corporations is somewhat similar.
I second all this and would also add that this attitude has much worse repercussions than just to insult parent poster's "senile geezer ass." It also lulls people into a sense of complacency, with the thought that once the old guys retire and new blood gets in everything will be all better. That is certainly not true. For example, as pp points out, the Facebook generation isn't going to fight for open and interchangeable standards, since they hardly even know what those are. And one of my favorite /. sigs is the Woz quote about the cloud that ownership is what made America different than the USSR during the cold war.
I remember in being in (a US) college near the Canadian border, and since the drinking age in Canada was lower than in the US, a lot of times students would take road trips to Canada. When asked why you were going up to Canada, the *wrong* answer was "Oh, we're just going up for tourism/to drive around." Better was "We are going to the bars to get drunk!" But you would get waved right on through if you said "We're going to Rafferty's/Black Bear/Mintz." Specifics (and honesty) were definitely best.
n.b. This was even before 9/11
It's not about conformity. It's about wearing an article of clothing whose very name is now used to describe the action to hide; conceal. Maybe he was just trying to figure out what was being cloaked.
Besides, it's not like these people couldn't go to Euro-Disney.
Note that forcing them to do that would be a violation of their 8th amendment rights (if they were protected by the US Constitution).
Nighttime strategic bombing of German targets was widely used during the war regardless of the quality of German fighters; to the extent that it was ineffective (and that is a debatable premise) is mostly because of the inaccuracy of hitting individual factories or power plants at night (which needless to say would have been less of an issue with nuclear weapons). And something like MAD theory has been discussed just about every time a new "superweapon" has been developed (in fact, some "superweapons" were developed for the express purpose of making war so horrible that it would never be waged in the first place), and yet the weapon gets used anyways. There is little reason to believe that in the middle of a hot war, the first combatant to develop a nuclear weapon would have been swayed by these arguments any more than combatants with earlier technological advancements had been in previous conflicts.
Yes you are correct and I don't want to overstate the quality of GM management in the 70's; I was just refuting ggp post "Hardly, you were never number 1 in anything" by pointing out that at least American education was world class. It's a win-win!
Another commenter makes an excellent point about the Soviets, but I have to take issue with your statement
I know we Americans have for generations grown up thinking that Allied victory in Europe was a sure thing, but it wasn't. It could have gone either way.
from another angle. There is almost no way that a virulently anti-Semitic culture was going to win WWII. One of the effects of having a "bat-shit crazy" leader is to drive out scientists (and the parents and spouses of scientists) who were capable of developing a superweapon that could destroy every city in Europe. And while you are correct that scientific and engineering prowess existed on all sides (particularly the underappreciated Russians, whose T-34s were arguably the finest armored unit in the war, all things considered), WWII occurred at a time in the history of physics and engineering such that whoever developed the first nuclear bombs was going to win that war.
And a product of the American education system
Did it ever occur to you why American rockets were built by Nazis? It's because of the scientific and industrial might of the USA that defeated those Nazis during WWII. And why are German and Japanese cars so good? Might have something to do with the billions that America spent on those countries after their well-deserved butt-kicking. I doubt there is anyone who wouldn't prefer to be an average citizen in a Germany or Japan defeated by the US, than an average citizen in a Russia, the UK, or China defeated by the Germans or Japanese?
But go ahead an complain. Complaining about America is one of the first freedoms guaranteed in America, and how we keep getting better. Someone points out a problem and we fix it (although, to paraphrase Churchill, not until after we've tried everything else).
New York also received a threat but didn't deem it "credible" and therefore didn't act on it. My guess is that on any given day, any or all of New York, LA, and Chicago schools probably deal with some kind of threat.
So for LA to close the schools there is likely some other intelligence that they are acting on. Considering that authorities in that area are still getting information about recent terrorist activity in the area, I think the first knee jerk reaction to closing the schools should be "Hmm I wonder what they found out," not "Why are they overreacting?" (Of course, we should avoid knee-jerk reactions altogether, but then there would be nothing to talk about)
No he was the thing that caused The Great Dying about 250 million years ago.
Or maybe that just means that sex is a better topic to joke about than Alzheimer's disease?
Of course, most slashdotters don't have any experience with either *rim shot*! Thank you, I'll be here all week.
True, but I am assuming that somehow we are restricted to a conventional war. Otherwise, this whole debate about the quality of your bomber force versus air defenses is made moot by ICBM's.
