I think that the main thing that people miss in this whole debacle is the need for change.
When you're working on algorithms that involve variables like these, it needs to be an on-going process. There is no equation that will remain constant (statistically and/or theoretically) for the foreseeable future. What needs to happen is people with the practical background in the field and the people with the technical background in the program to come together and see what is and isn't working on a regular basis. Finding both in one is rare, but not non-existent.
The problem was that the people who should have known better (with the practical background) should have known better than to trust what the computer was telling them. There should have been someone, lets say the big-man or higher up in the financial mathematics field, who said: "Hey! This model doesn't work anymore."
The fact is that the model itself wasn't broken at the time, but the system was. If you have a system in place which reviews and systematically tests the formulas being used in the field, it would have made a significant difference in the outcome that we're dealing with now.
There should be no feed x,y,z into the black box and the results are law.
According to an interview with one of the inventors (on CTV): "We worked closely with forensic scientists and they deemed it 100% accurate in replication as well as pressure"
Now take that with a grain of salt, but they seem to have done their homework.
With the beta index (for a while now) you can reorganize the left and right columns, remove any boxes you don't want to see, or hide the columns entirely.
Personally I don't really care that project XYZ just reached version 0.2.3.4.5.2-rc12 on freshmeat or what's going on at linux.com, so I hide that column (there are arrows at the top of the page to hide/show the columns).
And most importantly, imho: What do you do when you go to use your amazing web-app and the company no longer exists?
Any business (or home user) that would rely on a piece of software that they don't have physical access to have lost their minds.
If a 'traditional' software vendor were to close shop (insert company name here) you wouldn't have patches, updates, etc. But you would still have the physical media that you could maintain and (re)install. Buying you quite a bit of time (years even) to find a suitable replacement and make the transition.
If a FOSS software vendor were to close shop, chances are (if it was/is popular enough, or depended on enough) someone will come along to maintain and/or continue development. Even if no one picked up development, the IT department could maintain a custom version for the company and make required bug-fixes. Possibly not requiring a transition/replacement (unless needs change beyond the scope of the software, of course).
I think this was Stallman's main point, and it's a major one.
"This new technology is sponsored and funded by: Your friendly health and life insurance company, constantly finding new and innovative ways to make sure we never have to pay you a dime since 1666."
what matters is that the damn thing loses data on a regular basis.
I guess I don't really understand what you mean by regular basis, or maybe you just like feeding quarters into the FUD machine. Maybe you live in a place where power failures are very common and/or you like to randomly hit the reset/power buttons. Or maybe you're just not peddling hard enough to keep your computer from going into black/brown-out status. The fact is that you will not lose data on a regular basis unless you have severe power problems. This is a performance boost based on the assumption that power outages and bone-headed users are not the common-place. Take that as you will, and I'm not one to suggest that any distro accept this as their default FS, however, it does have its place and many people welcome it.
Ok... A) Data loss is due to corrupting/interruption in the time it takes for the file-system to write pending items to the disk. We know that. B) The time it takes to write items, that are not specifically (in code) told to write to disk NOW, is longer than in previous incarnations. We know that. C) The main reason no one complained about this feature in ext3 was that the pending time was about 5secs and often times it was never noticed. We know that.
Honestly, any distro that would make this default on install may be brain-dead... The average users is more concerned with data retention than performance. However, having a mechanism to scale the pending write times variably is a good option and scalable to anyone's needs (home -> large data centre).
In my first year of University and the first class of Com-Sci, my Prof at the time made an excellent point that I still remember to this day. It went something like this:
"Who here has done some programming before?" About 75% of the class raised their hand. "Ok. Now how many of you enjoyed it and/or found it interesting?" About the same amount raised their hand. "Ok. Now how many of you decided you were really good at it?" Maybe a few less raised their hand this time. "I will tell you right now that not everyone who raised their hand will be successful in Computer Science. Not everyone has the creativity and problem-solving skills to be excellent programmers. This is the same as how not everyone who can write can be an author."
So, no, not everyone who wants to do it can do it. And he was absolutely right. Many friends that were in that class, either that year or in following years could not wrap their heads around the material and they changed majors (for the better for them and the industry).
Slashdot Mirror
Now Google is under mounting pressure to add more professional content to YouTube...
But it's YOU-Tube, not THEM-Tube
Saying:
"Have you tried Wolframming it?"
Just doesn't have the same ring to it...
I think that the main thing that people miss in this whole debacle is the need for change.
When you're working on algorithms that involve variables like these, it needs to be an on-going process. There is no equation that will remain constant (statistically and/or theoretically) for the foreseeable future. What needs to happen is people with the practical background in the field and the people with the technical background in the program to come together and see what is and isn't working on a regular basis. Finding both in one is rare, but not non-existent.
The problem was that the people who should have known better (with the practical background) should have known better than to trust what the computer was telling them. There should have been someone, lets say the big-man or higher up in the financial mathematics field, who said: "Hey! This model doesn't work anymore."
The fact is that the model itself wasn't broken at the time, but the system was. If you have a system in place which reviews and systematically tests the formulas being used in the field, it would have made a significant difference in the outcome that we're dealing with now.
There should be no feed x,y,z into the black box and the results are law.
