The parent is insightful. I don't know why it's at -1. Video recording of interrogation keeps cops honest. GP is either stupid or trolling and *should* be modded down.
This problem is compounded when you consider that even if the economy is based on some amount of principle, and money is created out of the principle, and adds overhead of interest, then the only way to pay back any loans requires the creation of more principle. But when all principle is created out of debt, then there can never be enough money to pay off the interest. It's worse than a zero sum game. That's only true if the money is not used to produce anything of value. Suppose I use my loan to open another dairy. As a result of the new competition, the price of milk goes down. Now everyone who buys milk has a little extra money to pay their debts. Because the bank has more money on hand, it can loan someone else money to open a bakery, which reduces the price of bread, with similar results. You're trying to apply a logical argument to economics, which is just asking for trouble.
Now, when a system (read country) begins to consume more than can be covered by the value it produces, that's when things start to become problematic.
It's not Engineering, it's not even science unless you're doing theory, and compared to either of those things we're still bumbling around in the Dark Ages. Most CS research (especially networking) relies heavily on the scientific method. It's not a 'natural' science like Biology or Physics, but the methods are very much the same. TCP/IP would not be where it is today if not for heavy experimentation and analysis.
Even debugging (to be effective) requires the scientific method.
I assume that the postgrad did all the work and the professor took most of the credit. That's a given. Tenured professors exist only to lend their fame to important work done by postgrads and graduate students. Oh, and raise the money to do it. I'm only half kidding.
... if you read YouTube's policy you give up all your rights to whatever you upload and they take legal ownership of it. Viacom only needed to ask YouTube (the legal owner of the clip) for permission... You're just making stuff up. The submitter retains ownership. From the ToS you claim to be quoting (Section 6):
C. For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable.
> However, I recently lost a substantial amount of weight
> while consuming substantially more calories than before.
> [...]
> I'm guessing I now take in half again more calories, but
> I weigh ten or twelve pounds less
>
Then your expenditure of energy has increased by more than 50%, and you say this has been achieved without any additional exercise. It seems much more likely that you are or were not measuring your caloric intake correctly. Perhaps the point is that a change in diet, at the very least, produces a feeling of having more energy, which improves activity levels. If HFCS makes you feel lethargic, you're not going to exercise.
Anything about which two independent reliable sources have
written several paragraphs is notable.
That may be Wikipedia's assertion, but do you really believe
that to be justified? Why restrict knowledge based on some
arbitrary number of references? Come now, my dog can get two independent reliable sources to write articles about him. You have a band? Get a review in two local papers and you're notable.
If a topic can't even get that, what are the odds more than a few dozen people have even heard of it? That's a pretty low bar. If you really want to document the life of your cat, or the grand emotional struggle of being in high school, get a blog.
Choosing the optimal way to compress is probably NP-hard or close to it Not to quibble, but something is either NP-hard or it isn't. There is no 'close'. O(n^1e1000) may take a longer than O(2^n) for non-gargantuan values of n, but that doesn't change the nature of the problem. NP stands for "Non-Deterministic Polynomial Time." It describes the type of automata you would need, not how long it might actually take.
Re:what chinese see googling for "Tiananmen Square
on
China Censoring Flickr
·
· Score: 1
When you Google 'Whitehouse' you don't get pages about how the British burned it down in the War of 1812, so it must be a cover up since the British supported the war on terror.
For most Chinese internet users, the tourism aspects of the square and the nearby Forbidden City are probably more significant than a 1989 protest, which is the only reason westerners have ever heard of it.
"Wealthy and middle class parents are able to send their children to private schools, or at least move to a district with better public schools. Poor families are trapped -- forced to send their children to a public school system that fails to educate. It is time to break up the public education monopoly and give all parents the right to decide what school their children will attend. It is essential to restore choice and the discipline of the marketplace to education. Only a free market in education will provide the improvement in education necessary to enable millions of Americans to escape poverty. "
Here they are decrying the very private education system they want to create! What part of the quote disparages public schools? They're holding up private education as the model for public education.
And you think schools are underfunded now? Just wait until nobody HAS TO pay for them. Parents still are legally obliged to send their children to school. There will be exactly the same amount of money in the system. The schools with more students will get more money, and the better schools will have more students. If a school gets overcrowded, then parents will move their kids to a less crowded school.
When parents can choose the school their kids go to, you actually have a viable metric for judging performance, attendance, instead of some bullshit about standardized test scores.