Most of the best projects that were designed for WWII like your Tigers and your P-51 Mustangs were the result of programs that had started before the war
Germany was already on the kind of "full mobilization for war" footing that I am talking about in the mid 30's, in violation of the treaty of Versailles. They were sending plenty of materiel to fight in the Spanish Civil War, and were taking over territory by 1938. So while America entered the war in 1941, Germany had already been going through a military buildup for about 5 years, and advances like the Tiger tank were designed and produced while the German economy was fully mobilized for war.
Interestingly, even though the P51 is seen as a piece of quintessentially American tech of WWII, its initial development was done at the impetus of the British with British funding. So even though it was developed while America was still at peace (and technically neutral), the resources that produced it came from Britain, which because of its proximity to Germany, had established a war footing much earlier than the US did.
I'd hate to imagine what building an aircraft like that on a scale large enough to match a B-52 would cost.
Your entire post is spot on, but I would add that if we ever did have to fight a war against "remotely competent air defenses," we are probably talking about a major war. In that case, it is not unreasonable to expect a major mobilization of huge parts of the economy, including, say, reallocating nearly all civilian engineers to work on military projects, as was done during WWII. In that case, it is acceptable that we didn't invest in more modern technology before such a war, because the B-52 replacement will be designed to deal with a specific threat in mind, instead of trying to worry about the Chinese, and the Russians, and the Indians, and the Germans, and the British, and the French, and whoever else could field serious air defenses in the near future. Sometimes, it is better *for the military* to leave resources under civilian control unless and until it is absolutely necessary.
Why not Mark Zuckerberg? No one has more experience in successfully closing up the internet except (maybe) the architects of the Great Firewall.
cobol can't find bug
cobol integration cloud services
cobol migration java
cobol migration java -aarp
*ducks*
Nice link. But how can one deny the beauty of this new language?
Example: Hello world
stack overflow java hello world
Example: Print Fibonacci numbers
python generate fibonacci numbers
python how to print a list
Example: Normalize a vector to length 1
c++ callback function fill array with values
c++ array out of bounds error
c++ how to install boost
c++ smart pointer initialize array with zeros
c++ normalize multidimensional vector
c++ how to install gsl
c++ convert array to gsl vector
c++ how to end function and return value
c++ how to compile to a shared library
That brings up a great idea for a new language. It could have the syntax of any language that you want to start with, but the compiler ensures that copied code Just Works(tm). Or even better, you don't even have to copy the code, you just need to type the google terms that result in the appropriate SO question as the first hit.
That's exactly the point. If, based upon my observations of your response to stimuli (a simple discussion), I come to the conclusion that you have a mind, then you have a mind. There is no "deeper" sense of something called "your understanding" that I could ever possibly have access to. And that's how it works for artificial intelligences - if, based on my observations, it appears to have a mind, then it has a mind. The ggp concerns about whether it really "understands" is a meaningless question.
Note that it ends up that we are talking about a Turing test here. Genius, that.
The problem with this argument is Wittgenstein's beetle. I can't even be sure that you are sentient, aware, and able to understand; all I can do is observe your actions and if those actions seem to be consistent with you having what we typically label as a "mind," then I pretty much accept that you have a mind.
We are currently very far away from having machines that can perform general actions consistent with having a mind, except in very artificial and controlled situations (e.g. a chess game, the Jeopardy! game show), but I would hardly say that it will never happen. And if it does, then how can you be sure it doesn't understand things, at least in the same way that I assume that you understand things? If the actions of the machine are the same as the actions of a person (who I believe does understand things), then why wouldn't I say there is a beetle in the box?
What kind of competition are you talking about? A canonical pseudorandom number generator like the WELL family can't be predicted based on the number of draws that you will see in any application that currently uses dice. Unless the settings are poorly chosen, a few hundred or a few thousand draws won't allow you to have any predictive power for the next roll. Further, a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator like Blum Blum Shub is resistant to pretty much any analytics for prediction.
Anyways it is a lot easier to test the randomness of software based pseudorandom number generators than it is to test dice, so whatever battery of tests you would have run on your die to test its fairness you can run on the generator and get the same level of confidence.
There are certainly some applications for real random numbers (mostly to seed pseudorandom generators to get the most bang for your buck from the necessarily limited supply of entropy that you can harvest), but it's not dice rolling based competitions.
Oh yes I forgot to mention the need to secure access to natural resources. The growing economic power that I was thinking of was China, who gets into kinetic operations once access to petroleum is threatened.
Yes, but WWI was caused by many factors, including a network of western alliances, a rapid advance in communication technologies and globalization, a multiethnic region where nobody seemed to be able to get along, a rising industrial and economic power challenging the existing hegemon, and the last straw, Russia coming to the aid of a long time ally amidst a campaign of terrorist acts.
Fortunately that sounds nothing like the world today!