Since someone suggested Dropbox as a good place to put our disaster recovery documentation, my employer has started "raising questions" about it from a data-security perspective. After years of buying computers without floppies or optical drives, and locking down USB ports, he wonders if we ought to start blocking these services as well. He argues that with our corporate e-mail we at least have a record of it (and a chance to block it) if someone sends confidential information off-site, but not so with cloud storage. Personally, I think it's impossible to effectively secure against this without crippling legitimate business-related web access. I can think of several trivial ways to get information from a computer on our network to an outside host using just innocuous must-allow protocols, and without needing to install software on the secured machine... starting with any webmail or forum site that allows uploads of file attachments, to them newfangled "cloud drives", to setting up an FTP server that listens on port 80.
Given how close Eagle came to running out of fuel for the descent rockets before touching down at Tranquility, that 50-50 estimate for landing sounds pretty accurate.
From the web site, about an unmanned test flight last year:
Due to trajectory anomaly the spacecraft was separated and the parachutes had to be deployed during great speed in order to save it. The parachutes were not able to deploy correctly due to the speed but even with a "knot" of parachutes we had a low enough impact on water to recover Tycho Brahe as one piece.
I think I'll wait until a few more "successful" test flights have been performed.
So if I pay a lot of money for something it makes sense to have unreasonable expectations of it?
You know, I spent a lot of money (service contract considered) on a smartphone, and I really think it should include a full-sized keyboard. I'm not picky – either on-screen or slide-out is OK – but I don't want to have to carry a separate keyboard with me. And I'd like to buy a laptop with a proper trackball instead of a trackpad. For that matter, why aren't there any laptops with a good 21" display, so I have room to run Photoshop and a word processor side-by-side....?
Based on recent trends in IE and Win UI design, Microsoft's announced plans, and their track record doing things just a little differently from Apple, I expect the default UI for Windows 9 to be just a blank bluish-grey screen with a lighter logo in the middle, and functions will be brought on screen and selected by gesturing in front of it in a dialect of American Sign Language. (Passwords will be entered by hiding one hand behind the other and finger-spelling.)
The fact that NASA has discontinued manned space launches doesn't make their safety record any worse. How many people died because of it? Or were hurt? What kind of loopy argument is that? On the contrary, cancelling an entire launch system due to safety concerns (and other factors) demonstrates that they are being (perhaps overly) cautious.
Yes, it's certainly true that the Russians have logged a lot more time in space than Americans. But do you really want to get into a comparison of all the not-quite-fatal health-and-safety problems they also had during that time? Mir was an orbiting deathtrap near the end. You're like those statistically-inept people who point at big airline crashes as proof that commercial air travel is unsafe, while ignoring not only the fatalities among in less-spectacular automobile accidents, but also the injuries and toxicity that add up to a much more hazardous environment.
And please drop the dumb-ass nationalist pot-shots; they only make you look just as willfully blind as you accuse others of being. I am an American in America, but I won't hesitate for an instant to criticize its culture, its government. or its space program when it deserves criticism. And I'm not alone. So stop trying to prove what an ignorant, prejudiced dork you are.
The Soviet/Russian space program's safety record isn't all that great either. They've also had two in-flight accidents that resulted in the loss of all hands (but with crews of only 1 and 3, so a smaller body count). Taken as a percentage of launches, this gives them about the same failure rate as NASA.
"...products so lacking in any enhanced value that they left customers scrambling to find ways to avoid upgrades"
Whether it's Ballmer's fault or not, this is one of the most damning failures of Microsoft as a company. With the possible exception of invisible stability/security fixes, nothing that Microsoft has added to Windows or Office in the past 10 years makes me want to upgrade, and the hassles of adapting to the arbitrary changes make me want to stay put. Even Adobe, which also struggles with mature, feature-complete products such as Photoshop and Illustrator, has managed to introduce some new features here and there that make me wish I could afford to upgrade those. But Windows 7 and Office 2010 just remind me that Windows XP and Office 2003 already work pretty well for me.
Microsoft has become an aging rock band, whose biggest hits are all behind them, and whose longtime fans would kinda rather hear the old stuff in concert, rather than songs from the latest album.
An overabundance of options to choose from is definitely off-putting to people, and it makes sense to avoid that. I'll even concede that Microsoft's past-and-future treatment of IE as the web browser has some small benefit to the unsophisticated user. But hiding features - things that people are forced to go hunting for - is a different thing, and it's what I'm getting rather sick of.