We are forced to use BitTorrent because ISPs refuse to implement multicast If by "implement" you mean "turn on", you are correct. Virtually all networking hardware still in use will have multicast support built in. The ISPs just don't want to turn it on because they don't know how to make it fit their existing billing model. Think about it, right now, they accept one packet from a peer, they know they're only going to have to deliver at most one packet to another peer. With a (typical) multicast packet, they could have to deliver thousands of packets, but there isn't an efficient way to determine that in a border router.
Revisiting IP Multicast provides an alternate multicast protocol whereby the source precomputes the AS-level distribution tree and encodes it in the packet, which makes determining the fanout (and thus the cost to the ISP) simple. If multicast ever gets enabled, it will look more like this than any of the original proposals (e.g. Deering's DVMRP or a rendezvous based method).
I think you kind of missed the point. He first talked about how originally networking research tried to use the phone system as it was to deliver data. That didn't work so well because in the amount of time it takes to set up a phone call, you can send gigabits of data, so if your conversation is only ms long, it's horribly inefficient. What we needed was a more appropriate model, i.e. packet switched networks.
Now today, over 90% of internet traffic is for named content. Yes there is interactive/conversational stuff like posting comments blogging, doing taxes, etc. but the rest is smei-static data. He is saying that, like when the internet was first starting, we need a new model for the new ways we've found to use the internet.
He is not advocating throwing out the old conversational internet. We still have the phone system, and we still use it because it serves a specific purpose very well.
The internet originally ran over the phone system as an overlay. Eventually the network grew to be more like the overlay so that it could be more efficient. Today we have a significant number of peer-to-peer overlays doing exactly what he is describing: treating user objects as the first class entity, not endpoints. The internet's architecture will have to change to accommodate the modern usage, which is data centric. The point is that the future of networking is data centric networks, so trying to 'replace' or 'update' TCP is just like trying to use phone calls to have extremely short conversations, simply not appropriate.
I only made it halfway through the transcript, but he was just plain wrong about two things. Firstly, he states that a computer (rather than a network card) is what the IP address is assigned to, when in fact it is the reverse that is true.
Secondly, he states that because the IP Kazaa reports in the IP payload matches the IP header, the computer wasn't NATed. I don't know the Kazaa protocol well enough to say for sure, but I would guess that it would be smart enough to not advertise a private address and determine it's public address by interaction with a peer. It seemed like the defense kept hinting at that, but never made him spell it out explicitly.
Of course, the biggest problem with the testimony is that he was working off of 'evidence' he didn't acquire himself and using methods that he made that and have not been peer reviewed in any way.
Dependency Rejection
on
Finding New Code
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I'm of the opinion that most frameworks and libraries don't reimplement enough. In the FOSS Java world, everyone has a dependency on some version of Apache Commons Lang. For what? Just so we don't have to write StringUtils.isEmpty?
Don't get me wrong, if you're developing a stand alone project that wont be a dependency for someone else, then you absolutely want to rewrite as little code as possible. Let someone else maintain as much of your codebase as possible. But if you are writing something that other projects will be using as a dependency, don't you dare make me download four other libraries just to run your code. Write your own dang StringUtils or, if you're lazy and your project is GPLed, just copy the code.
You cannot teach someone to be a good programmer in college. Sure, a lot of the good CS students will code on their own, which will help, but a new graduate simply cannot know what he is doing yet until he has some full-time experience. It just doesn't work that way.
You can impart the fundamentals, which is what a degree in computer science is supposed to be about. It is proof that you have an understanding of the basics and can apply them. I think the reason you are getting crap programmers out of college is because the focus has shifted *away* from the fundamentals. Too many colleges are hearing that the math is hard and attrition rates are high and thinking that means something is wrong with their programs.
There isn't. Attrition should be high. If 30-40 freshmen enter a CS program at a university whose program is not extremely competitive, 20-30 just heard it was a good way to make a buck and/or like to play games, and of the 10-20 remaining, 3-5 of them just don't have what it takes it be good programmers. My graduating class had 7 or 8 students with a BSCS, and I know at least 2 of them were crap, just making it because of group projects. My freshmen class had at least 50 declared CS majors. It is supposed to be hard.
Here's how it works: Top sheet of paper says, "Do you want A. The Simpleton B. The Communist", but on the next ballot they are reversed, e.g. "Do you want B. The Simpleton A. The Communist" The bottom sheet just has the options "A or B" you mark one and keep the bottom half that just shows you voted for 'B'. No one is going to pay you/beat you up for voting for an arbitrary letter.
