You can keep laughing, but in the end you're still wrong, and quite pathetic for not seeing it. In the research field you will find little "american arrogance", as most researchers over here are not american. My advisor was an italian, my co-advisor was greek. I have a friend who worked under an indian, and I worked very closely with a large number of chinese students. There is a reason all of the best minds come to the system here, because it is the best.
We do pay a lot of attention to the international community though, in fact most conferences I've been involved with have been hosted overseas by a foreign University... yet most of the presenters are from American Universities. The research community is hardly isolated. We track papers written in all major languages, and I've had to translate several for the people I work with as we keep abrest with many foreign projects that are doing some amazing work. However the bulk of truly revolutionary work comes from American institutions. Face it, it is a fact.
For your information, most of Silicon valley is foreign born and American educated. Even if that were a point, which it isn't, Silicon Valley is not a place where good research is occuring, it's a great spot for commercial adaptation of work which has already been done, but other than the influence of Stanford, Berkeleky and occasionally UCSF, the Valley produces very little original work.
P.S. If you knew anything about science or math (which speaks to your poor education), you'd realize that your friend with a Masters degree is not a good sample of the US population. Yes, anyone who gets a masters in CS from any old crappy school is going to be piss poor. America has plenty of piss poor Universities, but it also has all of the best.
I'd disagree with that, the top three I'd put as Stanford, Berkeley, and Carnegie Mellon. MIT is a good school, but it isn't Stanford, Berkeley or Carnegie Mellon. In more recent years their level of work has declined a lot. I think it's due too much to "resting on their laurels" as for a while they were the premier institution in all science and engineering.
With luck things will pick up there, and they'll move back into the top. But for right now I'd only rank them as top five, along Stanford, Berkeley, CMU, and UIUC.
The problem is, "For most US students" and "For most students" is effectively the same thing. Foreign schools can't compare with US schools in Computer Science, they don't have the resources and they don't do the same calibre of work. There is a reason why the best and the brightest of the world come to the American Top 10 in CS. Because they are the best.
Internationally, you only have a few schools which regularly turn out top quality work, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, University of Manchester, and occasionally Beijing. This isn't to say other foreign Universities don't turn out high quality people and research, they just don't do it regularly.
The top 10 in CS have consistantly been (according to the Computing Research Association, and USNews):
Stanford, Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, UIUC, MIT, Cornell, Princeton, UT-Austin, Washington, and Wisconsin. Occasionally CalTech also makes the list. The fact of the matter is, these schools are not just the best in the US, but also the best in the world.
UIUC still has some of the greatest minds in computer science, including Michael Heath, probably one of the most brilliant computer scientists of our time. They continue to attract some of the highest calibre students in the world, both nationally and internationally, and have a staff with more citations and awards than most schools can even dream of. They are the site of one NCSA facility, soon to be another one, and one of the DoE's advanced research centers. Most recently they have discovered new fabrication processes for IC's, light emitting transistors, and they continue to push the bounds of excellence in computer science.
This building isn't an effort to revive a program (currently ranked #3 in Engineering, #3 in ECE, and #5 in CS), it's a natural step taking to increase the facilities available to accomidate recent advances by the University, and a continuously growing program which time and time again excells in all areas.
The real issue with privacy of course is turning off the location function when you don't want something embarressing happening. I present the following situation as evidence:
Johnny wanted to find Professor X to ask a question about his research paper, approaching the wall he intoned, "Computer, please locate Professor X."
In a booming voice the wall responded, "Professor X is currently in Stall 5 of the Bathroom on the second floor, logging in."
Neither is bullshit. I've never payed for a single copy of Linux that I use because I had to. I purchase every major version number of my chosen distro to support a good thing, but even that I typically split between some family members for a net cost of around $10.
At work we use nothing but Linux, and guess what? It's free we payed nothing for it. If we wanted support, we'd pay for it, but it works so well that we've never had to. The most training I've ever had to give people is in software, not the OS, which usually involves about 15 minutes of teaching them LaTeX (our standard for documentation). Linux is so intuitive they pick it up immediately and flawlessly.
Linux has amazing stability and performance. Our typical machine here has been running for more than a year without a reboot, and our compute nodes have never gone down during a job, only during scheduled system upgrades.
