Nothing is fraud-proof. Nothing is bullet-proof either. However you can make something bullet-resistant. How resistant is commensurate with the amount of effort you put into it.
People love saying government is stupid and can never do anything right, but that's not true with everything.
I agree that government has done a pretty good job with currency (great example, by the way), but when people pitching an idea say "it's fraud-proof!" they automatically drop several notches in my "how much do I want to trust you" scale. You'd think that they'd have consulted with some security people before going out and running their mouths.
Saying "it's fraud-proof" doesn't help when, 10 seconds after the details of your proposal go public, you've got security geeks tweeting/posting innovative fraud ideas that won't be caught by your awesome, unbreakable system. Maybe it would be best to start by saying "fraud-resistant" and then educate the general public about security and statistics.
(Just kidding, I know that's as impossible as fraud-proof ID. I'll shut up now and content myself with watching Security Clusterfuck Theater's production of their national ID play.)
Anyone who has worked in advanced R&D is aware that just knowing a huge amount of facts isn't of much use.
I've heard many researchers say they get plenty of students (from here and overseas) that are good at knowing lots of facts/techniques/methods/etc., but fall on their face when you try to move them into original research.
The education there is very different from that of Western nations....they resort to various aptitude tests to try and weed out people.
Isn't that what we do here as well, though? You have a hard time getting into grad school if you can't get a good score on the (mostly) multiple-choice GRE, you have to pass a lot of classes early in grad school that can be passed solely by memorization....and we somehow expect that filtering process to produce people that are good at thinking imaginatively to solve hard problems.
..but even knowing about it was apparently enough to get me dismissed from a jury.
What are the consequences if you keep your mouth shut when they ask if you have special knowledge of a topic? When the judge asks if anyone has in-depth knowledge about $SUBJECT, and I don't raise my hand because I assume he means PhD level or "I work on this all day" kind of knowledge, can I get in trouble later if they find out I know more than the average Joe because I read?
I'm sure it's probably possible to come up with a Feynman-esque, "aw-shucks-I'm-just-observant-not-educated" defense, but I was wondering if you could get in any real trouble for keeping quiet so that they don't remove everyone that's not an empty vessel from the jury pool.
I have seen many proprietary software packages that are barely usable, but they are niche products with little competition and thus there is no incentive for anyone to do a good job.
I want to say something snarky about barely usable proprietary operating systems and word processors...I just can't think of anything that's actually funny (as usual).
Agree, for any HARD class. E.g., upper-level undergrad and grad-level theoretic courses in your (engineering)department/major. You scribble every last greek character in every equation from the board, in a desperate attempt to try to get down every jot of information (also verbal explanations).
I always just sat there and paid attention, without being distracted from what the lecturer was saying by furiously writing it all down. Any decent professor (i.e., one whose ego isn't wrapped up in being the sole font of information needed to learn the class material) will have chosen a textbook that has the same general content as their lecture.
I found it more useful to treat the lecture as a general introduction to the material, and then go and figure out the details by reading the text and doing sample problems. Being able to "reproduce any arcane derivation on demand" may be good for passing exams, but it's not worth shit when you come up against a real-world problem that doesn't fit neatly into the categories covered in class.
Releasing a press release causes earlier reports to become forgotten? I didn't know that the archive of all news stories ever written is solely stored in Homer Simpson's brain.
I keep hearing how tough things are in California, and how many problems they have. I also hear legislators constantly talking about the need to "do something" about these problems, because (of course), if *they* don't do anything about problems, they never get solved.
So it seems to be, at best, a frivolous waste of time for them to worry about swearing. No matter how voluntary and good-natured this thing is, they still took up the time of legislators that (presumably) have more important things to worry about.
Add to that the tendency of people to do things they're told not to do, and it makes a law/resolution/happy-feelgood-bill like this totally fucking worthless.
Just be mindful of what you signed when you were hired by your employer. Some companies have terrible "everything you do even outside of work is ours" clauses.
The company for which I work gave me one of those to sign. I never signed it.
What did they say, if anything? I'm guessing it must have been a smaller company, or one in which the director of the business unit has a lot of latitude in waiving such things. If I'd tried that with my last (global megacorp) employer, I would have been shown the door.