You can then go home and lookup your ID number and it will show you the bottom half, again confirming that you voted for 'B'. But, only you (and the machine) know who 'B' was.
The vote counting people now know how you voted. Well, they would if they tracked the ID number that you keep. That's unacceptable.
I think the point of the paper is that you can just have a box full of these things and let the voter pick one at random so they don't know what your ID number is. They could log access to the web site, but you could always go to the library.
Actualy if we all went and RTFA first, we would see that they have solved the problem. You can't prove how you voted to someone who didn't see the other half of the ballot you voted with.
So what is the solution? What am I, a lowly individual, supposed to do about global warming and over fishing? Don't say "write your congressman" or some shite like that, we both know that isn't going to work. At best we'll get another Kyoto.
I already own the most fuel efficient car I can afford, I ride my bike and use public transportation whenever possible. I buy green energy. I don't own a house to put solar panels/windmills on. Oh, and I don't eat much fish. So what more can I possibly do to improve the situations?
For that matter, would drastic change (e.g. everyone give up cars) be enough at this point? Havent we already spewed more carbon into the air than there has been since the Cretaceous? (I really am asking)
My fear is that we're beyond stopping global warming, but we're too busy worrying about whose fault it is to figure out what we should do. Or maybe what we'll have to do is too hard to face (e.g. move millions of people and trillions in infrastructure away from the coasts)
Slashdot Mirror
The parent is insightful. I don't know why it's at -1. Video recording of interrogation keeps cops honest. GP is either stupid or trolling and *should* be modded down.
Now, when a system (read country) begins to consume more than can be covered by the value it produces, that's when things start to become problematic.
Even debugging (to be effective) requires the scientific method.
... if you read YouTube's policy you give up all your rights to whatever you upload and they take legal ownership of it. Viacom only needed to ask YouTube (the legal owner of the clip) for permission... You're just making stuff up. The submitter retains ownership. From the ToS you claim to be quoting (Section 6): C. For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable.> while consuming substantially more calories than before.
> [...]
> I'm guessing I now take in half again more calories, but
> I weigh ten or twelve pounds less
>
Then your expenditure of energy has increased by more than 50%, and you say this has been achieved without any additional exercise. It seems much more likely that you are or were not measuring your caloric intake correctly.
Perhaps the point is that a change in diet, at the very least, produces a feeling of having more energy, which improves activity levels. If HFCS makes you feel lethargic, you're not going to exercise.
That may be Wikipedia's assertion, but do you really believe that to be justified? Why restrict knowledge based on some arbitrary number of references? Come now, my dog can get two independent reliable sources to write articles about him. You have a band? Get a review in two local papers and you're notable. If a topic can't even get that, what are the odds more than a few dozen people have even heard of it? That's a pretty low bar. If you really want to document the life of your cat, or the grand emotional struggle of being in high school, get a blog.
When you Google 'Whitehouse' you don't get pages about how the British burned it down in the War of 1812, so it must be a cover up since the British supported the war on terror.
For most Chinese internet users, the tourism aspects of the square and the nearby Forbidden City are probably more significant than a 1989 protest, which is the only reason westerners have ever heard of it.
Here they are decrying the very private education system they want to create! What part of the quote disparages public schools? They're holding up private education as the model for public education. And you think schools are underfunded now? Just wait until nobody HAS TO pay for them. Parents still are legally obliged to send their children to school. There will be exactly the same amount of money in the system. The schools with more students will get more money, and the better schools will have more students. If a school gets overcrowded, then parents will move their kids to a less crowded school.
When parents can choose the school their kids go to, you actually have a viable metric for judging performance, attendance, instead of some bullshit about standardized test scores.
Revisiting IP Multicast provides an alternate multicast protocol whereby the source precomputes the AS-level distribution tree and encodes it in the packet, which makes determining the fanout (and thus the cost to the ISP) simple. If multicast ever gets enabled, it will look more like this than any of the original proposals (e.g. Deering's DVMRP or a rendezvous based method).
I think you kind of missed the point. He first talked about how originally networking research tried to use the phone system as it was to deliver data. That didn't work so well because in the amount of time it takes to set up a phone call, you can send gigabits of data, so if your conversation is only ms long, it's horribly inefficient. What we needed was a more appropriate model, i.e. packet switched networks.
Now today, over 90% of internet traffic is for named content. Yes there is interactive/conversational stuff like posting comments blogging, doing taxes, etc. but the rest is smei-static data. He is saying that, like when the internet was first starting, we need a new model for the new ways we've found to use the internet.
