I burned through 2 OCZ Vertex 3's in like 2 weeks. One ran for a day, then was so screwed the system wouldn't power.. some sort of crazy short. So I took it back, and was lured by the speed, and replaced it with same drive. Was good, but random blue screen. Turns out their firmware is garbage for Win 7... supposedly you can update the firmware, but both the Windows approach (had to hook drive up to second machine, as it won't update if it's a boot drive.. WTF) and their Linux boot reported firmware was up to date. (had 2.06 - most recent is 2.09.. again, WTF)
Took it back, replaced with a "slower" SSD. (One random blue screen means I've lost all those milliseconds over the life of the drive I'm gaining with a faster drive.) At the end of the day, my computer has to work, or I won't be able to.
This is a failure in programming (I'll stop short of calling the coders idiots, since I don't know what pressures and time constraints they were under) and testing (this should be caught within 10 minutes with a half-hearted Selenium script). The mistake they made: if user is authenticated, they belong, and everything gets happily processed. Pretty typical, especially for beginning programmers. They failed to check individual resources against what was being param'ed in.
I remember when Slashdot posters would read an article, think about it, and post their own submission. This posting (and a majority on/. these days) merely copy and pasted the first few paragraphs of the article. That plagiarism, as it says "(user) said...". Hell, how do we know it isn't a bot grabbing content at this point? I see CmdrTaco approved it.. c'mon Rob..
I love apps on my phone, but along the way, I have to wonder, just how smart is this? My phone is for me, as for many, my primary communications device. I get loading an IM app or an invoicing app or even some Angry Birds. There comes an implicit trust there, I suppose.
I'm cool with tinkering.. that's how our modern marvels came to be. However, tinkering comes with implicit risk. The problem is people tinker and expect the mission critical stuff (like your phone making calls everytime you want, and only when you want) to still remain iron-clad.
It's like jacking with beta software. Yeah, do it on your local machine. However, if you do it on your production server, and you lose data or have run-away costs, that's just too bad.
I've worked in project where equity was on the table. Sometimes I took it, sometimes I didn't. The key is it must be win-win. For a company that already has an existing business relationship, for them to win means they get something more than they've got now.
1. You take a pay cut + equity position. Thing is, they're not going to go for paying you the same amount and giving you equity. Where's the value for the company? The privilege of keeping you? As others have pointed out eloquently and not-so-eloquently, there's a good chance you can be replaced. Exception to this is if you get paid the same but somehow increase output (and you can guarantee this, in terms of hours, units of works, etc)
2. Performance-based incentives. This allows you to keep your current pay, but also get something in the future. Of course, this needs to be above and beyond the status quo, it must be measurable, it must affect bottom line, and it must be the result of your efforts. (For example, if company is growing at 10% per month in sales, basing your position on sales increases is a hard sale. Conversions is a better bet in this situation.)
There are about 30,000 CF patients in the US. I've seen numbers that say 1 in 3500 are born with CF, but a number possibly die shortly after birth. Note that numbers vary by ethnicity, so statistics may vary by how categorized.
30,000 is a very small number to build a market on when compared to diseases/syndromes like MS (400,000), breast cancer (200,000+ new cases in 2010), HIV (over 1,000,000). (US only)
Maybe, but not necessarily. CF isn't a huge profit center like heart disease medications or even HIV. Even though CF is the most common chronic genetic condition in the US, the numbers just aren't there. Most of the major CF meds (Pulmozyme, Creon, Tobi, Cayston, etc) is given away by the pharmas when the patient can't afford. While it may not be true for other conditions, when it comes to CF the pharmas ensure that those who need their meds get them. The emphasis for profit in CF just isn't there.
I should know - I have Cystic Fibrosis, and despite periods of no insurance, I've never done without. (Yes, I'm in the United States.)
As a 34 year old dealing with the health issues and the ridiculous costs that let me breathe, digest my food, and not be knocked on my butt by blood sugar spikes, I'm excited by this. Goes to show that sometimes we just need some fresh thought at a new problem - the traditional, mega-millions research methods may not be the answer. (similar to Space-X:: NASA)
In a world where the increasing response to our own stupidity is to litigate, kudos to the store owner for admitting a screw-up and taking responsibility.
Double kudos to the folks who actually paid.
Shame on the folks who stole. Double shame on them for not calling authorities when the store was unmanned. That's more than groceries.. what if the owner was being held at gun point in the back? Of course, can't expect people to actually do the *right thing*, now can we?