It's a reminder from 30 years ago that we are still not using technology effectively in education.
Yes we are. White boards are slightly more effective than chalk boards; they're a technological improvement.
Yes, and instead of buying a $0.79 box of chalk per classroom every 2 months, you get to buy a $13.49 pack of 8 markers that will dry out in a month (if you've successfully trained everyone to put the caps on them while not actively writing). Go technology!
Computers are good at learning management: Blackboard...
Dear gods, no. Blackboard isn't good at much of anything except being an obstacle. Moodle's not too bad (and at least it's open), but I've never seen it used for anything you couldn't do with a web page and email account.
Computers are not much better than any other type of distance education.
I did most of my masters via distance education, and I must say that there was no benefit to seeing the streaming video on my computer instead of getting a DVD in the mail, except maybe the money that was saved by not mailing the DVD. I still had to get hard copies of graded homework assignments and exams sent back in the mail.
I could, however, have done my masters presentation remotely via webcam, which wouldn't have been possible in the 80's (as far as I know).
No, because the people who actually do software development know that using "parametric tools to estimate development schedules" means guessing the future based on an approximation of the past...
...and often, that approximation of a past development event is substantially different from the project for which you want an estimate.
You have obviously never worked in an industry with high quality control standards.
I worked at a nuclear power plant that happened to be on a Navy ship. One of our supply guys had to order some simple part (a resistor or something) that was categorized as part of the nuclear plant, and it was maybe $100 through the supply system. He took the part number home, called the supplier from his home phone presenting himself as a hobbyist. It was about $1 for the same part. I guess we were paying $99 for the QC sticker they put on it before they sent it off through the supply system.
Disclaimer (because/. has taught me I need one): I'm not saying all QCed stuff is expensive for no reason. Just that sometimes people really are getting ripped off in the name of QC.
Third, Apple makes a lot of hay from making Microsoft the butt of jokes. Whenever Microsoft screws up or fails at anything, it helps reinforce their image as bumbling idiots, which in turn helps reinforce Apple's image as slick/cool geniuses.
I hope Apple and MS team up just so I can see all the "I'm a PC/Mac" commercial spoofs that will result.
I went to google and did a search. I realized quickly that at some point over the last few years Google has changed the way their links work. They no longer are a link to the site you want...
That's interesting...I did a search and 20% of the links are direct and the rest are what you describe. I couldn't spot any pattern in which links were direct/indirect.
Anyway, if I'm making bookmarks, I usually just copy the URL of the document I end up at after all the redirects, because sometimes the site I'm going to redirects me to a different page than the Google URL anyway. It doesn't seem like that much of an inconvenience, even though I do wonder what's up with the redirects in the search results.
A search engine is nothing more than algorithms and marketing to get folks to use it and get the subsequent advertising revenue - the hardware and programming involved and its costs are not a factor.
Yes, the algorithms are probably the hardest bit, which is what confuses me about your statement: Google has spent a lot of time and money hiring smart people specifically to develop search algorithms, and Apple hasn't. How exactly does that put Apple in a spot to "crush" Google, again?
I also think Apple doesn't have the in-house expertise to build and maintain the hardware/software required to provide a search product equivalent to Google's. Maybe someone could make the case that it's "not a factor" to Google or Microsoft, but I think it would be really hard to build from scratch.
Actually, having a search engine driven by Macs would be a hell of a marketing gimmick.
How many people give a fuck what OS is on the backend? That gimmick would only work with about the same number of people that are really revved up over Google using some home-brewed Linux derivative on the backend--which is not many.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing is fraud-proof. Nothing is bullet-proof either. However you can make something bullet-resistant. How resistant is commensurate with the amount of effort you put into it.
People love saying government is stupid and can never do anything right, but that's not true with everything.
I agree that government has done a pretty good job with currency (great example, by the way), but when people pitching an idea say "it's fraud-proof!" they automatically drop several notches in my "how much do I want to trust you" scale. You'd think that they'd have consulted with some security people before going out and running their mouths.
