I've worked with legendary programmers throughout my career and I can tell you this --- you must understand the strong points of a particular programmer (even the legendary ones) so that you can tap into his potential and let him/her perform
That "hiring by algorithm" is indeed a new way of looking at things, but it does take experience - excellent programmers all comes with their own particular quirks - and you need to provide them the room to stretch, the freedom that they need, in order to get them to do whatever they are good at
The biggest problem that the internet caused is that it destroyed culture. Worldwide.
Everyone has this common generic culture now.
This kind of culture didn't exist before the internet. Before the internet, you actually had societies develop and advance the arts. But, if you didn't notice already, culture has pretty much frozen since around 1995.
I dunno where you're from, and I also dunno when you first started using the Net
I can point to you a lot of counter examples to what you have claimed, but to make this comment short, I'll list only one example --- the Fractal Arts
Before the Internet, people hardly know what the hell "Fractal" was
They might have seen some pictures on some magazine covers
They might have been told by their friends about amazing fractals
They might have seen a documentary or two (mostly from the PBS stations, something like Nova) that illustrate what "Fractal" is
That's all the exposure of Fractal to the human kind.... until the Net
With the Net, people get to visit sites with tons and tons of fractal pictures, they get to download the software and play with them, they get to share the formulaes, they get to discuss how to do what on online forums, and so on...
To many --- including yours truly --- I've benefited a lot from the Net
I've learned a lot of things I never knew existed --- even from a site like Slashdot
... conflating folding of the neural tissues with intelligence (rather than simply viewing it as a necessary precursor) sounds like the modern version of "men are more intelligent than women because their brains weigh more"
Very true !!!
Even amongst the humans, there are some who are very intelligent and then there are some who are very very stupid
As humans, both the very intelligent and the very very stupid have brains which fold --- which indicates that it's not the folding of the brain which gives rise of intelligence
... especially when you know that you can't even begin to be compared to Christ
No, not in the sense of the religious mumbo-jumbo (that he's the Son of God, and all that)
Even in his most simple form, Christ was very very brave, so brave that he dare to challenge the authority and dare to sacrifice his life for what he believed in
How many of us has the courage to do what Christ did?
If you believe in something that is greater than you - whether it be God or Buddha or Yaweh or Allah or Satan what-ever-name-it-is - you have some sort of "psychological protective vest"
When I was younger I did not believe in the so-called "power of prayer" (no matter which religion it is, or which God the prayer supposed to go to). I thought the thing is rubbish
Then as I age, I get to see a repeat --- cases of, how shall I put it, "miracles" --- where patients that the medical doctors have given up on, made drastic recoveries
I can't explain how the thing works, I am only an independent observer on that process
Perhaps, just perhaps, deep inside our psyche, there is a force that we have not yet touch upon, a force so great that it can fight whatever illness the body has been infected with --- and perhaps, it's the "belief system" that there is something "more powerful than us", through "prayer", that made up a "conduit" or sort, that tap on that force deep within our own psyche, to fight the disease that has inflicted much pain and suffering on the victim / patient
Till now, our human scientific knowledge is still very limited, there are still a lot of things that we do not know
Maybe one day our human can get our technoogy advance to the point that we can get "in touch" with that force deep inside our own psyche
... after M$ found lots of pirated Windows software in ZTE offices
China is one of the world's top country in term of pirated software, and I won't be surprised at all if many computers in ZTE offices are running pirated M$ softwares such as M$ office suites and M$ operating systems
When I read the "100%" I had to go to TFA and read the whole thing...
The Nasa article ( http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-144 ) says "... with almost 100-percent efficiency " but the submit uses the hyperbole "... it uses 100 percent of all the available hydrogen to supply the protostars, leaving no waste."
If you ask any experienced software developer about estimating when the project will be finally completed you will get a blank stare --- for the simple reason that there are always higher mountain to climb, more features to add, more bugs to be squashed, more optimizations to be made, and so on...
