The general arguement is that 'screening comes with harms as well as benefits' (from TFA), which is false unless you believe that listening to the heart leads to side effects from open-heart surgery because too many false positive heart diseases or indolent heart conditions are overly treated. The problem lies within understanding the results and the possible outcomes from different treatments. For example, if cancer is found that is possibly slow growing or indolent, then go into a "watchful monitoring" treatment of more frequent and different checks. Because we have great screening systems that will be able to detect disease earlier and earlier, we need to understand that there is a point at which a disease is so early it is not worth treating. But it does not mean we should not look.
In othehr words, because bad actions can be taken as a result of getting the correct diagnosis information, then we need to fix our analysis and recommendation for treatments. Lets not stick our heads in the sand and not even look for the disease.
There are many ways to measure the "speed" of a OS kernel. A micro-kernel is often faster in one respect: responding to real-time interrupts. Micro-kernels (e.g. QNX) put very little code in to the kernel and spend as little processing time as possible in kernel mode. This lets the kernel preempt the user program that is running when a critical interrupt comes in.
The response time differential vs. a traditional OS would be too small to be noticed by users (nano or milli seconds), but when the nuclear reactor is about to blow, every nano-second counts.
The company posted its data on the net, offered $500k in prizes, big deal. That much can easily be spent by hiring outside consultants to tell you where the gold is. The contest was inspired by Open Source, but I fail to see how making the data publically available makes it open source.
What did the company get for its efforts anyhow?
In one word: Lucky.
Lucky that an Australian firm looking for North American PR took a bath and lost money on creating a professional 3D model of the mine:
Although the prize money, which Archibald's team shared with Taylor Wall & Associates, barely covered the cost of the project, the publicity has boosted the firm's business. "It would have taken us years to get the recognition in North America that this project gave us overnight," he says.
First: I work for one of the companies that has been mentioned.
Second: The CM market is very big, look at the public companies' revenue for proof.
Third: Slashdot is usually an open forum without too many covert agendas (other than Linux rules and Microsoft is the devil).
Fourth: Many Anonymous Cowards or first time posters on this thread are CM vendors that are slinging mud and speading FUD (Fear Uncertainty & Doubt) in their comments.
Fifth: As always, check your sources when reading info on/. or anywhere online.
At U(W) in Math/CS, there were two types of courses: Those that you abused (electives) and those that abused you (CS). I once logged 105 hours of coding in a week, leaving 9 hours per day for food, personal hygenie, sleep and attending classes.
The pooled Unix (Solaris) resources were so over used for undergrads that the term "Sleep when the load is high" came into being: take down time when everyone else is using the computer.
I have been a huge fan of public access to 802.11 devices connected to the internet. With enough access points at high-density points (airports, malls, coffee shops, etc...), the system could become almost as transparent as the cell-phone system is today, and free at that!
I heartily encourage everyone with a home network and highspeed internet to purchase an 802.11 access point and place it by a window. Just make sure that you place the access point is on the external side of your firewall.
This begs the question: Why would a large company want to keep / destroy documents?
Why keep documents:
1. The company May need the data in the future. (who erases old source code?)
2. Legal & regulatory laws & rules. The SEC, IRS, FDA, etc... requires many companies need to keep certain documents (e.g. Tax returns) for a specified amount of time (usually 1n10 years)
Why destroy all old documents:
1. There are many many documents in a large company, all the e-mails, reports, memos, meeting minutes, etc... Not all of these documents are to the long term benefit of the company, even if the creator / reciever believes it to be. Without examining each document, the executives do not know what is benign and what is catastrophic.
2. Retaining documents can be expensive. A compnay of 100 people could fill multiple closets, a company of 10,000 could fill warehouses. Yes, imaging solutions exist but are not cheap. Office space is not free.
3. If a company destroys only selected, possibly damaging information, it appears suspicious. If a company has a policy and consistantly follows it to destroy all old documents (shred, delete, burn backups, etc...) then if old information is not available, it is because of the policy.
I thought this was an error originally as well but it is not. When you have 2 connetsions (N=2 globally) and a node sends a request to the first two nodes, each of those nodes has 2 connections, one to the original requesting node and one to a new node. Thus the second level nodes can only send the request to 1 new node each.
Interesting points and summarizes my understanding of the situation. However, what is to stop the development of low range, low power consumption, Voice Over IP based solutions for 802.11 that compete directly with BlueTooth? Bandwidth is not an issue, the IP overhead can be absorbed in the 11MB/s transmission rate. The 802.11 solution would be "more compatible" with other technologies (e.g. much easier to connect an 802.11 cell-phone to your network than a bluetooth cell phone).
Slashdot Mirror
The general arguement is that 'screening comes with harms as well as benefits' (from TFA), which is false unless you believe that listening to the heart leads to side effects from open-heart surgery because too many false positive heart diseases or indolent heart conditions are overly treated. The problem lies within understanding the results and the possible outcomes from different treatments. For example, if cancer is found that is possibly slow growing or indolent, then go into a "watchful monitoring" treatment of more frequent and different checks. Because we have great screening systems that will be able to detect disease earlier and earlier, we need to understand that there is a point at which a disease is so early it is not worth treating. But it does not mean we should not look.