Saying "it's fraud-proof" doesn't help when, 10 seconds after the details of your proposal go public, you've got security geeks tweeting/posting innovative fraud ideas that won't be caught by your awesome, unbreakable system. Maybe it would be best to start by saying "fraud-resistant" and then educate the general public about security and statistics.
(Just kidding, I know that's as impossible as fraud-proof ID. I'll shut up now and content myself with watching Security Clusterfuck Theater's production of their national ID play.)
...that I never removed DoubleClick from the list of sites that aren't allowed to deliver content to my browser.
Anyone who has worked in advanced R&D is aware that just knowing a huge amount of facts isn't of much use.
I've heard many researchers say they get plenty of students (from here and overseas) that are good at knowing lots of facts/techniques/methods/etc., but fall on their face when you try to move them into original research.
The education there is very different from that of Western nations. ...they resort to various aptitude tests to try and weed out people.
Isn't that what we do here as well, though? You have a hard time getting into grad school if you can't get a good score on the (mostly) multiple-choice GRE, you have to pass a lot of classes early in grad school that can be passed solely by memorization....and we somehow expect that filtering process to produce people that are good at thinking imaginatively to solve hard problems.
...each of the glasses lenses is a different color....
Been a while since you saw a 3D movie, eh?
..but even knowing about it was apparently enough to get me dismissed from a jury.
What are the consequences if you keep your mouth shut when they ask if you have special knowledge of a topic? When the judge asks if anyone has in-depth knowledge about $SUBJECT, and I don't raise my hand because I assume he means PhD level or "I work on this all day" kind of knowledge, can I get in trouble later if they find out I know more than the average Joe because I read?
I'm sure it's probably possible to come up with a Feynman-esque, "aw-shucks-I'm-just-observant-not-educated" defense, but I was wondering if you could get in any real trouble for keeping quiet so that they don't remove everyone that's not an empty vessel from the jury pool.
I have seen many proprietary software packages that are barely usable, but they are niche products with little competition and thus there is no incentive for anyone to do a good job.
I want to say something snarky about barely usable proprietary operating systems and word processors...I just can't think of anything that's actually funny (as usual).
FTFY.
Yes, I know it's harder, but it's the Right Way(TM), in my humble opinion.
I didn't think the official Python implementation had a JIT compiler.
Agree, for any HARD class. E.g., upper-level undergrad and grad-level theoretic courses in your (engineering)department/major. You scribble every last greek character in every equation from the board, in a desperate attempt to try to get down every jot of information (also verbal explanations).
I always just sat there and paid attention, without being distracted from what the lecturer was saying by furiously writing it all down. Any decent professor (i.e., one whose ego isn't wrapped up in being the sole font of information needed to learn the class material) will have chosen a textbook that has the same general content as their lecture.
I found it more useful to treat the lecture as a general introduction to the material, and then go and figure out the details by reading the text and doing sample problems. Being able to "reproduce any arcane derivation on demand" may be good for passing exams, but it's not worth shit when you come up against a real-world problem that doesn't fit neatly into the categories covered in class.
Releasing a press release causes earlier reports to become forgotten? I didn't know that the archive of all news stories ever written is solely stored in Homer Simpson's brain.
I keep hearing how tough things are in California, and how many problems they have. I also hear legislators constantly talking about the need to "do something" about these problems, because (of course), if *they* don't do anything about problems, they never get solved.
So it seems to be, at best, a frivolous waste of time for them to worry about swearing. No matter how voluntary and good-natured this thing is, they still took up the time of legislators that (presumably) have more important things to worry about.
Add to that the tendency of people to do things they're told not to do, and it makes a law/resolution/happy-feelgood-bill like this totally fucking worthless.
Just be mindful of what you signed when you were hired by your employer. Some companies have terrible "everything you do even outside of work is ours" clauses.
The company for which I work gave me one of those to sign. I never signed it.
What did they say, if anything? I'm guessing it must have been a smaller company, or one in which the director of the business unit has a lot of latitude in waiving such things. If I'd tried that with my last (global megacorp) employer, I would have been shown the door.
There seems to be this weird trend toward <X> methods simply because they use <X>, not because they work better than other methods.
So...just pretty much what humans tend to do in every other situation, then? ;)
Voice control reminds me of the promise of flying cars. We will have both in about 5-10 years. And Duke Nukem Forever.