I do not do time estimation --- I do the reverse
I set out a limit on time before I even begin a project
Within that time span I partitioned it into "exploration", "research", "coding", "debugging", "finishing touch" --- and I can terminate the entire project when any part of the partition takes too long, or produce too few result, or both
That's the way I've been using since the late 1970's --- it might not be the best way, but that's my way of accomplishing my projects --- or abandon it before it dragged out way too long
... when we old geezers die, our tombstones won't be marked with our facebook addresses, our famous tweets, our most favorite photo we put online, our favorite song list, and so on
Unlike planet Earth, the moon does not have a lot of water to be wasted
Sure, it got water (ice) but the amount is miniscule when compared to what we got right here on Earth
What I need to know more is the exact definition of "feasibility" in that study
If it means "can live on the moon for quite a while", of course, the amount of water on the moon is enough to support some people on the moon for some time
We need to understand this --- it's like archeology --- what we do today might affect the future generations --- if we dig up the ancient grave today we might get X number of discoveries
But if we leave that ancient grave untouched, and leave it to future generations who may have even better equipments and technologies to excavate that ancient grave, they may yield EVEN MORE INFORMATION than what we can obtain
Same thing on the moon
We can build moon base today, it's entirely feasible to get enough water to let some people survive there for some time
But if we do that, we are, inevitably, going to pollute the water, and diminish the amount of the already limited amount of water on the moon
In doing so, we might negatively affect the future of the future generations for their own moon explorations
That is why I am interested to know how they are going to define "feasibility" in their "feasibility study"
The Executive branch claims it and it alone can authorize access to classified information.
I really do not care who claims what and who is authorize to do what
What I want to know is this --- WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY WHEN THINGS GO WRONG ?
Take the case of the Boston Marathon bombing - those two were not listed in the "no fly list", although the elder brother was questioned by the FBI, after getting tip from the Russian government
Is FBI going to take responsibility for THEIR FAILURE TO STOP THE BOMBING ?
Is the Obama administration going to take responsibility for letting the two cold-blooded bastards into the United States of America ??
3 people died and over 200 injured, and NO-FUCKING-BODY TAKES ANY RESPONSIBILITY !!!
This is *NOT* the America that I know, and as an America, I am VERY ANGRY at what is happening !!
In any hospital lab you will see testing equipments running on XP-based computers - and most of those computers do not have the mean to run VM
You can't just chuck out an old computer and install a new one --- it is more than operating system, more than software --- there are a lot more involved, like calibration, like precision measurement, and so on
Watching people arguing that one must understand a great deal of math before one can deal with science makes me wonder --- What is "Science" ?
Is the definition of "Science" a static one --- that is, there is only ONE WAY of define what "Science" is, --- or, is there more than one way to define "Science" ?
What I mean is, while it is true that a person who understand a great deal of mathematical concepts (while not necessary a mathematician) may arrive at a particular "enlightenment" faster, it does not mean that a person without great deal of knowledge in math can't discover something new
Slashdot Mirror
English is *NOT* my first language --- and I had 4 "first languages"
And yet, I try my best to write the best English, within my own ability, every single time I write / speak something in English
Why ?
If I am to do something, I want to do it right --- if I were to do something half-ass, I rather not do it at all
That's just me, of course
No one is good at everything
I've worked with legendary programmers throughout my career and I can tell you this --- you must understand the strong points of a particular programmer (even the legendary ones) so that you can tap into his potential and let him/her perform
That "hiring by algorithm" is indeed a new way of looking at things, but it does take experience - excellent programmers all comes with their own particular quirks - and you need to provide them the room to stretch, the freedom that they need, in order to get them to do whatever they are good at
Is that it limits information sharing.
The biggest problem that the internet caused is that it destroyed culture. Worldwide.
Everyone has this common generic culture now.
This kind of culture didn't exist before the internet. Before the internet, you actually had societies develop and advance the arts. But, if you didn't notice already, culture has pretty much frozen since around 1995.
I dunno where you're from, and I also dunno when you first started using the Net
I can point to you a lot of counter examples to what you have claimed, but to make this comment short, I'll list only one example --- the Fractal Arts
Before the Internet, people hardly know what the hell "Fractal" was
They might have seen some pictures on some magazine covers
They might have been told by their friends about amazing fractals
They might have seen a documentary or two (mostly from the PBS stations, something like Nova) that illustrate what "Fractal" is
That's all the exposure of Fractal to the human kind .... until the Net
With the Net, people get to visit sites with tons and tons of fractal pictures, they get to download the software and play with them, they get to share the formulaes, they get to discuss how to do what on online forums, and so on ...