On the other hand, most Windows users I know payed hundreds of dollars for their machines and constantly battle OS crashes in the middle of critical tasks. A friend of mine who works at a windows only business spends most of his time repairing damage to machines caused by crashes, and training people in maintaining windows and avoiding virii.
MS doesn't work compared to Linux, and Linux is free.
"There is always enthusiasm in our business for new concepts. So-called 'free software' is the latest new thing. We will rise to this challenge, and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first. We will show that our approach offers better value, better security and better opportunity."
Because we all know Microsoft is well known and praised for their record of competeing in fair and responsible manners. Not to mention offering better value, security and opportunity.
There is a reason that they military considers XP "compromised the moment it leaves the box", and why high performance computing centers which need reliability and good cost/benefit rations never use Windows.
What the parent of your post is referring to is the concept of the "guarenteed not to exceed speed", namely, the point at which a computer can process information faster than a human can input or interpret the output. Any additional speed is thus, by the theory, superfluous, because we wouldn't be able to tell the difference, both seem instentaneous to us.
The flaw in the theory, however, is the assumption that humans have to be a limiting factor in the process. If the process is completely under automated control, with inputs being supplied by equally fast computers working as data gatherers, and output is interpreted by a computer working on analysis then this theory ceases to hold. A good example would be a deep space observation probe which collects information on the universe, feeds it into a model to predict future properties, then feeds it into an analysis suite to sort the simulations based on result and compare them with historical data. Here the speed has no effective limit. Additionally, we could continue to add humans to the a normal system until their combined input power exceeds the computers processing capabilities.
A bit off topic but, what year are you at U of I, I'm actually enrolling next semester and would love to ask you a few questions if you don't mind.
Re:thanks, Richard Garfield
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 1
Seems fitting then that WotC destroyed the system with 3rd edition, aka, throw out your library and buy it over again.
Character General Stores
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 1
I had a player once who always seemed to have what was needed for an adventure, to whom I always gave a few bonus XP for being prepared and blowing gold on mundane items instead of weapons and armor. Mapping a maze? He had chalk to mark the walls. Starting to rain? He had oiled cloth. Need a bit of light? He was always ready with flint and tinder.
Then one day, for some reason or another, the players had a need for a bird cage, when the player produced one, I was a bit baffled, how could he have thought to have brought one. I asked to see his character sheet, and found that he had spent every last gold piece on mundane equipment... but had neglected to account for weight. Needless to say he aquired the nickname "General Store", and lost all of his wares in the dungeon when suddenly his loop-hole strength failed him.
I have to agree here, the immense cost is what got me to stop playing DnD (though not to stop role-playing). During my childhood I had picked up a good number of 1st and 2nd edition rulebooks, which were for the most part completely compatible. It was a favorite thing every christmas to get a few new books and read through them. By the time 3rd edition came out, I had quite a large stack, having amassed them over 10 years. All of the sudden, they invalidate them all, change the rules drastically, and I'm supposed to throw out my collection, start over, and fork over more money?
I don't think so.
I've actually been working on a role-playing game for 7 years now, which in the past three years has evolved into something that is, in some ways, to DnD as Linux is to Windows, a free version that is mostly compatible. This isn't saying that my game (Trial by Fire, aka TBF) is the same as DnD, but rather that converting a character from one system to the other is an easy task.
My goal originally was to create something either for my own use only, or for publication on the market. Over the past three years it has changed to providing the system completely for free under the Gnu Free Document License. The system is now nearing completion, and has been extensively play tested. I hope to release my initial alpha rulebooks to the general public within the close of the year. If anyone is interested in this game or ideas they want to contribute, feel free to e-mail me.
Just be glad it wasn't michael posting the article...ARGH! His take would have had a comment something like this: "The message from the government here seems to be clear, stay out of the Earth."
Actually Mr. Slashbot, you're talking out of your rear. One week after Kevin's arrest he agreed to the following terms:
a) no bail hearing;
b) no preliminary hearing;
c) no phone calls, except to his attorney and two family
members
He himself has stated this many times. He agreed on this so that he could be held outside of solitary for a bit. Later he decided he would rather have had the bail hearing and decided to spread FUD, rarely mentioning the original agreement. Get your history straight.