It's FF v Chrome. IE isn't going away - at least not while Windows is a viable option. However, FF's position as #2 was in part due to the resources Google pumped into Mozilla.. and I think it's reasonable to say Google is less motivated these days. Moreover, for the same reason IE is entrenched, so it WebKit - the 3 major mobile platforms + all new tablets + 2 major desktop browsers. Mozilla is riding its past successes, but it's saving grace is its "addons".. and WebKit is catching up there. Some FF addons are hideous.. when I use Firebug, much of which is baked into IE and Chrome, it kills my FF experience after a few hours. Plus I have to restart my browser to disable it. (Not FF fault necessarily, other than the fact that I even need the addon to get what others provide natively) Add to that the fact that Chrome has the 2 biggest plugins baked in (PDF, Flash). Recently I set up some older computers, fresh installs of XP: performance has changed enough over the years that I changed my setup behavior, and now I put Chrome on all new machines. This is the future: IE and Chrome.
And this means to *everything*. I'm allowed to investigate any theory, and shouldn't be punished for doing so. Texas is focused on creation, but the underlying issue is ensuring that academia is freed from agenda. What if a school took the position that strong intellectual property results in profit, and started firing professors merely researching the value of open source and DRM-free markets? Same concept - academia needs protection. Ideology isn't the issue, as all worldviews (Christian v. Atheist, IP v. openness, etc) are an ideology. My research can reflect my worldview, and I shouldn't be punished for it. Otherwise it isn't academia, but rather, whoever holds the cards is using its means of control to further its worldview. (No different than the church's attacks on Aristotle and Newton... it's just a matter of the shoe being on the other foot, which is never a justification.)
I say all this as a Texan (in Houston) and as a Christian who believes in evolution The most retarded view in the world is that evolution=atheism - Darwin himself referenced God as an authority figure, and even in his most uncertain moments, went on record to label himself as an agnostic at most, never an atheist.
We are so dependent on infrastructure, if we reached that level of disaster, I don't think it'd be a master of "asking" for help.
Reminds me of a client, whose former programmer was a conspiracy theorist. He was stocking up seeds, because he was convinced the economy was going to fail and seeds would be the new currency. However, he was also a pus^H^H^H^H pacifist, and didn't believe in owning guns. If it all hit the fan, the people with the guns would take his seed, one way or another.
tl;dr; Your doomsday heroes are ill-equipped for that reality
Totally insulting to the freedom fighters of the Civil Rights movement. They were battling government; Anonymous is battling companies that refuse to do business with a *website*. More importantly, the activists of the Civil Rights movement knew the potential punishment for their actions and were more than willing (I dare say proud) to pay the price for the potential freedom gained. Every time a member of Anonymous gets arrested, the Internet lets out a collection WAAAH!! Lastly, they weren't ANONYMOUS (cowards).. they had the courage to put their face out there. Assange is definitely no MLK Jr.. on his best day, he's Farakhan on his worst day.
Do a search for a phone number. (What business does this go to?) You have to deal with 47 pages of phone number spam (How hard is it to filter out pages of sequential phone numbers?)
Do a programming search, deal with 15 Stack Overflow scraped sites.
Do a search for pretty much any topic where people would discuss it: get 15 forum "aggregators" that have the same content
Programming issues that are too challenging for Google? Or is it the fact that these sites generate ad revenue? Web 2.0 is about churn - good content is expensive to create, and it's all about CPM in 2011. (Let's say I wanted a site with 1000000 hits a day.. would I get there more with highly researched thought-provoking ideas or a forum with troll posts and 500 comments, of which 2% have any value?)
More than once I've had to side step quickly to avoid a Prius in a store parking lot - I'm used to audio cues of my environment, and they just weren't paying attention while backing out.
In other words, no internal trust. You eliminate all assumptions in-house with the requisite sandboxes, minimal privileges, etc. Like prison: no one is your friend, you merely have alliances that can be severed at the moment that trust is no longer needed.
Facebook's massive failure re privacy is pretty much the status quo, no need to rehash that.
However, let's presume a person treats their sexual status as something super secret, worthy of protection. You know, so secret that at the very least, they keep it from their general "real-world" social network, if not their closest friends and family. This involves care: watching how they talk, walk, dress, and who they associate with. Yet when it comes to websites run by strangers they're more than willing to let it all hang out. Hmm.. there can only be a reasonable expectation of privacy when there's a reasonable exercise of privacy.
