The harassment (not physical attack) is well deserved. The perception of an invasion of privacy is enough to rightfully make someone angry.
If someone held a camcorder to your face, but told you it wasn't on because the red light was not on, you would still feel uncomfortable. That person would still be a jerk.
but Adobe never did understand the value of efficient data structures.
They developed the PDF standard, which was designed from the ground up to be transferred in a stream and rendered quickly. Don't hate the tech just because they're a proprietary company.
Many of the "hard" bugs discussed in the article do not seem very hard. Divide by zero errors and a +Inf in an input file are straightforward issues that should be caught using standard practice techniques (bounds checking and exception handling). Two of these three hard bugs would have been easy to catch with version control and continuous integration. It seems like the article is more about dealing with other people's crappy code and poor software development practice rather than debugging nasty bugs.
The nastiest bugs are almost always race conditions, which are by their nature non-deterministic and may not be reproducible across time or certain hardware.
I worked in the embedded space for a few years with an in-house built compiler and came across a few compiler bugs. They were all very easy to debug. You would write some code like "int foo = bar++;" and the program would crash on that line. You'd scratch your head for a minute, but check out the assembly and see some weird optimization it was doing.
The original post and all of these comments are full of misinformation:
- State works (including state laws, cases, their website, everything) can be copyrighted. Only federal works are exempt from copyright.
- The provided link only posts a listing of the unannotated laws.
- Georgia can own the copyright, even if someone else wrote the annotations, as long as the author was an employee or they assigned their interest to the State.
An artist has a moral right to choose how their work is distributed. Copying an artist's work without permission deprives them of their right to choose how they want to share it.
... there was not excuse for what they did. All engineers do have to make trade-off decisions, but the fucking deluxe fix was $11, that is it.They could have built that into the car price with virtually no impact. TFA picked one terrible example...
The problem is that there were probably hundreds or even thousands of $11.00 fixes to the car that would have made it incrementally safer. At some point the engineer has to prioritize which to implement and which not to implement.
It is unfortunate that SO is using the Big Mac index to rank purchasing power in various countries. Sure, it's a fun and easily understandable metric, but it is so flawed that it is practically useless. Those quickly reviewing SO's study won't realize how flawed it is.
AI will not write books, do programming, etc. Strong AI is a myth.
Unless human brains have some magical powers (like a soul blessed by God), there is no logical reason that machines shouldn't eventually be smarter than humans. The only question is how far off it is.
Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that if we build smarter machines, they will, in turn, make us smarter. If we start implanting computer chips in our brains and nano-electronic optics in our eyes, humans themselves can change and advance, and it's entirely possible that we can "beat" computers indefinitely.
He didn't dodge it. He said "We're not worried about lawlessness. Our job is to make the most secure product we can. Our job is not to help enforce laws" It's a rejection of the premise of the question, sure. But it's not a dodge. It's a clearly articulated moral stance.
Your paraphrase would be a moral stance, but he didn't actually say that. His answer ignores that Tor is used for Evil, it doesn't come out and say that any evil created by Tor is a necessary byproduct of the good that it creates.
Tor can be used for both obvious good (e.g., subverting oppressive regimes), obvious bad (e.g., murder for hire, child porn), and a semi-bads (purchasing contraband, hate speech). Despite all of the good that Tor does, how does Tor morally justify itself in light of all the bad that occurs on its networks? Is there some way of weighing the good and bad (i.e., if it got bad enough, would you shut it down)? Or does it decide to not justify itself (i.e., it's just a tool, people will use it how they wish)?
Imagine we lived in a world without hamburgers, only cheeseburgers. The solution would be to encourage people to open up hamburger shops, not to demand that cheesburger shops refund the cheese.
I'm all for free software, but this reasoning sounds insane. When people buy a PC, it says "comes with windows", you know what you're getting, and to require manufacturers to return half of it seems nuts. It's like ordering a cheeseburger, and then demanding a refund for the cheese. Why didn't you just order a hamburger?
The intellectually hard work of software isn't the idea. It's almost entirely within the coding.
Good ideas usually come in a flash, so they appear to be "cheap." However, they are also usually the result of trial and error over and over again and being deeply entrenched in the field.
This particular case is about increasing rider safety and reliability. Lyft and Uber compete for drivers, and here, they are going head to head to get the most number, and best drivers.
This is American capitalism at its finest. Who is really morally invested in Uber or Lyft anyway? As long as they don't lie or burn riders, this tough competition will likely only help riders.
So then running software is not a concrete implementation of anything? That seems a bit silly. Software is complex with lots of moving parts. There are abstract ideas for particular components within software, but as a whole it is not abstract the way an equation or observational relationship is.
Slashdot Mirror
The harassment (not physical attack) is well deserved. The perception of an invasion of privacy is enough to rightfully make someone angry.
If someone held a camcorder to your face, but told you it wasn't on because the red light was not on, you would still feel uncomfortable. That person would still be a jerk.
Walk into any coding academy in NYC or SF and you'll see a line-up of Apple Macbooks. Strange that most noob coders use PCs in France.
but Adobe never did understand the value of efficient data structures.