No it isn't just my opinion. His lawyers pushed the pretrial to unusual lengths, fighting for various things that Mitnick asked for. As he was arrested for not only his crimes but also for jumping bail, and going on the run after his previous arrest, then committing more crimes, no bail was allowed, he'd already had a bail hearing and proved that he wasn't going to stick around for a trial.
Meanwhile his lawyers kept pushing to have some charges dropped or reclassified and even to just let him have a laptop while in prison (he did get this).
Look on the web it's well documented and I'm not your search engine. Open your eyes Mr. Slashbot.
Read the other posts in this thread, I'm getting tired of posting and reposting the answers to Slashbot misinformation and ignorance. The charges weren't blown out of proportion, Mitnicks media team blew the perception of them out of proportion. The punishment fit the crime, Mitnick's legal team kept him locked up at his request because of the defense they were pursuing.
And while there is such a thing as redemption, he still should not profit from having been a criminal, he can get a real job, but making millions for talking about his infamous criminal history is not an honest living.
As was posted elsewhere (take the time to read the thread, it's not that long!):
Mitnick's lawyers asked for him to be held longer, this was his choice, and in the end the time was taken off of his prison sentance. His extended incarceration was done as his own request. Read your history, even statements from Mitnick himself, this belief you hold is a common misrepresentation of what really happened.
This isn't "The Man" putting someone down but a cheap trick by mitnick.
Why is he getting the job offers? Because he is a criminal. No one would know his name, or have made him CEO were it not for his criminal record. He is profiting from breaking US law. He may be a changed person, but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. He's settled into a cushy job of talking about how he commited his criminal exploits to other people, making millions off of his wrong doings.
Slashdot Mirror
You can keep laughing, but in the end you're still wrong, and quite pathetic for not seeing it. In the research field you will find little "american arrogance", as most researchers over here are not american. My advisor was an italian, my co-advisor was greek. I have a friend who worked under an indian, and I worked very closely with a large number of chinese students. There is a reason all of the best minds come to the system here, because it is the best.
We do pay a lot of attention to the international community though, in fact most conferences I've been involved with have been hosted overseas by a foreign University... yet most of the presenters are from American Universities. The research community is hardly isolated. We track papers written in all major languages, and I've had to translate several for the people I work with as we keep abrest with many foreign projects that are doing some amazing work. However the bulk of truly revolutionary work comes from American institutions. Face it, it is a fact.
For your information, most of Silicon valley is foreign born and American educated. Even if that were a point, which it isn't, Silicon Valley is not a place where good research is occuring, it's a great spot for commercial adaptation of work which has already been done, but other than the influence of Stanford, Berkeleky and occasionally UCSF, the Valley produces very little original work.
P.S. If you knew anything about science or math (which speaks to your poor education), you'd realize that your friend with a Masters degree is not a good sample of the US population. Yes, anyone who gets a masters in CS from any old crappy school is going to be piss poor. America has plenty of piss poor Universities, but it also has all of the best.
I'm talking mainly about MIT's EECS department.
I'd disagree with that, the top three I'd put as Stanford, Berkeley, and Carnegie Mellon. MIT is a good school, but it isn't Stanford, Berkeley or Carnegie Mellon. In more recent years their level of work has declined a lot. I think it's due too much to "resting on their laurels" as for a while they were the premier institution in all science and engineering.
With luck things will pick up there, and they'll move back into the top. But for right now I'd only rank them as top five, along Stanford, Berkeley, CMU, and UIUC.
The problem is, "For most US students" and "For most students" is effectively the same thing. Foreign schools can't compare with US schools in Computer Science, they don't have the resources and they don't do the same calibre of work. There is a reason why the best and the brightest of the world come to the American Top 10 in CS. Because they are the best.
Internationally, you only have a few schools which regularly turn out top quality work, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, University of Manchester, and occasionally Beijing. This isn't to say other foreign Universities don't turn out high quality people and research, they just don't do it regularly.
The top 10 in CS have consistantly been (according to the Computing Research Association, and USNews): Stanford, Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, UIUC, MIT, Cornell, Princeton, UT-Austin, Washington, and Wisconsin. Occasionally CalTech also makes the list. The fact of the matter is, these schools are not just the best in the US, but also the best in the world.
