a) You are an institution which is powerful/rich enough to build (AFAIU they were talking about the raw metals here) operate a isotope enrichment plant, breeder reactors, and compose these to a *working* nuclear device (Ahem even countries like North Korea or Iran take a while for this): It's very likely that you were able to contact sellers of these required equipment without the internet (and doing so via the internet may get you on a list of the NSA to watch)
b) You are a terrorist organisation with a moderate amount (~0.5-1B Dollar), but no backing infrastructure: Good luck in powering up the centrifuges without anybody noticing; you have to buy the plutonium directly.
I was referrring to the routing of the power traces/ground planes on the PCB and saving additional EMI filters on the circuit boards. Isolating at the wall would also not help.
If you are an decently qualidied Adminsitrator, then you always conciously choose between the following:
a) You customize/install/update/recompile/patch the software you need on your own time. Usually you do thos when the service availability is absolutely critical and at the same time no out of the box solution exists
b) You use an "out of the box" solution. This solution should be supported, and used within its nominal use case.
Ubuntu very clearly states that Universe packages may - at best - only receive a minimal quality check at the distibution release and are patched by maintainers, which are not necessarily authors of the software nor employees of ubunut. As such their time which they may spend to predictably react to problems is limited, and, if anything in their life changes they just have to stop doing anything for the package without further warning - if the packge is important enogh for you, donate money to the maintainer and pay him.
I appreciate that the author loudly raises his concers, but i think anybody running an unsupported port of an program is responsible for himself. Pulling the pckage is not good. I for my part run any service for myself (file sharing etc) on a machine which only shows a single port for a vpn to the outside world. If something other than a security problem in the VPN software apprears, i would prefer to contunue using (and reinstalling) the packages which I chose.
If I run SW which faces the internet, then if fix it myself
is far beyond what i need at home, it is more that i need to have a perfect remote terminal. If i need more, i rent a server with a good network connection.
Yeah. I interpreti it like that, and you obviously too. You would be amazed at the level of ignorance among the general population and the funny implications by badly made laws.
e.g. in Germany there is a law which says that you should not help in circumventing access restrictions. Even if the access restriction is not useful at all.
ext2/3/4 has owners of files. It's a pain in the ass. eitehr you support it correctly (whihc is impossible if you dont manage the uid database for a single organization) or you make ugly patches which try to magically detect on which drives (removable) the os is supposed to drop uid infromation. The first approach is useless, and i see big legal issues with the second approach (if somebody indeed would rely on protecting infromation by uid)
-To the outside it looks like there is a great idea in your project, which will be attributed to -To the inside everybody knows it would not work that smoothly without your understanding. -You know that you kept back the little vital idea for which you *really* did that system (hey, it's practical even without that idea)
Wise bosses stick to the deal that they will recommend you highly. Stupid bosses dont. I always stop irrevocably working with stupid bosses at the next suitable painless occasion. And yes, you seen the drop in the projects/groups output of stupid bosses when people leave like that (i know a project, where the 3 most competent people - me included - all left within 6 months to "better jobs").
Side remark: my mobile storage in my andoid devices is 16Gb since quite some time (beginning of 2011), although i use sd card to expand it (mainly backup).
maybe 16Gb is enough for the real current use cases for the average iphone user?
Apple has been pretty good in identifying the users needs and limiting what they put in the phones.
Which was the case for the iphone 1, where everybody wondered about UMTS. As a matter of fact, iphones are not meant to be "general puprose computers", and they suck ehen used as such. They are perfectly balanced media players.
we have no idea what is outside our universe. we can only test theories inside the universe.
making testable predictions is the realm of science.
making untestable predictions is the realm of religion.
the hypothesis that there is no god/higher force outside the universe is as untestable as the hypothesis that ther is any kind of god outside the universe.
as a physicist I therefore am agnostic, buy I expect religions not to make any conclusions which affect my life by conclusions from unproven fairytales
-Possibility to access the "parent" scope -Distinction between "workspace scope" and "global variables" -Really weird stateful behaviour when using/declaring global variables -Impossibility to redirect the output of commands under special circumstances -Lazy copy in combination with slices (yeah, awfully practical, but run a profiler to see what happens) -At least two different ways of associating data with "handle objects" -"handle objects" (feels like the early 80s) -weird scopes for function declarations -absence of a decent "map" operator -half-assed "function handles"
I worked for 10 years as a researcher in quantum computation. Looking back, i would say that i see a mixed bag. On the negative side i have to say that many groups try to jump on whichever direction the most recent five papers in the field had been in, very often with little or no result at all. (if the Nature paper is out, the other group already followed the new path for five years).