Clearly Microsoft hears complaints from users that computers are too complicated. Their solution, unfortunately, is to keep hiding things. Like that helps.
I think it started with "personalized menus": the menu items you haven't used in a while get hidden... which rather defeats the purpose of menus, because you're less likely to remember seeing those less-used features to know they exist, and when you go looking for them, they're concealed. Filename extensions apparently confused some people, so now they're hidden... making it easier to trick people with trojans disguised as Word documents, befuddling them when they see two files (of different types) with the same name, and rendering files "unopenable" if they get saved somehow with the wrong (hidden) extension. They've been doing it with IE in a big way: taking buttons off the standard toolbar, removing button labels, and recently hiding the whole damn pull-down menu bar! The MS Office "ribbon" left me scratching my head trying to find the "print" button (or menu option) the first time I encountered it. The Start button has lost the word "start"... not exactly hidden, but no longer as easy for newbies to find when told to click on it. In Win7 (maybe it was Vista), the "log off" and other I'm done-using-the-computer options are now hidden under a non-descript arrow button. And now in Win8 (which I've looked at in preview only long enough to get frustrated trying to re-orient myself) they've hidden the Start button altogether, and made Shutdown even harder to find.
Instead of actually simplifying the system, what they're doing is the equivalent of sweeping the complexity under a rug. It's still there. And often you still need it. But it's harder to get at. They're shoving more and more features into the system... then hiding them away. Along with a bunch of the old ones. Eventually it will get simple enough for my aged mother to use it... but by then I will find it totally unusable.
Describing evolution strictly in terms of DNA isn't exactly "wrong"... but it's comparable to describing astronomy strictly in terms of Newtonian physics: perfectly good most of the time, but there are "edge" cases (such as objects approaching the speed of light, or certain species of intelligent primate with advanced communication skills) where it doesn't quite explain what's happening. To fully understand and explain hominid evolution, you also need to look at the linguistic/educational channel through which certain non-genetic traits are passed from generation to generation.
But that was my point: time's arrow only points one way. It's isn't even about what we consider "aging"; even if the change happens on a short biological scale, such that you're still about the same age before and after, it's still not fully reversible.
Developing a skill that's in demand by society gives the individual a greater chance at passing on his/her genes, and that's evolution.
Developing a skill that's in demand by society also gives the individual a greater chance at passing on that skill through education... and not just to his offspring, but to others' offspring! Isn't that a form of evolution as well? It's a well-established principle that we're the product of both nature and nurture... why look at evolution solely in terms of one (DNA), and not the other (K12)?
Genes are not the only way we pass things on to later generations. We also do it through language. Genetics is just the "hardware" side of the system; humans also have developed a way of passing on behaviors and skills through "software", which we load into our offspring after they come off the assembly line. A great deal of what makes us the kinds of animals we are is implemented in software, not hardware. That ability to evolve in ways beyond mere genetic mutation is how we've become one of the most successful species on the planet.
Also, it seems a bit narrow to insist that "evolution" be defined only in terms of genetic inheritance. The ability of a sufficiently intelligence species to not only learn new behaviors but also teach them to their offspring is – in effect – a persistent change in that species. We didn't become a species of arithmetic-performing apes through natural selection of genetic material, but by passing on that skill through teaching. Furthermore, a species which is capable of (more or less permanently) altering the environment in which future generations are born and develop is also producing a form of evolution. For example (and for better or worse), most of humanity now grows up looking at lighted screens a substantial part of their lives, and will continue to be different in their cognition from previous generations because of that. The genetics of H. sapiens have changed insubstantially in the past century, but H. sapiens as a population is a markedly different primate. That is evolution.
Changes in cellular physiology are not fully reversible. If you revert to an active lifestyle after a decade of being sedentary, you can grow new muscle tissue, but it'll probably never be as healthy as what you had before. I can run and swim and lift as much as I have time for (and I am), but I'll never again be as fit as I was when I was 20. Likewise, there's no turning my brain back to the condition it was in back then, either (which is both a good thing and a bad thing).
While Carr isn't making a case for Lamarckian evolution, the argument here seems weak to me; the same kind of brain change could be attributed to books, or television, or the automobile, couldn't it?
The counterargument here seems weak to me; books, television, and the automobile aren't the same as the web, so the learned change wouldn't be of the same kinds.