Is that you can just categorize based on Slashdot's summary, and just vaguely use it to go on a soapbox about what you want to make a bunch of noise about.
Even the summary uses phrase "Iraq war documents". Good reason - the Wikileaks release dealt with documents that often referred to what the Iraqi police/forces were doing, and what the US forces knew about. Not that the US forces were doing those actions themselves (though you could argue that allowing such actions were as bad as doing the actions themselves...) Nevertheless, we can't on one hand say we should withdraw and then say that we should keep the Iraqis from doing things we think are bad - good or bad, Iraqis hurting Iraqis is a possible outcome of self-government.
Stereotyping is never good, but it has a higher degree of confidence based on the divergence of individual characteristics, as well as population. (For example, you say "all 17 year old black males like rap music", but you're actually looking at more than one characteristic - there typically is less divergence among economic status, geographic distance from peers, etc.. to put it bluntly, they tend to be poor and live close together)
Among white males, this tends to be less true wider array of economic functioning (higher % of upper middle class), geographic distribution (with few exceptions, white males can *socially* live wherever they want, if they can afford it), etc. So there's no *typical* white male.
First off, this is *not* an attempt at Wars/Trek trolling.
In Trek, you see a lot of objects that became, or highly influenced, what we have today: floppies/flash storage, iPhone (similar to tripod.. interesting name similarity), bluetooth earpieces (Uhura's communicator, as well as chest tap communicator in TNG), grocery store doors, etc. To drive the future is an honor. To hold it back is to steal from the future generations who will benefit from it.
Whether or not one feels state-sponsored killing is justified is a personal choice, but only if they don't use the Bible as justification...
Deuteronomy 5: "thou shalt not kill"
Deuteronomy 21: (and several other places, just one example): "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, so that he die. So shalt thou put evil away from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear."
Granted, God may not agree with today's US justice system as to what constitutes a capital offense, but the scripture clearly provides precendent (whether you're a believer or not, the idea here is you can't use some scripture without accepting premises in all of scripture)
Slashdot Mirror
I burned through 2 OCZ Vertex 3's in like 2 weeks. One ran for a day, then was so screwed the system wouldn't power .. some sort of crazy short. So I took it back, and was lured by the speed, and replaced it with same drive. Was good, but random blue screen. Turns out their firmware is garbage for Win 7 ... supposedly you can update the firmware, but both the Windows approach (had to hook drive up to second machine, as it won't update if it's a boot drive .. WTF) and their Linux boot reported firmware was up to date. (had 2.06 - most recent is 2.09 .. again, WTF)
Took it back, replaced with a "slower" SSD. (One random blue screen means I've lost all those milliseconds over the life of the drive I'm gaining with a faster drive.) At the end of the day, my computer has to work, or I won't be able to.
This is a failure in programming (I'll stop short of calling the coders idiots, since I don't know what pressures and time constraints they were under) and testing (this should be caught within 10 minutes with a half-hearted Selenium script). The mistake they made: if user is authenticated, they belong, and everything gets happily processed. Pretty typical, especially for beginning programmers. They failed to check individual resources against what was being param'ed in.
I remember when Slashdot posters would read an article, think about it, and post their own submission. This posting (and a majority on /. these days) merely copy and pasted the first few paragraphs of the article. That plagiarism, as it says "(user) said...". Hell, how do we know it isn't a bot grabbing content at this point? I see CmdrTaco approved it.. c'mon Rob..
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/ would be a good starting point. Advanced? Yes. The beauty of home schooling is that the curriculum can meet the needs of the student, not the lowest common denominator.
I love apps on my phone, but along the way, I have to wonder, just how smart is this? My phone is for me, as for many, my primary communications device. I get loading an IM app or an invoicing app or even some Angry Birds. There comes an implicit trust there, I suppose.
I'm cool with tinkering.. that's how our modern marvels came to be. However, tinkering comes with implicit risk. The problem is people tinker and expect the mission critical stuff (like your phone making calls everytime you want, and only when you want) to still remain iron-clad.
It's like jacking with beta software. Yeah, do it on your local machine. However, if you do it on your production server, and you lose data or have run-away costs, that's just too bad.
I've worked in project where equity was on the table. Sometimes I took it, sometimes I didn't. The key is it must be win-win. For a company that already has an existing business relationship, for them to win means they get something more than they've got now.
