My *first* professional programming assignment was to convert the calculation of total probability from using a numerical integration method to using an analytic integration since the probability function was known to be piecewise continuous. I went on to work on a large linear programming optimization program followed by designing a heuristic optimal assignment program (given a set of MIRVed missiles and a set of targets, create an optimal assignment of MIRVs to targets taking into account the orbital mechanics constraints of manuevering the bus) that was still in use fifteen years later and not showing any signs of a need for replacement.
Those are real programming assignments. If you need to have any of the concepts explained, I can recommend several good calculus books, books on orbital mechanics (Newton invented calculus to describe planetary orbits) and linear programming.
Have fun playing with the LAMP stack. Like one of the other posters responded, I do that too as my hobby.
I got my M.S. in math and went right into a software development career. There are a lot of common problem solving thought proceses between math and software development. Just try to figure out why some program isn't working the way you expect it to. It's very much like doing a proof.
If you can't hack calculus and statistics but still want to program, get ready for a career wrining Visual Basic applications. You aren't qualified to take on something like developing software that does encryption, image/sound compression, data mining, structural analysis, almost any kind of modeling, signal processing, etc. Likewise, don't look for a career in IT where you're going to be expected to understand, mean time between failures, reliability, risk analysis, etc.
Interupters have been around since about WWII. They keep a gun from hitting the plane, ship, whatever they're mounted on. I would be very surprised if the Phalanx didn't have this capability. It's a known problem with a well known solution.
Also, the tests in the film are to show what the gun can do against a variety of targets (e.g., directly at the gun to limits of the gun's range). That is, they wanted the gun to try to take out a target at the limits of it's range.
Interesting. A 20mm round isn't that big so not much room for a "self-destruct" capability. Also, I was under the impression that the rounds weren't "shells" but were tungstem core, solid "shot." Shot is the original kinetic kill since it doesn't have an explosive charge. No explosive for the target means no explosive for a seld-destruct.
I wonder if a lower tech weapon system wouldn't do. Something like a grid of Phalanx point defense systems. They can shoot down mortar rounds so the low tech stuff the Palestinian are firing should be even easier to hit:
A little more digging with Google indicates the system has already been fielded for that purpose. Just set up a perimeter and be careful about where the misses come down.
Read the business summary and note the previous name. Bankruptcy, especially Chapter 11, doesn't mean a company disappears. If there are parts of the company that are viable, a reorganization means these parts get a new lease on life.
All three of Asimov's have already been violated by existing robotic weapons. Predator drones have launched "Hellfire" missiles at human targets with deadly results. Cruise missiles and other similar weapons have gone off course due to either battle damage or flawed targeting and have killed other than their intended targets. We routinely test robotic weapons to destruction.
The real question is when will people grow up and stop quoting Asimov's laws whenever a robotic weapon article appears. IT'S FICTION. The only question that matters to those who create or acquire robotic weapons is, will it save the lives of our people. For that matter, that is the question applied to all weapons regardless of whether they're robotic or as simple as a spear.
Your first mistake was in assuming that a slashdot editor would actually RTFA. On the other hand, it makes me feel better that the editors do the same thing I do when it comes to commenting on articles they haven't read.
I wondered how long it would take someone to point this out. Here's the definition of confiscate:
TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: confiscated, confiscating, confiscates 1. To seize (private property) for the public treasury. 2. To seize by or as if by authority. See synonyms at appropriate.
ADJECTIVE: (knf-skt, kn-fskt) 1. Seized by a government; appropriated. 2. Having lost property through confiscation.
So, unless the border agents remove the data from the digital device such that owner no longer has a copy or seize and keep the device, it's not being confiscated.
No I don't think it's right for the government to do this but it's no wonder most people hear absurd complaints like this and blow off the rest of the message because the complaint is stupidly wrong in it's basic facts.
I'm drinking my morning coffee out of a despair.com "Pessimist Mug" today. Love their stuff.