Slashdot Mirror
Since someone suggested Dropbox as a good place to put our disaster recovery documentation, my employer has started "raising questions" about it from a data-security perspective. After years of buying computers without floppies or optical drives, and locking down USB ports, he wonders if we ought to start blocking these services as well. He argues that with our corporate e-mail we at least have a record of it (and a chance to block it) if someone sends confidential information off-site, but not so with cloud storage. Personally, I think it's impossible to effectively secure against this without crippling legitimate business-related web access. I can think of several trivial ways to get information from a computer on our network to an outside host using just innocuous must-allow protocols, and without needing to install software on the secured machine... starting with any webmail or forum site that allows uploads of file attachments, to them newfangled "cloud drives", to setting up an FTP server that listens on port 80.
Given how close Eagle came to running out of fuel for the descent rockets before touching down at Tranquility, that 50-50 estimate for landing sounds pretty accurate.
Being remembered by future generations is overrated.
When I'm depressed, I do everything I can to avoid human connection altogether.
From the web site, about an unmanned test flight last year:
I think I'll wait until a few more "successful" test flights have been performed.
In most OSes it's usually an X or red dot in the upper-left/-right corner of the window. HTH.
Those devices are located where they are – centered in relation to the typing keys, and between the hands – for a reason.
So if I pay a lot of money for something it makes sense to have unreasonable expectations of it?
You know, I spent a lot of money (service contract considered) on a smartphone, and I really think it should include a full-sized keyboard. I'm not picky – either on-screen or slide-out is OK – but I don't want to have to carry a separate keyboard with me. And I'd like to buy a laptop with a proper trackball instead of a trackpad. For that matter, why aren't there any laptops with a good 21" display, so I have room to run Photoshop and a word processor side-by-side....?
Based on recent trends in IE and Win UI design, Microsoft's announced plans, and their track record doing things just a little differently from Apple, I expect the default UI for Windows 9 to be just a blank bluish-grey screen with a lighter logo in the middle, and functions will be brought on screen and selected by gesturing in front of it in a dialect of American Sign Language. (Passwords will be entered by hiding one hand behind the other and finger-spelling.)
An aborted launch may not be a successful launch, but it also isn't a failed launch. Good call.
You do that in the same place you currently go to not-do what they're trying to do.
Kind of like how I deal with the people I know who are trying to start a square-dancing club: by not going to the place they do it at the same time.
The fact that NASA has discontinued manned space launches doesn't make their safety record any worse. How many people died because of it? Or were hurt? What kind of loopy argument is that? On the contrary, cancelling an entire launch system due to safety concerns (and other factors) demonstrates that they are being (perhaps overly) cautious.
Yes, it's certainly true that the Russians have logged a lot more time in space than Americans. But do you really want to get into a comparison of all the not-quite-fatal health-and-safety problems they also had during that time? Mir was an orbiting deathtrap near the end. You're like those statistically-inept people who point at big airline crashes as proof that commercial air travel is unsafe, while ignoring not only the fatalities among in less-spectacular automobile accidents, but also the injuries and toxicity that add up to a much more hazardous environment.
And please drop the dumb-ass nationalist pot-shots; they only make you look just as willfully blind as you accuse others of being. I am an American in America, but I won't hesitate for an instant to criticize its culture, its government. or its space program when it deserves criticism. And I'm not alone. So stop trying to prove what an ignorant, prejudiced dork you are.
I'm not sure that putting "mint" and "cinnamon" together like that is good marketing.
The Soviet/Russian space program's safety record isn't all that great either. They've also had two in-flight accidents that resulted in the loss of all hands (but with crews of only 1 and 3, so a smaller body count). Taken as a percentage of launches, this gives them about the same failure rate as NASA.
"...products so lacking in any enhanced value that they left customers scrambling to find ways to avoid upgrades"
Whether it's Ballmer's fault or not, this is one of the most damning failures of Microsoft as a company. With the possible exception of invisible stability/security fixes, nothing that Microsoft has added to Windows or Office in the past 10 years makes me want to upgrade, and the hassles of adapting to the arbitrary changes make me want to stay put. Even Adobe, which also struggles with mature, feature-complete products such as Photoshop and Illustrator, has managed to introduce some new features here and there that make me wish I could afford to upgrade those. But Windows 7 and Office 2010 just remind me that Windows XP and Office 2003 already work pretty well for me.
Microsoft has become an aging rock band, whose biggest hits are all behind them, and whose longtime fans would kinda rather hear the old stuff in concert, rather than songs from the latest album.