1. You take a pay cut + equity position. Thing is, they're not going to go for paying you the same amount and giving you equity. Where's the value for the company? The privilege of keeping you? As others have pointed out eloquently and not-so-eloquently, there's a good chance you can be replaced. Exception to this is if you get paid the same but somehow increase output (and you can guarantee this, in terms of hours, units of works, etc)
2. Performance-based incentives. This allows you to keep your current pay, but also get something in the future. Of course, this needs to be above and beyond the status quo, it must be measurable, it must affect bottom line, and it must be the result of your efforts. (For example, if company is growing at 10% per month in sales, basing your position on sales increases is a hard sale. Conversions is a better bet in this situation.)
There are about 30,000 CF patients in the US. I've seen numbers that say 1 in 3500 are born with CF, but a number possibly die shortly after birth. Note that numbers vary by ethnicity, so statistics may vary by how categorized.
http://www.cff.org/AboutCF/
30,000 is a very small number to build a market on when compared to diseases/syndromes like MS (400,000), breast cancer (200,000+ new cases in 2010), HIV (over 1,000,000). (US only)
Maybe, but not necessarily. CF isn't a huge profit center like heart disease medications or even HIV. Even though CF is the most common chronic genetic condition in the US, the numbers just aren't there. Most of the major CF meds (Pulmozyme, Creon, Tobi, Cayston, etc) is given away by the pharmas when the patient can't afford. While it may not be true for other conditions, when it comes to CF the pharmas ensure that those who need their meds get them. The emphasis for profit in CF just isn't there.
I should know - I have Cystic Fibrosis, and despite periods of no insurance, I've never done without. (Yes, I'm in the United States.)
As a 34 year old dealing with the health issues and the ridiculous costs that let me breathe, digest my food, and not be knocked on my butt by blood sugar spikes, I'm excited by this. Goes to show that sometimes we just need some fresh thought at a new problem - the traditional, mega-millions research methods may not be the answer. (similar to Space-X :: NASA)
Um, no. Jerry Lewis = MS, not CF.
In a world where the increasing response to our own stupidity is to litigate, kudos to the store owner for admitting a screw-up and taking responsibility.
Double kudos to the folks who actually paid.
Shame on the folks who stole. Double shame on them for not calling authorities when the store was unmanned. That's more than groceries.. what if the owner was being held at gun point in the back? Of course, can't expect people to actually do the *right thing*, now can we?
It's FF v Chrome. IE isn't going away - at least not while Windows is a viable option. However, FF's position as #2 was in part due to the resources Google pumped into Mozilla.. and I think it's reasonable to say Google is less motivated these days. Moreover, for the same reason IE is entrenched, so it WebKit - the 3 major mobile platforms + all new tablets + 2 major desktop browsers. Mozilla is riding its past successes, but it's saving grace is its "addons".. and WebKit is catching up there. Some FF addons are hideous.. when I use Firebug, much of which is baked into IE and Chrome, it kills my FF experience after a few hours. Plus I have to restart my browser to disable it. (Not FF fault necessarily, other than the fact that I even need the addon to get what others provide natively) Add to that the fact that Chrome has the 2 biggest plugins baked in (PDF, Flash). Recently I set up some older computers, fresh installs of XP: performance has changed enough over the years that I changed my setup behavior, and now I put Chrome on all new machines. This is the future: IE and Chrome.
And this means to *everything*. I'm allowed to investigate any theory, and shouldn't be punished for doing so. Texas is focused on creation, but the underlying issue is ensuring that academia is freed from agenda. What if a school took the position that strong intellectual property results in profit, and started firing professors merely researching the value of open source and DRM-free markets? Same concept - academia needs protection. Ideology isn't the issue, as all worldviews (Christian v. Atheist, IP v. openness, etc) are an ideology. My research can reflect my worldview, and I shouldn't be punished for it. Otherwise it isn't academia, but rather, whoever holds the cards is using its means of control to further its worldview. (No different than the church's attacks on Aristotle and Newton ... it's just a matter of the shoe being on the other foot, which is never a justification.)
I say all this as a Texan (in Houston) and as a Christian who believes in evolution The most retarded view in the world is that evolution=atheism - Darwin himself referenced God as an authority figure, and even in his most uncertain moments, went on record to label himself as an agnostic at most, never an atheist.
Durr.. I guess it's *finally* time to update my sig. Welcome to 2007, Slashdot!
sp: "master"="matter"
We are so dependent on infrastructure, if we reached that level of disaster, I don't think it'd be a master of "asking" for help.