I worked as a contractor at Lucent Professional Services for a year in the late '90s and they papered the building walls with the stupid "motivational" posters. I wish I could have afforded to sneak in one night and swap out their motivational posters for stuff from despair.com. Since noone paid any attention to the posters, it would have been interesting to see how long it took for anyone to notice the change.
Everyone I know who is motivated isn't motivated by a stupid poster. Those who aren't motivated aren't suddenly going to become motivated because of a stupid poster. I think despair.com even has a poster about this ("If all it takes to motivate you is a pretty picture...").
1) Removed from gene pool. 2) Removal brought about by own stupidity. 3) Removal was spectacular and unique.
Too bad the killed the tiger. They should have fed his friends to the tiger as a reward for helping cleanse the gene pool of undesirable elements and to complete the cleansing.
That the discussions on robots in war always starts off with the assumption that robots will have some sort of sentient intelligence that is even capable of recognizing subjective ideas like good and evil. Maybe someday in the far off future; not today. Today's robots are dumb as stumps except for one thing: hitting the target. Look at Predator, cruise missiles and various "stand-off" attack missiles. At most they have some ability to also avoid hostiles; no ethics.
Every "robot" currently visualized needs every cycle of CPU power available to it just to complete it's mission. To what extent did the entries in the DARPA Grand Challenge consider the ethics of winning? They didn't and even then only a few of the entries managed to complete the course. This gives you some idea where in the priority queue ethics will come in for future robots.
Just like other weapons, the only hope we have that the weapons will be used "ethically" is if those who control the weapons decide to use them that way. I can't believe that someone put out 117 pages of ethical argumentation for something that ain't gonna happen. It's even harder to believe that some people actually read the drivel.
Don't expect "intelligent weapons" to suddenly refuse to do the bidding of the governments of the world. Hope and work for that those who control any weapons are ethical. Grow up.
Multitasking is the ability to screw up several things at once.
Now, let's all see if I can post a comment to/. while cooking dinner. Dinner is roast chicken (which is already in the oven) and wild rice (simmering over a low flame) and a vegie (not done yet) so I guess I can multitask as long as I don't forget to clean and cook the vegie. So far, so good.
The ability to multitask has a lot to do with what the tasks are although I know people who have trouble doing the above tasks concurrently. I also know people who can prepare several much more complicated dishes concurrently. It all depends on the tasks.
Also, does anyone else find it disturbing that they also make military robots?
Let's see... The microwave oven was originally developed by Raytheon with the Amana unit eventually getting spun off. Boeing makes lots of military airplanes and systems besides their commercial jets. General Electric makes a variety of military stuff (e.g., jet engines, radar, etc.) as well as all of their consumer stuff. United Technologies makes jet engines for both military and commercial aviation. Back when I worked at TRW the company had both the Defense Systems Group I worked for as well as TRW Credit Data.
These are just a few businesses that have both military and civilian products. Better be careful or your Roomba will form a junta with your microwave oven and toaster and take over your house.
I didn't RTA. Just making a general comment on what's involved for someone to take a GPLed project "private."
If he is the sole author then all he needs to do is re-release the project under the license terms of his choosing. He can't revoke the GPL on the existing code but it will be unsupported unless someone else picks it up. Although it's possible someone will suddenly appear who wants to maintain the code, this is unlikely if no one else has contributed.
He needs to either get the permission of any other contibutors or re-write their contributions in a non-infringing way. This may be easy if not many others have contributed but could be a real bear if they have or if someone else made a fairly critical contribution. Any other contributors still hold the copyright to their contribution and may not like the idea of someone taking their code private.
BTW, I seem to remember that the author of Snort took it "private" not all that long ago.