According to an interview with one of the inventors (on CTV):
"We worked closely with forensic scientists and they deemed it 100% accurate in replication as well as pressure"
Now take that with a grain of salt, but they seem to have done their homework.
Mathematicians are big fat liars!*
"Big M"..."String Theory"...**
*ok, not really, but its fun to pick at them
** Yea... I could only think of two that bug me... so what?!
It's the safest and most secure OS on the planet today
Until tomorrow when all those pesky exploits come out
don't worry, it's on a gigantically small scale
I think we should take the next logical step and create an IV form to compete with the more 'harsh' drugs out there.
Wouldn't mind sitting programming all day with a nice slow drip of caffeine...
and burned down the White House in 1814 when you also tried to invade.
That is very true... we burned down THE White House... but then they retaliated and burned down an entire city (York... now more-or-less Toronto).
[j]ust [b]eam [u]s [u]p [s]cotty!
With the beta index (for a while now) you can reorganize the left and right columns, remove any boxes you don't want to see, or hide the columns entirely.
Personally I don't really care that project XYZ just reached version 0.2.3.4.5.2-rc12 on freshmeat or what's going on at linux.com, so I hide that column (there are arrows at the top of the page to hide/show the columns).
I wasn't implying it was a well thought out marketing campaign.
The server is taking too long to respond; please wait a minute or 2 and try again.
Mmmh, must be a big problem
You sure that wasn't an ad for Viagra targeted specifically to the over-the-hill nerd community?
look at the top for for 'skip this ad'
And most importantly, imho:
What do you do when you go to use your amazing web-app and the company no longer exists?
Any business (or home user) that would rely on a piece of software that they don't have physical access to have lost their minds.
If a 'traditional' software vendor were to close shop (insert company name here) you wouldn't have patches, updates, etc. But you would still have the physical media that you could maintain and (re)install. Buying you quite a bit of time (years even) to find a suitable replacement and make the transition.
If a FOSS software vendor were to close shop, chances are (if it was/is popular enough, or depended on enough) someone will come along to maintain and/or continue development. Even if no one picked up development, the IT department could maintain a custom version for the company and make required bug-fixes. Possibly not requiring a transition/replacement (unless needs change beyond the scope of the software, of course).
I think this was Stallman's main point, and it's a major one.
You're assuming my boss would know that I even have such a device...
The USB port at the base of your skull certainly wouldn't give it away.
"This new technology is sponsored and funded by:
Your friendly health and life insurance company, constantly finding new and innovative ways to make sure we never have to pay you a dime since 1666."
It's gonna be interesting when we finally move to a cashless society.
Perhaps we could just move to a cache-less society
what matters is that the damn thing loses data on a regular basis.
I guess I don't really understand what you mean by regular basis, or maybe you just like feeding quarters into the FUD machine. Maybe you live in a place where power failures are very common and/or you like to randomly hit the reset/power buttons. Or maybe you're just not peddling hard enough to keep your computer from going into black/brown-out status.
The fact is that you will not lose data on a regular basis unless you have severe power problems. This is a performance boost based on the assumption that power outages and bone-headed users are not the common-place. Take that as you will, and I'm not one to suggest that any distro accept this as their default FS, however, it does have its place and many people welcome it.
Just my two cents.
Ok...
A) Data loss is due to corrupting/interruption in the time it takes for the file-system to write pending items to the disk. We know that.
B) The time it takes to write items, that are not specifically (in code) told to write to disk NOW, is longer than in previous incarnations. We know that.
C) The main reason no one complained about this feature in ext3 was that the pending time was about 5secs and often times it was never noticed. We know that.
Honestly, any distro that would make this default on install may be brain-dead... The average users is more concerned with data retention than performance. However, having a mechanism to scale the pending write times variably is a good option and scalable to anyone's needs (home -> large data centre).
Oh yea?!
Well if their so great...
Just a second I've a knock at the door, well eight knocks to be precise...
Oh, hello, well no I-
I hope this verdict doesn't back-fire on them.
OR
It seems ATF's case just blew-up in their face.
Since x86_64 is a superset of x86, would this mean AMD couldn't even sell x86_64 based chips either?
Funny thing is that AMD licensed/agreed to share their x86_64 arch back to Intel.
So essentially it's:
"I'll let you play with mine if I can play with yours."
Now a 3rd party (loosely affiliated with AMD) is playing with Intel's x86, and that wasn't part of the agreement.
And I ask--why the fuck can't they?
In my first year of University and the first class of Com-Sci, my Prof at the time made an excellent point that I still remember to this day. It went something like this:
"Who here has done some programming before?"
About 75% of the class raised their hand.
"Ok. Now how many of you enjoyed it and/or found it interesting?"
About the same amount raised their hand.
"Ok. Now how many of you decided you were really good at it?"
Maybe a few less raised their hand this time.
"I will tell you right now that not everyone who raised their hand will be successful in Computer Science. Not everyone has the creativity and problem-solving skills to be excellent programmers. This is the same as how not everyone who can write can be an author."
So, no, not everyone who wants to do it can do it. And he was absolutely right. Many friends that were in that class, either that year or in following years could not wrap their heads around the material and they changed majors (for the better for them and the industry).
ah touche sir, touche
(if only slashdot didn't do this: touché)
at least some end product of the Billions of dollars in bail-out money....