In othehr words, because bad actions can be taken as a result of getting the correct diagnosis information, then we need to fix our analysis and recommendation for treatments. Lets not stick our heads in the sand and not even look for the disease.
Already been covered - http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/02/01/2141213/Militarys-Robotic-Pack-Mule-Gets-32M-Boost
They are in 500 hell, so much for striking back!
Looks just like a SanDisk Digital Audio Player, but costs $30 more and supports Ogg.
Awesome, someone give the parent a +1 Useful...
I now have my Valentine for my wife. Thanks mom for the photo-printer for Christmas!
There are many ways to measure the "speed" of a OS kernel. A micro-kernel is often faster in one respect: responding to real-time interrupts. Micro-kernels (e.g. QNX) put very little code in to the kernel and spend as little processing time as possible in kernel mode. This lets the kernel preempt the user program that is running when a critical interrupt comes in.
The response time differential vs. a traditional OS would be too small to be noticed by users (nano or milli seconds), but when the nuclear reactor is about to blow, every nano-second counts.
The company posted its data on the net, offered $500k in prizes, big deal. That much can easily be spent by hiring outside consultants to tell you where the gold is. The contest was inspired by Open Source, but I fail to see how making the data publically available makes it open source.
What did the company get for its efforts anyhow?
In one word: Lucky.
Lucky that an Australian firm looking for North American PR took a bath and lost money on creating a professional 3D model of the mine:
Although the prize money, which Archibald's team shared with Taylor Wall & Associates, barely covered the cost of the project, the publicity has boosted the firm's business. "It would have taken us years to get the recognition in North America that this project gave us overnight," he says.
First: I work for one of the companies that has been mentioned.
/. or anywhere online.
Second: The CM market is very big, look at the public companies' revenue for proof.
Third: Slashdot is usually an open forum without too many covert agendas (other than Linux rules and Microsoft is the devil).
Fourth: Many Anonymous Cowards or first time posters on this thread are CM vendors that are slinging mud and speading FUD (Fear Uncertainty & Doubt) in their comments.
Fifth: As always, check your sources when reading info on
Amen,
At U(W) in Math/CS, there were two types of courses: Those that you abused (electives) and those that abused you (CS). I once logged 105 hours of coding in a week, leaving 9 hours per day for food, personal hygenie, sleep and attending classes.
The pooled Unix (Solaris) resources were so over used for undergrads that the term "Sleep when the load is high" came into being: take down time when everyone else is using the computer.
The areticle is here
I have been a huge fan of public access to 802.11 devices connected to the internet. With enough access points at high-density points (airports, malls, coffee shops, etc...), the system could become almost as transparent as the cell-phone system is today, and free at that!
I heartily encourage everyone with a home network and highspeed internet to purchase an 802.11 access point and place it by a window. Just make sure that you place the access point is on the external side of your firewall.
This begs the question: Why would a large company want to keep / destroy documents?
Why keep documents:
1. The company May need the data in the future. (who erases old source code?)
2. Legal & regulatory laws & rules. The SEC, IRS, FDA, etc... requires many companies need to keep certain documents (e.g. Tax returns) for a specified amount of time (usually 1n10 years)
Why destroy all old documents:
1. There are many many documents in a large company, all the e-mails, reports, memos, meeting minutes, etc... Not all of these documents are to the long term benefit of the company, even if the creator / reciever believes it to be. Without examining each document, the executives do not know what is benign and what is catastrophic.
2. Retaining documents can be expensive. A compnay of 100 people could fill multiple closets, a company of 10,000 could fill warehouses. Yes, imaging solutions exist but are not cheap. Office space is not free.
3. If a company destroys only selected, possibly damaging information, it appears suspicious. If a company has a policy and consistantly follows it to destroy all old documents (shred, delete, burn backups, etc...) then if old information is not available, it is because of the policy.
"Facts are the enemy of truth." - Don Quixote - "Man of La Mancha"
"Numbers have no meaning or truth except that which is applied to them." - Isaac Asimov
And why should we believe that there are 750 members of the Diet in Japan, or that there are 300 representatives for America? Because you said so?
And yes, one (1) of the quotes is fictitious.
I thought this was an error originally as well but it is not. When you have 2 connetsions (N=2 globally) and a node sends a request to the first two nodes, each of those nodes has 2 connections, one to the original requesting node and one to a new node. Thus the second level nodes can only send the request to 1 new node each.
That post deserves a (+1 recursive) mod! ;)
Interesting points and summarizes my understanding of the situation. However, what is to stop the development of low range, low power consumption, Voice Over IP based solutions for 802.11 that compete directly with BlueTooth? Bandwidth is not an issue, the IP overhead can be absorbed in the 11MB/s transmission rate. The 802.11 solution would be "more compatible" with other technologies (e.g. much easier to connect an 802.11 cell-phone to your network than a bluetooth cell phone).