I took flying lessons back in the late '80s but the way you land a little Cessna like I was flying is quite a bit different than landing a jet. All I really have to go on is the awareness of what's going on when I'm riding in back in a jet. The goal with a prop plane is to to set up your approach so that when you turn on to final (lined up with the runway), you cut the engine back to idle and effectively glide to the runway. The advantage of this is you are no longer dependent on the engine opperating correctly which is a real safety factor for prop planes. The glide path can vary due to a number of factors including wind and weight of the plane. If you see you are going to undershoot, you apply power but the goal is to not to need to.
For jets, the idea seems to be to fly the plane to the runway with power adjustments required along the way to maintain the correct angle of descent. I'm guessing that most jets glide like a rock so the idea is to keep the airspeed at something reasonable (150kts?) until just before actually landing. I'm guessing the 777 in question was going to undershoot (as it did) so the autolander asked for more thrust and didn't get any.
Again, I've only ridden in back in a jet so I'm just going on what I sense (changes to engine speed, feeling of thrust applied, etc.).
No - I don't think so. The autothrusters responded properly, but they literally just move the throttle levers, to which the engines didn't respond.
Just because the indicators in the cockpit show that the autothrusters were to provide more power doesn't mean the signal gets to the engines. There is a lot of wiring and other systems between the cockpit and the engine. On a "fly-by-wire" plane like the 777, even moving the throttle levers just sends a signal to a system that eventually gets to the engines. Bottom line is there are lots of lower level avionics systems that could have failed and the pilots would only see that the autothruster was supposed to provide more power and didn't.
The question is, which on the various boxes along the way had a BSOD?
I had four people with PhDs along with about twenty other folks with either an MS or BS working for me at one point (I have a MS in Math) doing software development. PhDs are actually really easy to manage if you aren't intimidated by managing people who are more intelligent than you. The trick is that you can't be into the "power trip" mode of managing where you tell subordinates what to do. The alternative is really simple. I'd get a "request" from my manager and I'd go to the person responsible and sit down with them and say, "This is what I've been asked to do..." At that point *we* would come up with the best approach to accomplishing or circumventing the request.
The idea is to use their intelligence; not ignore it. They appreciate it and the job gets done. Most managers I've dealt with can't get around the not telling subordinates what to do. Sad.
I haven't had too much trouble. I've been running Linux and Open Office exclusively for several years and, at worst, I see some minor formatting issues when I open a file created with "the real thing" Microsoft product. Likewise, I sometimes see similar minor formatting issues when I save a file from OO in a Microsoft file format.
It wouldn't surprise me if some more complicated documents or say an Excel spreadsheet with macros had problems but OO has gotten pretty good at opening and saving Microsoft file formats. This is especially true for older file formats. The longer the file format is in use, the longer OO developers have had to debug their reverse engineering of the format.
Also, if someone hasn't opened a file for "a while" chances are they just need to see it; not update it (e.g., What was the actual sales forecast for Q3 2002? What price was quoted back when? That sort of thing). At worst there would be other options like cut and paste, save as text, save as comma delimited, etc. I'd hate to see a bunch of people having to make registry changes.
An easy work-around is to just install Open Office and then open the obsolete files using the appropriate Open Office program (Writer for Word documents, Calc for Excel spreadsheets, etc.). The user can then do a "save as" and select a newer Microsoft file format. Voila. Problem solved.
Microsoft probably won't like this work-around since a certain percentage of users may realize that they don't need to pay Microsoft for programs that don't do what they want and they can get a suite of programs that does what they want for free. Realizing this, Microsoft may decide to come up with a better internal solution but don't count on it.
Slashdot Mirror
My *first* professional programming assignment was to convert the calculation of total probability from using a numerical integration method to using an analytic integration since the probability function was known to be piecewise continuous. I went on to work on a large linear programming optimization program followed by designing a heuristic optimal assignment program (given a set of MIRVed missiles and a set of targets, create an optimal assignment of MIRVs to targets taking into account the orbital mechanics constraints of manuevering the bus) that was still in use fifteen years later and not showing any signs of a need for replacement.