Reminds me of a client, whose former programmer was a conspiracy theorist. He was stocking up seeds, because he was convinced the economy was going to fail and seeds would be the new currency. However, he was also a pus^H^H^H^H pacifist, and didn't believe in owning guns. If it all hit the fan, the people with the guns would take his seed, one way or another.
tl;dr; Your doomsday heroes are ill-equipped for that reality
Totally insulting to the freedom fighters of the Civil Rights movement. They were battling government; Anonymous is battling companies that refuse to do business with a *website*. More importantly, the activists of the Civil Rights movement knew the potential punishment for their actions and were more than willing (I dare say proud) to pay the price for the potential freedom gained. Every time a member of Anonymous gets arrested, the Internet lets out a collection WAAAH!! Lastly, they weren't ANONYMOUS (cowards).. they had the courage to put their face out there. Assange is definitely no MLK Jr.. on his best day, he's Farakhan on his worst day.
Do a search for a phone number. (What business does this go to?) You have to deal with 47 pages of phone number spam (How hard is it to filter out pages of sequential phone numbers?)
Do a programming search, deal with 15 Stack Overflow scraped sites.
Do a search for pretty much any topic where people would discuss it: get 15 forum "aggregators" that have the same content
Programming issues that are too challenging for Google? Or is it the fact that these sites generate ad revenue? Web 2.0 is about churn - good content is expensive to create, and it's all about CPM in 2011. (Let's say I wanted a site with 1000000 hits a day.. would I get there more with highly researched thought-provoking ideas or a forum with troll posts and 500 comments, of which 2% have any value?)
More than once I've had to side step quickly to avoid a Prius in a store parking lot - I'm used to audio cues of my environment, and they just weren't paying attention while backing out.
Sound-makers on Prius and others is already being done in Japan
In other words, no internal trust. You eliminate all assumptions in-house with the requisite sandboxes, minimal privileges, etc. Like prison: no one is your friend, you merely have alliances that can be severed at the moment that trust is no longer needed.
Facebook's massive failure re privacy is pretty much the status quo, no need to rehash that.
However, let's presume a person treats their sexual status as something super secret, worthy of protection. You know, so secret that at the very least, they keep it from their general "real-world" social network, if not their closest friends and family. This involves care: watching how they talk, walk, dress, and who they associate with. Yet when it comes to websites run by strangers they're more than willing to let it all hang out. Hmm.. there can only be a reasonable expectation of privacy when there's a reasonable exercise of privacy.
Is that you can just categorize based on Slashdot's summary, and just vaguely use it to go on a soapbox about what you want to make a bunch of noise about.
Even the summary uses phrase "Iraq war documents". Good reason - the Wikileaks release dealt with documents that often referred to what the Iraqi police/forces were doing, and what the US forces knew about. Not that the US forces were doing those actions themselves (though you could argue that allowing such actions were as bad as doing the actions themselves...) Nevertheless, we can't on one hand say we should withdraw and then say that we should keep the Iraqis from doing things we think are bad - good or bad, Iraqis hurting Iraqis is a possible outcome of self-government.
Stereotyping is never good, but it has a higher degree of confidence based on the divergence of individual characteristics, as well as population. (For example, you say "all 17 year old black males like rap music", but you're actually looking at more than one characteristic - there typically is less divergence among economic status, geographic distance from peers, etc.. to put it bluntly, they tend to be poor and live close together)
Among white males, this tends to be less true wider array of economic functioning (higher % of upper middle class), geographic distribution (with few exceptions, white males can *socially* live wherever they want, if they can afford it), etc. So there's no *typical* white male.
First off, this is *not* an attempt at Wars/Trek trolling.
In Trek, you see a lot of objects that became, or highly influenced, what we have today: floppies/flash storage, iPhone (similar to tripod.. interesting name similarity), bluetooth earpieces (Uhura's communicator, as well as chest tap communicator in TNG), grocery store doors, etc. To drive the future is an honor. To hold it back is to steal from the future generations who will benefit from it.
Whether or not one feels state-sponsored killing is justified is a personal choice, but only if they don't use the Bible as justification...
Deuteronomy 5: "thou shalt not kill"
Deuteronomy 21: (and several other places, just one example): "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, so that he die. So shalt thou put evil away from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear."
Granted, God may not agree with today's US justice system as to what constitutes a capital offense, but the scripture clearly provides precendent (whether you're a believer or not, the idea here is you can't use some scripture without accepting premises in all of scripture)