UIUC still has some of the greatest minds in computer science, including Michael Heath, probably one of the most brilliant computer scientists of our time. They continue to attract some of the highest calibre students in the world, both nationally and internationally, and have a staff with more citations and awards than most schools can even dream of. They are the site of one NCSA facility, soon to be another one, and one of the DoE's advanced research centers. Most recently they have discovered new fabrication processes for IC's, light emitting transistors, and they continue to push the bounds of excellence in computer science.
This building isn't an effort to revive a program (currently ranked #3 in Engineering, #3 in ECE, and #5 in CS), it's a natural step taking to increase the facilities available to accomidate recent advances by the University, and a continuously growing program which time and time again excells in all areas.
Which prospective weekend did you attend, JOOC?
The real issue with privacy of course is turning off the location function when you don't want something embarressing happening. I present the following situation as evidence:
Johnny wanted to find Professor X to ask a question about his research paper, approaching the wall he intoned, "Computer, please locate Professor X."
In a booming voice the wall responded, "Professor X is currently in Stall 5 of the Bathroom on the second floor, logging in."
Neither is bullshit. I've never payed for a single copy of Linux that I use because I had to. I purchase every major version number of my chosen distro to support a good thing, but even that I typically split between some family members for a net cost of around $10.
At work we use nothing but Linux, and guess what? It's free we payed nothing for it. If we wanted support, we'd pay for it, but it works so well that we've never had to. The most training I've ever had to give people is in software, not the OS, which usually involves about 15 minutes of teaching them LaTeX (our standard for documentation). Linux is so intuitive they pick it up immediately and flawlessly.
Linux has amazing stability and performance. Our typical machine here has been running for more than a year without a reboot, and our compute nodes have never gone down during a job, only during scheduled system upgrades.
On the other hand, most Windows users I know payed hundreds of dollars for their machines and constantly battle OS crashes in the middle of critical tasks. A friend of mine who works at a windows only business spends most of his time repairing damage to machines caused by crashes, and training people in maintaining windows and avoiding virii.
MS doesn't work compared to Linux, and Linux is free.
Either -1 Redundant, -1 Flamebait or both. Whats the point here?
"There is always enthusiasm in our business for new concepts. So-called 'free software' is the latest new thing. We will rise to this challenge, and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first. We will show that our approach offers better value, better security and better opportunity."
Because we all know Microsoft is well known and praised for their record of competeing in fair and responsible manners. Not to mention offering better value, security and opportunity.
There is a reason that they military considers XP "compromised the moment it leaves the box", and why high performance computing centers which need reliability and good cost/benefit rations never use Windows.
What the parent of your post is referring to is the concept of the "guarenteed not to exceed speed", namely, the point at which a computer can process information faster than a human can input or interpret the output. Any additional speed is thus, by the theory, superfluous, because we wouldn't be able to tell the difference, both seem instentaneous to us.
The flaw in the theory, however, is the assumption that humans have to be a limiting factor in the process. If the process is completely under automated control, with inputs being supplied by equally fast computers working as data gatherers, and output is interpreted by a computer working on analysis then this theory ceases to hold. A good example would be a deep space observation probe which collects information on the universe, feeds it into a model to predict future properties, then feeds it into an analysis suite to sort the simulations based on result and compare them with historical data. Here the speed has no effective limit. Additionally, we could continue to add humans to the a normal system until their combined input power exceeds the computers processing capabilities.
A bit off topic but, what year are you at U of I, I'm actually enrolling next semester and would love to ask you a few questions if you don't mind.
Seems fitting then that WotC destroyed the system with 3rd edition, aka, throw out your library and buy it over again.
I had a player once who always seemed to have what was needed for an adventure, to whom I always gave a few bonus XP for being prepared and blowing gold on mundane items instead of weapons and armor. Mapping a maze? He had chalk to mark the walls. Starting to rain? He had oiled cloth. Need a bit of light? He was always ready with flint and tinder.
Then one day, for some reason or another, the players had a need for a bird cage, when the player produced one, I was a bit baffled, how could he have thought to have brought one. I asked to see his character sheet, and found that he had spent every last gold piece on mundane equipment... but had neglected to account for weight. Needless to say he aquired the nickname "General Store", and lost all of his wares in the dungeon when suddenly his loop-hole strength failed him.