Those are real programming assignments. If you need to have any of the concepts explained, I can recommend several good calculus books, books on orbital mechanics (Newton invented calculus to describe planetary orbits) and linear programming.
Have fun playing with the LAMP stack. Like one of the other posters responded, I do that too as my hobby.
Cheers,
Dave
I got my M.S. in math and went right into a software development career. There are a lot of common problem solving thought proceses between math and software development. Just try to figure out why some program isn't working the way you expect it to. It's very much like doing a proof.
If you can't hack calculus and statistics but still want to program, get ready for a career wrining Visual Basic applications. You aren't qualified to take on something like developing software that does encryption, image/sound compression, data mining, structural analysis, almost any kind of modeling, signal processing, etc. Likewise, don't look for a career in IT where you're going to be expected to understand, mean time between failures, reliability, risk analysis, etc.
Cheers,
Dave
My first joke when I walked into a new class was, "You're in luck. I speak English." Lots of people laughed but not because what I said was funny.
Cheers,
Dave
Interupters have been around since about WWII. They keep a gun from hitting the plane, ship, whatever they're mounted on. I would be very surprised if the Phalanx didn't have this capability. It's a known problem with a well known solution.
Also, the tests in the film are to show what the gun can do against a variety of targets (e.g., directly at the gun to limits of the gun's range). That is, they wanted the gun to try to take out a target at the limits of it's range.
Cheers,
Dave
Interesting. A 20mm round isn't that big so not much room for a "self-destruct" capability. Also, I was under the impression that the rounds weren't "shells" but were tungstem core, solid "shot." Shot is the original kinetic kill since it doesn't have an explosive charge. No explosive for the target means no explosive for a seld-destruct.
Cheers,
Dave
Damn. Same idea. My post is down a couple. Neat video on YouTube of it shooting down incoming mortar rounds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsnhyTiTqk4
I had to watch the video a couple of times.
Cheers,
Dave
I wonder if a lower tech weapon system wouldn't do. Something like a grid of Phalanx point defense systems. They can shoot down mortar rounds so the low tech stuff the Palestinian are firing should be even easier to hit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsnhyTiTqk4
A little more digging with Google indicates the system has already been fielded for that purpose. Just set up a perimeter and be careful about where the misses come down.
Cheers,
Dave
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=EOG
Read the business summary and note the previous name. Bankruptcy, especially Chapter 11, doesn't mean a company disappears. If there are parts of the company that are viable, a reorganization means these parts get a new lease on life.
Cheers,
Dave
All three of Asimov's have already been violated by existing robotic weapons. Predator drones have launched "Hellfire" missiles at human targets with deadly results. Cruise missiles and other similar weapons have gone off course due to either battle damage or flawed targeting and have killed other than their intended targets. We routinely test robotic weapons to destruction.
The real question is when will people grow up and stop quoting Asimov's laws whenever a robotic weapon article appears. IT'S FICTION. The only question that matters to those who create or acquire robotic weapons is, will it save the lives of our people. For that matter, that is the question applied to all weapons regardless of whether they're robotic or as simple as a spear.
Cheers,
Dave
Nah. The killer robot gets 70 "Moaning Mable" blow up dolls (it's a robot fetish thing).
Cheers,
Dave
Your first mistake was in assuming that a slashdot editor would actually RTFA. On the other hand, it makes me feel better that the editors do the same thing I do when it comes to commenting on articles they haven't read.
Cheers,
Dave
I wondered how long it would take someone to point this out. Here's the definition of confiscate:
TRANSITIVE VERB:
Inflected forms: confiscated, confiscating, confiscates
1. To seize (private property) for the public treasury.
2. To seize by or as if by authority. See synonyms at appropriate.
ADJECTIVE:
(knf-skt, kn-fskt)
1. Seized by a government; appropriated.
2. Having lost property through confiscation.
So, unless the border agents remove the data from the digital device such that owner no longer has a copy or seize and keep the device, it's not being confiscated.