On the positive side, we come to the other groups/leaders, which follow a direction which adresses aa problem until it's solved. In the superconducting QC field that would be for example (There are many other good and creative groups in the field) the group of John Martinis. They adressed the problems they saw over years in hard work (and that started in 2002 or earlier), at least such effort is usually rewarded in science on the long term. But again on the negative side: the papers they managed to put in Nature or Science were focused on the final results of the engineering - the papers which really adressed the problem puzzeling the community for years, where they really found out how to reach the goal were published in Physical Review B, Physical Review Letters and some other Journals. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 077003, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 210503, Phys. Rev. B 68, 224518, Phys. Rev. B 67, 094510, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 117901, Phys. Rev. B 77, 180508). The fact that enhancing the building blocks for a final result gives you much less impact factor than obtaining the final result make the stategy not be creative and hope for others to fix problems a reasonable one. Even catching a Nature paper every few years is enough for a conservative, non-abitious group leader, so you can burn a few postdocs in average, which you put up to the current topic, and if you a lucky, your results look accidentally good every few years, even if you did not contribute much to science.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's clearly separate the cases
a) You are an institution which is powerful/rich enough to build (AFAIU they were talking about the raw metals here) operate a isotope enrichment plant, breeder reactors, and compose these to a *working* nuclear device (Ahem even countries like North Korea or Iran take a while for this): It's very likely that you were able to contact sellers of these required equipment without the internet (and doing so via the internet may get you on a list of the NSA to watch)
b) You are a terrorist organisation with a moderate amount (~0.5-1B Dollar), but no backing infrastructure: Good luck in powering up the centrifuges without anybody noticing; you have to buy the plutonium directly.
I for my part consider buying a cheap windows tablet, which includes a office 2013 version.
I was referrring to the routing of the power traces/ground planes on the PCB and saving additional EMI filters on the circuit boards. Isolating at the wall would also not help.
Should fix this problem - unless the super-cheaply designed mainborard and graphica card emit the signal via the ground plane/power line
If you are an decently qualidied Adminsitrator, then you always conciously choose between the following:
a) You customize/install/update/recompile/patch the software you need on your own time. Usually you do thos when the service availability is absolutely critical and at the same time no out of the box solution exists
b) You use an "out of the box" solution. This solution should be supported, and used within its nominal use case.
Ubuntu very clearly states that Universe packages may - at best - only receive a minimal quality check at the distibution release and are patched by maintainers, which are not necessarily authors of the software nor employees of ubunut. As such their time which they may spend to predictably react to problems is limited, and, if anything in their life changes they just have to stop doing anything for the package without further warning - if the packge is important enogh for you, donate money to the maintainer and pay him.
I appreciate that the author loudly raises his concers, but i think anybody running an unsupported port of an program is responsible for himself. Pulling the pckage is not good. I for my part run any service for myself (file sharing etc) on a machine which only shows a single port for a vpn to the outside world. If something other than a security problem in the VPN software apprears, i would prefer to contunue using (and reinstalling) the packages which I chose.
If I run SW which faces the internet, then if fix it myself
is far beyond what i need at home, it is more that i need to have a perfect remote terminal. If i need more, i rent a server with a good network connection.
and IMHO that is it's unique selling point. You can run programs written 20 years ago unchanged without the programs looking like garbage.
Yeah. I interpreti it like that, and you obviously too. You would be amazed at the level of ignorance among the general population and the funny implications by badly made laws.
e.g. in Germany there is a law which says that you should not help in circumventing access restrictions. Even if the access restriction is not useful at all.
ext2/3/4 has owners of files. It's a pain in the ass. eitehr you support it correctly (whihc is impossible if you dont manage the uid database for a single organization) or you make ugly patches which try to magically detect on which drives (removable) the os is supposed to drop uid infromation.
The first approach is useless, and i see big legal issues with the second approach (if somebody indeed would rely on protecting infromation by uid)
so better just stop it completely
Moreover, that missing quotation marks in scripted languages are a problem is basic knowledge.