..and fusion!
It's a reminder from 30 years ago that we are still not using technology effectively in education.
Yes we are. White boards are slightly more effective than chalk boards; they're a technological improvement.
Yes, and instead of buying a $0.79 box of chalk per classroom every 2 months, you get to buy a $13.49 pack of 8 markers that will dry out in a month (if you've successfully trained everyone to put the caps on them while not actively writing). Go technology!
Computers are good at learning management: Blackboard...
Dear gods, no. Blackboard isn't good at much of anything except being an obstacle. Moodle's not too bad (and at least it's open), but I've never seen it used for anything you couldn't do with a web page and email account.
Computers are not much better than any other type of distance education.
I did most of my masters via distance education, and I must say that there was no benefit to seeing the streaming video on my computer instead of getting a DVD in the mail, except maybe the money that was saved by not mailing the DVD. I still had to get hard copies of graded homework assignments and exams sent back in the mail.
I could, however, have done my masters presentation remotely via webcam, which wouldn't have been possible in the 80's (as far as I know).
If you're creating a quote for developing essentially the same software project over again, I wager that you're probably doing something wrong.
No, because the people who actually do software development know that using "parametric tools to estimate development schedules" means guessing the future based on an approximation of the past...
...and often, that approximation of a past development event is substantially different from the project for which you want an estimate.
Wow, nice trick...double the karma just for restating your point. I'm impressed!
Mac users are bought
Where do I get one? Is there a code word I have to use at the Apple store? When I get it home, will it, like, you know, do "stuff" to me?
Actually, I think some of them probably would.
You have obviously never worked in an industry with high quality control standards.
I worked at a nuclear power plant that happened to be on a Navy ship. One of our supply guys had to order some simple part (a resistor or something) that was categorized as part of the nuclear plant, and it was maybe $100 through the supply system. He took the part number home, called the supplier from his home phone presenting himself as a hobbyist. It was about $1 for the same part. I guess we were paying $99 for the QC sticker they put on it before they sent it off through the supply system.
Disclaimer (because /. has taught me I need one): I'm not saying all QCed stuff is expensive for no reason. Just that sometimes people really are getting ripped off in the name of QC.
Third, Apple makes a lot of hay from making Microsoft the butt of jokes. Whenever Microsoft screws up or fails at anything, it helps reinforce their image as bumbling idiots, which in turn helps reinforce Apple's image as slick/cool geniuses.
I hope Apple and MS team up just so I can see all the "I'm a PC/Mac" commercial spoofs that will result.
I went to google and did a search. I realized quickly that at some point over the last few years Google has changed the way their links work. They no longer are a link to the site you want...
That's interesting...I did a search and 20% of the links are direct and the rest are what you describe. I couldn't spot any pattern in which links were direct/indirect.
Anyway, if I'm making bookmarks, I usually just copy the URL of the document I end up at after all the redirects, because sometimes the site I'm going to redirects me to a different page than the Google URL anyway. It doesn't seem like that much of an inconvenience, even though I do wonder what's up with the redirects in the search results.
A search engine is nothing more than algorithms and marketing to get folks to use it and get the subsequent advertising revenue - the hardware and programming involved and its costs are not a factor.
Yes, the algorithms are probably the hardest bit, which is what confuses me about your statement: Google has spent a lot of time and money hiring smart people specifically to develop search algorithms, and Apple hasn't. How exactly does that put Apple in a spot to "crush" Google, again?
I also think Apple doesn't have the in-house expertise to build and maintain the hardware/software required to provide a search product equivalent to Google's. Maybe someone could make the case that it's "not a factor" to Google or Microsoft, but I think it would be really hard to build from scratch.
Actually, having a search engine driven by Macs would be a hell of a marketing gimmick.
How many people give a fuck what OS is on the backend? That gimmick would only work with about the same number of people that are really revved up over Google using some home-brewed Linux derivative on the backend--which is not many.
No matter which way you look at it the telephone number won't go away.
No matter which way you look at it, the horse and buggy won't go away.
Look at rates of depression, people nowadays are FAR more likely to suffer from depression than their parents or grandparents.
[Citation needed]