He is not advocating throwing out the old conversational internet. We still have the phone system, and we still use it because it serves a specific purpose very well.
The internet originally ran over the phone system as an overlay. Eventually the network grew to be more like the overlay so that it could be more efficient. Today we have a significant number of peer-to-peer overlays doing exactly what he is describing: treating user objects as the first class entity, not endpoints. The internet's architecture will have to change to accommodate the modern usage, which is data centric. The point is that the future of networking is data centric networks, so trying to 'replace' or 'update' TCP is just like trying to use phone calls to have extremely short conversations, simply not appropriate.
I only made it halfway through the transcript, but he was just plain wrong about two things. Firstly, he states that a computer (rather than a network card) is what the IP address is assigned to, when in fact it is the reverse that is true.
Secondly, he states that because the IP Kazaa reports in the IP payload matches the IP header, the computer wasn't NATed. I don't know the Kazaa protocol well enough to say for sure, but I would guess that it would be smart enough to not advertise a private address and determine it's public address by interaction with a peer. It seemed like the defense kept hinting at that, but never made him spell it out explicitly.
Of course, the biggest problem with the testimony is that he was working off of 'evidence' he didn't acquire himself and using methods that he made that and have not been peer reviewed in any way.
... but could mean the doom for the entire coip industry... NO! Not the Coy Over IP industry! Now I'll never have tranquility...Be careful what you wish for... GAH! MY EYES!!!!
Don't get me wrong, if you're developing a stand alone project that wont be a dependency for someone else, then you absolutely want to rewrite as little code as possible. Let someone else maintain as much of your codebase as possible. But if you are writing something that other projects will be using as a dependency, don't you dare make me download four other libraries just to run your code. Write your own dang StringUtils or, if you're lazy and your project is GPLed, just copy the code.
You cannot teach someone to be a good programmer in college. Sure, a lot of the good CS students will code on their own, which will help, but a new graduate simply cannot know what he is doing yet until he has some full-time experience. It just doesn't work that way.
You can impart the fundamentals, which is what a degree in computer science is supposed to be about. It is proof that you have an understanding of the basics and can apply them. I think the reason you are getting crap programmers out of college is because the focus has shifted *away* from the fundamentals. Too many colleges are hearing that the math is hard and attrition rates are high and thinking that means something is wrong with their programs.
There isn't. Attrition should be high. If 30-40 freshmen enter a CS program at a university whose program is not extremely competitive, 20-30 just heard it was a good way to make a buck and/or like to play games, and of the 10-20 remaining, 3-5 of them just don't have what it takes it be good programmers. My graduating class had 7 or 8 students with a BSCS, and I know at least 2 of them were crap, just making it because of group projects. My freshmen class had at least 50 declared CS majors. It is supposed to be hard.
They don't need to be very random, just have as many variants as contenders. So there is a ballot version where each candidate gets to be 'A'.
That also takes care of biases towards the person at the top.
Here's how it works:
Top sheet of paper says, "Do you want A. The Simpleton B. The Communist", but on the next ballot they are reversed, e.g. "Do you want B. The Simpleton A. The Communist"
The bottom sheet just has the options "A or B" you mark one and keep the bottom half that just shows you voted for 'B'. No one is going to pay you/beat you up for voting for an arbitrary letter.
You can then go home and lookup your ID number and it will show you the bottom half, again confirming that you voted for 'B'. But, only you (and the machine) know who 'B' was.
Actualy if we all went and RTFA first, we would see that they have solved the problem. You can't prove how you voted to someone who didn't see the other half of the ballot you voted with.
I'll sell my vote for $500, you can even verify it with this hole thingy.
So what is the solution? What am I, a lowly individual, supposed to do about global warming and over fishing? Don't say "write your congressman" or some shite like that, we both know that isn't going to work. At best we'll get another Kyoto.
I already own the most fuel efficient car I can afford, I ride my bike and use public transportation whenever possible. I buy green energy. I don't own a house to put solar panels/windmills on. Oh, and I don't eat much fish. So what more can I possibly do to improve the situations?
For that matter, would drastic change (e.g. everyone give up cars) be enough at this point? Havent we already spewed more carbon into the air than there has been since the Cretaceous? (I really am asking)
My fear is that we're beyond stopping global warming, but we're too busy worrying about whose fault it is to figure out what we should do. Or maybe what we'll have to do is too hard to face (e.g. move millions of people and trillions in infrastructure away from the coasts)