They developed the PDF standard, which was designed from the ground up to be transferred in a stream and rendered quickly. Don't hate the tech just because they're a proprietary company.
Many of the "hard" bugs discussed in the article do not seem very hard. Divide by zero errors and a +Inf in an input file are straightforward issues that should be caught using standard practice techniques (bounds checking and exception handling). Two of these three hard bugs would have been easy to catch with version control and continuous integration. It seems like the article is more about dealing with other people's crappy code and poor software development practice rather than debugging nasty bugs.
The nastiest bugs are almost always race conditions, which are by their nature non-deterministic and may not be reproducible across time or certain hardware.
I worked in the embedded space for a few years with an in-house built compiler and came across a few compiler bugs. They were all very easy to debug. You would write some code like "int foo = bar++;" and the program would crash on that line. You'd scratch your head for a minute, but check out the assembly and see some weird optimization it was doing.
The original post and all of these comments are full of misinformation:
- State works (including state laws, cases, their website, everything) can be copyrighted. Only federal works are exempt from copyright.
- The provided link only posts a listing of the unannotated laws.
- Georgia can own the copyright, even if someone else wrote the annotations, as long as the author was an employee or they assigned their interest to the State.
We should build a database of people who have not yet been compromised. It'll be easier to keep track of.
An artist has a moral right to choose how their work is distributed. Copying an artist's work without permission deprives them of their right to choose how they want to share it.
... there was not excuse for what they did. All engineers do have to make trade-off decisions, but the fucking deluxe fix was $11, that is it.They could have built that into the car price with virtually no impact. TFA picked one terrible example...
The problem is that there were probably hundreds or even thousands of $11.00 fixes to the car that would have made it incrementally safer. At some point the engineer has to prioritize which to implement and which not to implement.
It is unfortunate that SO is using the Big Mac index to rank purchasing power in various countries. Sure, it's a fun and easily understandable metric, but it is so flawed that it is practically useless. Those quickly reviewing SO's study won't realize how flawed it is.
Cars with autonomous freeway driving will be out in just a couple of years, according to automotive manufacturers. Nearly all the major players are predicting fully autonomous cars will be a solved problem sometime between 2020 and 2025.
Why is every cool technology always exactly ten years away?
AI will not write books, do programming, etc. Strong AI is a myth.
Unless human brains have some magical powers (like a soul blessed by God), there is no logical reason that machines shouldn't eventually be smarter than humans. The only question is how far off it is.
Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that if we build smarter machines, they will, in turn, make us smarter. If we start implanting computer chips in our brains and nano-electronic optics in our eyes, humans themselves can change and advance, and it's entirely possible that we can "beat" computers indefinitely.
I want killing to be as hard on people as possible, so they think before they do it.
Making something difficult is neither necessary nor sufficient to make people think about it.
He didn't dodge it. He said "We're not worried about lawlessness. Our job is to make the most secure product we can. Our job is not to help enforce laws" It's a rejection of the premise of the question, sure. But it's not a dodge. It's a clearly articulated moral stance.
Your paraphrase would be a moral stance, but he didn't actually say that. His answer ignores that Tor is used for Evil, it doesn't come out and say that any evil created by Tor is a necessary byproduct of the good that it creates.
On his deathbed he said his biggest regret was his inability to mount his invention on sharks.
The solution is to tell women that they are equally brilliant as men, not to tell everyone to stop lionizing brilliance.
Tor can be used for both obvious good (e.g., subverting oppressive regimes), obvious bad (e.g., murder for hire, child porn), and a semi-bads (purchasing contraband, hate speech). Despite all of the good that Tor does, how does Tor morally justify itself in light of all the bad that occurs on its networks? Is there some way of weighing the good and bad (i.e., if it got bad enough, would you shut it down)? Or does it decide to not justify itself (i.e., it's just a tool, people will use it how they wish)?
Imagine we lived in a world without hamburgers, only cheeseburgers. The solution would be to encourage people to open up hamburger shops, not to demand that cheesburger shops refund the cheese.
I'm all for free software, but this reasoning sounds insane. When people buy a PC, it says "comes with windows", you know what you're getting, and to require manufacturers to return half of it seems nuts. It's like ordering a cheeseburger, and then demanding a refund for the cheese. Why didn't you just order a hamburger?
Is it just coincidence that the embedded YouTube video has a terminator style soundtrack?
The intellectually hard work of software isn't the idea. It's almost entirely within the coding.
Good ideas usually come in a flash, so they appear to be "cheap." However, they are also usually the result of trial and error over and over again and being deeply entrenched in the field.
This particular case is about increasing rider safety and reliability. Lyft and Uber compete for drivers, and here, they are going head to head to get the most number, and best drivers.
This is American capitalism at its finest. Who is really morally invested in Uber or Lyft anyway? As long as they don't lie or burn riders, this tough competition will likely only help riders.
Change the acronym to Applying Computers to Money and you'd have a popular organization.
So then running software is not a concrete implementation of anything? That seems a bit silly. Software is complex with lots of moving parts. There are abstract ideas for particular components within software, but as a whole it is not abstract the way an equation or observational relationship is.