An overabundance of options to choose from is definitely off-putting to people, and it makes sense to avoid that. I'll even concede that Microsoft's past-and-future treatment of IE as the web browser has some small benefit to the unsophisticated user. But hiding features - things that people are forced to go hunting for - is a different thing, and it's what I'm getting rather sick of.
Clearly Microsoft hears complaints from users that computers are too complicated. Their solution, unfortunately, is to keep hiding things. Like that helps.
I think it started with "personalized menus": the menu items you haven't used in a while get hidden... which rather defeats the purpose of menus, because you're less likely to remember seeing those less-used features to know they exist, and when you go looking for them, they're concealed. Filename extensions apparently confused some people, so now they're hidden... making it easier to trick people with trojans disguised as Word documents, befuddling them when they see two files (of different types) with the same name, and rendering files "unopenable" if they get saved somehow with the wrong (hidden) extension. They've been doing it with IE in a big way: taking buttons off the standard toolbar, removing button labels, and recently hiding the whole damn pull-down menu bar! The MS Office "ribbon" left me scratching my head trying to find the "print" button (or menu option) the first time I encountered it. The Start button has lost the word "start"... not exactly hidden, but no longer as easy for newbies to find when told to click on it. In Win7 (maybe it was Vista), the "log off" and other I'm done-using-the-computer options are now hidden under a non-descript arrow button. And now in Win8 (which I've looked at in preview only long enough to get frustrated trying to re-orient myself) they've hidden the Start button altogether, and made Shutdown even harder to find.
Instead of actually simplifying the system, what they're doing is the equivalent of sweeping the complexity under a rug. It's still there. And often you still need it. But it's harder to get at. They're shoving more and more features into the system... then hiding them away. Along with a bunch of the old ones. Eventually it will get simple enough for my aged mother to use it... but by then I will find it totally unusable.
Describing evolution strictly in terms of DNA isn't exactly "wrong"... but it's comparable to describing astronomy strictly in terms of Newtonian physics: perfectly good most of the time, but there are "edge" cases (such as objects approaching the speed of light, or certain species of intelligent primate with advanced communication skills) where it doesn't quite explain what's happening. To fully understand and explain hominid evolution, you also need to look at the linguistic/educational channel through which certain non-genetic traits are passed from generation to generation.
But that was my point: time's arrow only points one way. It's isn't even about what we consider "aging"; even if the change happens on a short biological scale, such that you're still about the same age before and after, it's still not fully reversible.
Developing a skill that's in demand by society also gives the individual a greater chance at passing on that skill through education... and not just to his offspring, but to others' offspring! Isn't that a form of evolution as well? It's a well-established principle that we're the product of both nature and nurture... why look at evolution solely in terms of one (DNA), and not the other (K12)?
Genes are not the only way we pass things on to later generations. We also do it through language. Genetics is just the "hardware" side of the system; humans also have developed a way of passing on behaviors and skills through "software", which we load into our offspring after they come off the assembly line. A great deal of what makes us the kinds of animals we are is implemented in software, not hardware. That ability to evolve in ways beyond mere genetic mutation is how we've become one of the most successful species on the planet.
Also, it seems a bit narrow to insist that "evolution" be defined only in terms of genetic inheritance. The ability of a sufficiently intelligence species to not only learn new behaviors but also teach them to their offspring is – in effect – a persistent change in that species. We didn't become a species of arithmetic-performing apes through natural selection of genetic material, but by passing on that skill through teaching. Furthermore, a species which is capable of (more or less permanently) altering the environment in which future generations are born and develop is also producing a form of evolution. For example (and for better or worse), most of humanity now grows up looking at lighted screens a substantial part of their lives, and will continue to be different in their cognition from previous generations because of that. The genetics of H. sapiens have changed insubstantially in the past century, but H. sapiens as a population is a markedly different primate. That is evolution.
Changes in cellular physiology are not fully reversible. If you revert to an active lifestyle after a decade of being sedentary, you can grow new muscle tissue, but it'll probably never be as healthy as what you had before. I can run and swim and lift as much as I have time for (and I am), but I'll never again be as fit as I was when I was 20. Likewise, there's no turning my brain back to the condition it was in back then, either (which is both a good thing and a bad thing).
The counterargument here seems weak to me; books, television, and the automobile aren't the same as the web, so the learned change wouldn't be of the same kinds.
There's a difference between instinct and learning.