Yes. Usually the deal is this:
-To the outside it looks like there is a great idea in your project, which will be attributed to
-To the inside everybody knows it would not work that smoothly without your understanding.
-You know that you kept back the little vital idea for which you *really* did that system (hey, it's practical even without that idea)
Wise bosses stick to the deal that they will recommend you highly. Stupid bosses dont. I always stop irrevocably working with stupid bosses at the next suitable painless occasion. And yes, you seen the drop in the projects/groups output of stupid bosses when people leave like that (i know a project, where the 3 most competent people - me included - all left within 6 months to "better jobs").
thats my thought. Conferences up to 50 people havign a workshop are good, 200 are ok, 1000 or more are a waste of everybodies money.
I for my part digest talks in written form faster than anybody could listen, and my comprehension goes down if somebody talks.
in the self-ironic naming of open source software.
Yes, but in the times when i needed it, it was really helpful.
Side remark: my mobile storage in my andoid devices is 16Gb since quite some time (beginning of 2011), although i use sd card to expand it (mainly backup).
maybe 16Gb is enough for the real current use cases for the average iphone user?
Apple has been pretty good in identifying the users needs and limiting what they put in the phones.
Which was the case for the iphone 1, where everybody wondered about UMTS. As a matter of fact, iphones are not meant to be "general puprose computers", and they suck ehen used as such. They are perfectly balanced media players.
Better: use the Iceberg tactics for deeply embedding your ideas in other peoples projects without them noticing.
You did not understand what i meant.
If something is inside the universe we can interact with it. If we cant interact with something, then it is outside our space-time.
I dont waste my time thinking about untestable things.
So in KDEs terms that would be 1 year?
we have no idea what is outside our universe. we can only test theories inside the universe.
making testable predictions is the realm of science.
making untestable predictions is the realm of religion.
the hypothesis that there is no god/higher force outside the universe is as untestable as the hypothesis that ther is any kind of god outside the universe.
as a physicist I therefore am agnostic, buy I expect religions not to make any conclusions which affect my life by conclusions from unproven fairytales
-Possibility to access the "parent" scope
-Distinction between "workspace scope" and "global variables"
-Really weird stateful behaviour when using/declaring global variables
-Impossibility to redirect the output of commands under special circumstances
-Lazy copy in combination with slices (yeah, awfully practical, but run a profiler to see what happens)
-At least two different ways of associating data with "handle objects"
-"handle objects" (feels like the early 80s)
-weird scopes for function declarations
-absence of a decent "map" operator
-half-assed "function handles"
I worked for 10 years as a researcher in quantum computation. Looking back, i would say that i see a mixed bag. On the negative side i have to say that many groups try to jump on whichever direction the most recent five papers in the field had been in, very often with little or no result at all. (if the Nature paper is out, the other group already followed the new path for five years).
On the positive side, we come to the other groups/leaders, which follow a direction which adresses aa problem until it's solved. In the superconducting QC field that would be for example (There are many other good and creative groups in the field) the group of John Martinis. They adressed the problems they saw over years in hard work (and that started in 2002 or earlier), at least such effort is usually rewarded in science on the long term.
But again on the negative side: the papers they managed to put in Nature or Science were focused on the final results of the engineering - the papers which really adressed the problem puzzeling the community for years, where they really found out how to reach the goal were published in Physical Review B, Physical Review Letters and some other Journals. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 077003, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 210503, Phys. Rev. B 68, 224518, Phys. Rev. B 67, 094510, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 117901, Phys. Rev. B 77, 180508). The fact that enhancing the building blocks for a final result gives you much less impact factor than obtaining the final result make the stategy not be creative and hope for others to fix problems a reasonable one. Even catching a Nature paper every few years is enough for a conservative, non-abitious group leader, so you can burn a few postdocs in average, which you put up to the current topic, and if you a lucky, your results look accidentally good every few years, even if you did not contribute much to science.
You have no fucking idea of my plans (or where i live) and yet, you conclude that they must fail.
I can assure you: Working as a prositute is not one of these.
My rates will be higher then.
I hoold a PhD in Physics, but coding is a important part of my usual jobs (i am a consultant).
Educating myself in conding and following a master, and then a PhD in Physics trained very different aspects of my skills.
None of each outweiths the other, and i am feeling very confident that i will never be without a job