No I don't think it's right for the government to do this but it's no wonder most people hear absurd complaints like this and blow off the rest of the message because the complaint is stupidly wrong in it's basic facts.
Cheers,
Dave
I'm drinking my morning coffee out of a despair.com "Pessimist Mug" today. Love their stuff.
I worked as a contractor at Lucent Professional Services for a year in the late '90s and they papered the building walls with the stupid "motivational" posters. I wish I could have afforded to sneak in one night and swap out their motivational posters for stuff from despair.com. Since noone paid any attention to the posters, it would have been interesting to see how long it took for anyone to notice the change.
Everyone I know who is motivated isn't motivated by a stupid poster. Those who aren't motivated aren't suddenly going to become motivated because of a stupid poster. I think despair.com even has a poster about this ("If all it takes to motivate you is a pretty picture...").
Cheers,
Dave
He definitely meets the criteria:
1) Removed from gene pool.
2) Removal brought about by own stupidity.
3) Removal was spectacular and unique.
Too bad the killed the tiger. They should have fed his friends to the tiger as a reward for helping cleanse the gene pool of undesirable elements and to complete the cleansing.
Cheers,
Dave
That the discussions on robots in war always starts off with the assumption that robots will have some sort of sentient intelligence that is even capable of recognizing subjective ideas like good and evil. Maybe someday in the far off future; not today. Today's robots are dumb as stumps except for one thing: hitting the target. Look at Predator, cruise missiles and various "stand-off" attack missiles. At most they have some ability to also avoid hostiles; no ethics.
Every "robot" currently visualized needs every cycle of CPU power available to it just to complete it's mission. To what extent did the entries in the DARPA Grand Challenge consider the ethics of winning? They didn't and even then only a few of the entries managed to complete the course. This gives you some idea where in the priority queue ethics will come in for future robots.
Just like other weapons, the only hope we have that the weapons will be used "ethically" is if those who control the weapons decide to use them that way. I can't believe that someone put out 117 pages of ethical argumentation for something that ain't gonna happen. It's even harder to believe that some people actually read the drivel.
Don't expect "intelligent weapons" to suddenly refuse to do the bidding of the governments of the world. Hope and work for that those who control any weapons are ethical. Grow up.
Cheers,
Dave
Multitasking is the ability to screw up several things at once.
/. while cooking dinner. Dinner is roast chicken (which is already in the oven) and wild rice (simmering over a low flame) and a vegie (not done yet) so I guess I can multitask as long as I don't forget to clean and cook the vegie. So far, so good.
Now, let's all see if I can post a comment to
The ability to multitask has a lot to do with what the tasks are although I know people who have trouble doing the above tasks concurrently. I also know people who can prepare several much more complicated dishes concurrently. It all depends on the tasks.
Cheers,
Dave
Let's see... The microwave oven was originally developed by Raytheon with the Amana unit eventually getting spun off. Boeing makes lots of military airplanes and systems besides their commercial jets. General Electric makes a variety of military stuff (e.g., jet engines, radar, etc.) as well as all of their consumer stuff. United Technologies makes jet engines for both military and commercial aviation. Back when I worked at TRW the company had both the Defense Systems Group I worked for as well as TRW Credit Data.
These are just a few businesses that have both military and civilian products. Better be careful or your Roomba will form a junta with your microwave oven and toaster and take over your house.
Cheers,
Dave
I didn't RTA. Just making a general comment on what's involved for someone to take a GPLed project "private."
If he is the sole author then all he needs to do is re-release the project under the license terms of his choosing. He can't revoke the GPL on the existing code but it will be unsupported unless someone else picks it up. Although it's possible someone will suddenly appear who wants to maintain the code, this is unlikely if no one else has contributed.
Cheers,
Dave
He needs to either get the permission of any other contibutors or re-write their contributions in a non-infringing way. This may be easy if not many others have contributed but could be a real bear if they have or if someone else made a fairly critical contribution. Any other contributors still hold the copyright to their contribution and may not like the idea of someone taking their code private.