I have to agree here, the immense cost is what got me to stop playing DnD (though not to stop role-playing). During my childhood I had picked up a good number of 1st and 2nd edition rulebooks, which were for the most part completely compatible. It was a favorite thing every christmas to get a few new books and read through them. By the time 3rd edition came out, I had quite a large stack, having amassed them over 10 years. All of the sudden, they invalidate them all, change the rules drastically, and I'm supposed to throw out my collection, start over, and fork over more money?
I don't think so.
I've actually been working on a role-playing game for 7 years now, which in the past three years has evolved into something that is, in some ways, to DnD as Linux is to Windows, a free version that is mostly compatible. This isn't saying that my game (Trial by Fire, aka TBF) is the same as DnD, but rather that converting a character from one system to the other is an easy task.
My goal originally was to create something either for my own use only, or for publication on the market. Over the past three years it has changed to providing the system completely for free under the Gnu Free Document License. The system is now nearing completion, and has been extensively play tested. I hope to release my initial alpha rulebooks to the general public within the close of the year. If anyone is interested in this game or ideas they want to contribute, feel free to e-mail me.
Just be glad it wasn't michael posting the article...ARGH! His take would have had a comment something like this: "The message from the government here seems to be clear, stay out of the Earth."
Actually Mr. Slashbot, you're talking out of your rear. One week after Kevin's arrest he agreed to the following terms:
a) no bail hearing;
b) no preliminary hearing;
c) no phone calls, except to his attorney and two family members
He himself has stated this many times. He agreed on this so that he could be held outside of solitary for a bit. Later he decided he would rather have had the bail hearing and decided to spread FUD, rarely mentioning the original agreement. Get your history straight.
No it isn't just my opinion. His lawyers pushed the pretrial to unusual lengths, fighting for various things that Mitnick asked for. As he was arrested for not only his crimes but also for jumping bail, and going on the run after his previous arrest, then committing more crimes, no bail was allowed, he'd already had a bail hearing and proved that he wasn't going to stick around for a trial.
Meanwhile his lawyers kept pushing to have some charges dropped or reclassified and even to just let him have a laptop while in prison (he did get this).
Look on the web it's well documented and I'm not your search engine. Open your eyes Mr. Slashbot.
Read the other posts in this thread, I'm getting tired of posting and reposting the answers to Slashbot misinformation and ignorance. The charges weren't blown out of proportion, Mitnicks media team blew the perception of them out of proportion. The punishment fit the crime, Mitnick's legal team kept him locked up at his request because of the defense they were pursuing.
And while there is such a thing as redemption, he still should not profit from having been a criminal, he can get a real job, but making millions for talking about his infamous criminal history is not an honest living.
As was posted elsewhere (take the time to read the thread, it's not that long!):
Mitnick's lawyers asked for him to be held longer, this was his choice, and in the end the time was taken off of his prison sentance. His extended incarceration was done as his own request. Read your history, even statements from Mitnick himself, this belief you hold is a common misrepresentation of what really happened.
This isn't "The Man" putting someone down but a cheap trick by mitnick.
Nope, thats just my natural response to ignorant Slashbots.
Dilbert is in the Boss's office.
Dilbert: I discovered a hole in our internet security.
Boss: What?!!
Boss: Good grief, man! How could you put a hole in our internet?
Dilbert, angry: I didn't PUT it there, I FOUND it.. and it's not...
Boss: It's your job to fix that hole. I want you to work 24-7!
Dilbert: Actually, that's NOT my job. But I'll inform our network management group.
Boss, yelling: PASSING THE BUCK!!! YOU'RE A BUCK PASSER!!!
Dilbert: Forget it! There's no hole! It got better!
Boss: That's more like it.
Last panel, the boss is sitting alone smiling.
Boss thinks: I fixed the internet.
Someone had to put forth the capital, and to hire him. He wouldn't have the fame, nor the investors without his criminal record.
Why is he getting the job offers? Because he is a criminal. No one would know his name, or have made him CEO were it not for his criminal record. He is profiting from breaking US law. He may be a changed person, but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. He's settled into a cushy job of talking about how he commited his criminal exploits to other people, making millions off of his wrong doings.
Exactly my problem. As a criminal Mitnick should not profit because of his crimes, all this does is send a message that crime does pay to little kids.