To many --- including yours truly --- I've benefited a lot from the Net
I've learned a lot of things I never knew existed --- even from a site like Slashdot
... always a MAFIAA
When the M$ mole infested Nokia, Nokia tanked
Sales tanked, share price tanked, everything tanked
Will Washington state be next ?
... conflating folding of the neural tissues with intelligence (rather than simply viewing it as a necessary precursor) sounds like the modern version of "men are more intelligent than women because their brains weigh more"
Very true !!!
Even amongst the humans, there are some who are very intelligent and then there are some who are very very stupid
As humans, both the very intelligent and the very very stupid have brains which fold --- which indicates that it's not the folding of the brain which gives rise of intelligence
Bechtel has a lot of ties with the CIA
Is this "asteroid mining" thing being used by CIA to go space exploration, in a big way ?
... especially when you know that you can't even begin to be compared to Christ
No, not in the sense of the religious mumbo-jumbo (that he's the Son of God, and all that)
Even in his most simple form, Christ was very very brave, so brave that he dare to challenge the authority and dare to sacrifice his life for what he believed in
How many of us has the courage to do what Christ did?
If you believe in something that is greater than you - whether it be God or Buddha or Yaweh or Allah or Satan what-ever-name-it-is - you have some sort of "psychological protective vest"
When I was younger I did not believe in the so-called "power of prayer" (no matter which religion it is, or which God the prayer supposed to go to). I thought the thing is rubbish
Then as I age, I get to see a repeat --- cases of, how shall I put it, "miracles" --- where patients that the medical doctors have given up on, made drastic recoveries
I can't explain how the thing works, I am only an independent observer on that process
Perhaps, just perhaps, deep inside our psyche, there is a force that we have not yet touch upon, a force so great that it can fight whatever illness the body has been infected with --- and perhaps, it's the "belief system" that there is something "more powerful than us", through "prayer", that made up a "conduit" or sort, that tap on that force deep within our own psyche, to fight the disease that has inflicted much pain and suffering on the victim / patient
Till now, our human scientific knowledge is still very limited, there are still a lot of things that we do not know
Maybe one day our human can get our technoogy advance to the point that we can get "in touch" with that force deep inside our own psyche
I was reading the above quote in TFA and hmm... I just had to find out what is that "newly developed technology"
Here's the link ... http://irene.lbl.gov/3D-Scanning.pdf
Since Elon Musk is so wealthy and he's only paying $50,000, may I contribute my $5 ?
The $5 from me to me is worth much more (by ratio of my wealth) than the $50,000 to Mr. Musk, btw
... after M$ found lots of pirated Windows software in ZTE offices
China is one of the world's top country in term of pirated software, and I won't be surprised at all if many computers in ZTE offices are running pirated M$ softwares such as M$ office suites and M$ operating systems
Remember ICANN ?
Remember ICANN's statement of interest when it first started ?
Remember what ICANN told us back then, that is was for all the netizens ?
It even opened its application to individuals --- I applied, and I even got a membership card mailed to me
What has happened to ICANN is happening to W3C --- they have been co-opted because of BIG MONEY
It's the BIG MONEY that they have sold their soul to --- to hell with the users, to hell with the netizens, to hell with the world
When I read the "100%" I had to go to TFA and read the whole thing ...
The Nasa article ( http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-144 ) says " ... with almost 100-percent efficiency " but the submit uses the hyperbole "... it uses 100 percent of all the available hydrogen to supply the protostars, leaving no waste ."
Several years ago I read that IBM set up a team on researching Metal Air Battery ... lemme search the link ... ah, found it
http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_project.php?id=3203
The project started around 2009
Unfortunately there is no news on the Metal Air Battery project from IBM
If you have any info regarding the latest development(s), would you kindly share with us here?
Thanks !!