BTW, I seem to remember that the author of Snort took it "private" not all that long ago.
Cheers,
Dave
I took flying lessons back in the late '80s but the way you land a little Cessna like I was flying is quite a bit different than landing a jet. All I really have to go on is the awareness of what's going on when I'm riding in back in a jet. The goal with a prop plane is to to set up your approach so that when you turn on to final (lined up with the runway), you cut the engine back to idle and effectively glide to the runway. The advantage of this is you are no longer dependent on the engine opperating correctly which is a real safety factor for prop planes. The glide path can vary due to a number of factors including wind and weight of the plane. If you see you are going to undershoot, you apply power but the goal is to not to need to.
For jets, the idea seems to be to fly the plane to the runway with power adjustments required along the way to maintain the correct angle of descent. I'm guessing that most jets glide like a rock so the idea is to keep the airspeed at something reasonable (150kts?) until just before actually landing. I'm guessing the 777 in question was going to undershoot (as it did) so the autolander asked for more thrust and didn't get any.
Again, I've only ridden in back in a jet so I'm just going on what I sense (changes to engine speed, feeling of thrust applied, etc.).
Cheers,
Dave
Just because the indicators in the cockpit show that the autothrusters were to provide more power doesn't mean the signal gets to the engines. There is a lot of wiring and other systems between the cockpit and the engine. On a "fly-by-wire" plane like the 777, even moving the throttle levers just sends a signal to a system that eventually gets to the engines. Bottom line is there are lots of lower level avionics systems that could have failed and the pilots would only see that the autothruster was supposed to provide more power and didn't.
The question is, which on the various boxes along the way had a BSOD?
Cheers,
Dave
Can I just drink some "StopLeak" the next time I get a cut?
Cheers,
Dave
I had four people with PhDs along with about twenty other folks with either an MS or BS working for me at one point (I have a MS in Math) doing software development. PhDs are actually really easy to manage if you aren't intimidated by managing people who are more intelligent than you. The trick is that you can't be into the "power trip" mode of managing where you tell subordinates what to do. The alternative is really simple. I'd get a "request" from my manager and I'd go to the person responsible and sit down with them and say, "This is what I've been asked to do..." At that point *we* would come up with the best approach to accomplishing or circumventing the request.
The idea is to use their intelligence; not ignore it. They appreciate it and the job gets done. Most managers I've dealt with can't get around the not telling subordinates what to do. Sad.
Cheers,
Dave
I haven't had too much trouble. I've been running Linux and Open Office exclusively for several years and, at worst, I see some minor formatting issues when I open a file created with "the real thing" Microsoft product. Likewise, I sometimes see similar minor formatting issues when I save a file from OO in a Microsoft file format.
It wouldn't surprise me if some more complicated documents or say an Excel spreadsheet with macros had problems but OO has gotten pretty good at opening and saving Microsoft file formats. This is especially true for older file formats. The longer the file format is in use, the longer OO developers have had to debug their reverse engineering of the format.
Also, if someone hasn't opened a file for "a while" chances are they just need to see it; not update it (e.g., What was the actual sales forecast for Q3 2002? What price was quoted back when? That sort of thing). At worst there would be other options like cut and paste, save as text, save as comma delimited, etc. I'd hate to see a bunch of people having to make registry changes.
Cheers,
Dave
An easy work-around is to just install Open Office and then open the obsolete files using the appropriate Open Office program (Writer for Word documents, Calc for Excel spreadsheets, etc.). The user can then do a "save as" and select a newer Microsoft file format. Voila. Problem solved.
Microsoft probably won't like this work-around since a certain percentage of users may realize that they don't need to pay Microsoft for programs that don't do what they want and they can get a suite of programs that does what they want for free. Realizing this, Microsoft may decide to come up with a better internal solution but don't count on it.
Cheers,
Dave