A link to another startup that is researching Metal Air battery --- http://gigaom.com/2013/03/01/fluidic-shows-a-peek-of-its-metal-air-batteries-for-off-and-on-the-grid/
If you ask any experienced software developer about estimating when the project will be finally completed you will get a blank stare --- for the simple reason that there are always higher mountain to climb, more features to add, more bugs to be squashed, more optimizations to be made, and so on ...
I do not do time estimation --- I do the reverse
I set out a limit on time before I even begin a project
Within that time span I partitioned it into "exploration", "research", "coding", "debugging", "finishing touch" --- and I can terminate the entire project when any part of the partition takes too long, or produce too few result, or both
That's the way I've been using since the late 1970's --- it might not be the best way, but that's my way of accomplishing my projects --- or abandon it before it dragged out way too long
... when we old geezers die, our tombstones won't be marked with our facebook addresses, our famous tweets, our most favorite photo we put online, our favorite song list, and so on
China is over-polluted right now
The air, the land, the water, all polluted
They have no other choice but to go clean
It is good that they go clean --- in that way at least they get to stay in China, or else, they might move to USA
Can you imagine 1.3 Billion Chinese moving to the US of A?
Unlike planet Earth, the moon does not have a lot of water to be wasted
Sure, it got water (ice) but the amount is miniscule when compared to what we got right here on Earth
What I need to know more is the exact definition of "feasibility" in that study
If it means "can live on the moon for quite a while", of course, the amount of water on the moon is enough to support some people on the moon for some time
We need to understand this --- it's like archeology --- what we do today might affect the future generations --- if we dig up the ancient grave today we might get X number of discoveries
But if we leave that ancient grave untouched, and leave it to future generations who may have even better equipments and technologies to excavate that ancient grave, they may yield EVEN MORE INFORMATION than what we can obtain
Same thing on the moon
We can build moon base today, it's entirely feasible to get enough water to let some people survive there for some time
But if we do that, we are, inevitably, going to pollute the water, and diminish the amount of the already limited amount of water on the moon
In doing so, we might negatively affect the future of the future generations for their own moon explorations
That is why I am interested to know how they are going to define "feasibility" in their "feasibility study"
The Executive branch claims it and it alone can authorize access to classified information.
I really do not care who claims what and who is authorize to do what
What I want to know is this --- WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY WHEN THINGS GO WRONG ?
Take the case of the Boston Marathon bombing - those two were not listed in the "no fly list", although the elder brother was questioned by the FBI, after getting tip from the Russian government
Is FBI going to take responsibility for THEIR FAILURE TO STOP THE BOMBING ?
Is the Obama administration going to take responsibility for letting the two cold-blooded bastards into the United States of America ??
3 people died and over 200 injured, and NO-FUCKING-BODY TAKES ANY RESPONSIBILITY !!!
This is *NOT* the America that I know, and as an America, I am VERY ANGRY at what is happening !!
In any hospital lab you will see testing equipments running on XP-based computers - and most of those computers do not have the mean to run VM
You can't just chuck out an old computer and install a new one --- it is more than operating system, more than software --- there are a lot more involved, like calibration, like precision measurement, and so on
Ballmer is not the problem --- that guy is only PART of a very BIG problem
Yes, so is the US, UK and every other country.
Not US, nor UK, nor most other countries, TOR are not officially blocked, at the ISP level
At least, not yet
The cost of building Trump World Tower is $ 300 Million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_World_Tower
It has 967,000 square feet of floor space
On the other hand, this building in Iowa which cost 5 times more, will have 308,000 square feet of floor space
What gives ??
Even if we factored in inflation since 2001, a building in Iowa should not have to cost 5 times a building in New York City
Watching people arguing that one must understand a great deal of math before one can deal with science makes me wonder --- What is "Science" ?
Is the definition of "Science" a static one --- that is, there is only ONE WAY of define what "Science" is, --- or, is there more than one way to define "Science" ?
What I mean is, while it is true that a person who understand a great deal of mathematical concepts (while not necessary a mathematician) may arrive at a particular "enlightenment" faster, it does not mean that a person without great deal of knowledge in math can't discover something new