I think that's it right there - if you are admitted to an elite school but only on the basis you pay full fare, they don't really want you, and you likely don't really belong there. Go to a cheaper school. But if you not only get admitted but they want you enough to give you a deal, well, what are you waiting for?
But perpetual copyright actually does benefit creators, because it increases the market value of their copyrights even before they die. I suppose I could even say, "if you pay me $X now, I will sign a contract that copyright of my works transfers to you upon my death."
Recycling a name for a new incompatible format is a terrible idea. If I have a png image and software that supports pngs, I should be able to read that image, period.
It's very cool either way, but are the wheels in its underbelly powered, or are they passive, leaving the serpentine motion to provide forward impetus? In other words, could it remain perfectly straight and still drive forward?
all they really need to do is actually fucking vote rather than being whiney little bitches
My answer to that is, they did! I think there's a huge overlap between OWS protesters and disappointed (former?) Obama supporters.
Re:Unfortunate
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I feel like I get the gist of the Occupy movement, just as people get the gist of the Tea Party. I agree that neither is definitive enough to be considered a political party, but pushing in a general direction and keeping some flavor of issues on the front burner can be constructive.
If the press really wanted to understand the Occupy movement, it wouldn't just stand back and complain that the movement is not producing a manifesto. Rather, they would take an empirical approach, by conducting surveys with the protesters, to see which attitudes best characterize them, statistically. (Quick, somebody write an app for that).
Unfortunate
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I think the Occupy Wall Street movement is tackling an important issue, and co-opting the name for a trivial issue like this is unnecessary and unfortunate.
I agree, but the rationale in your second post is much better than in the first. It's easy to get lazy and assume any leader who draws protest or revolt is illegitimate and must go. I suppose the real test is whether a leader will allow fair elections, and abide by them. Of course there are many shades of gray in election fraud.
Knights Corner sounds like it is basically a high-end GPU without the actual graphics output.
To me it sounds like much more. The "cores" on a GPU are not equivalent to CPU cores, whereas on Knight's Corner you get 50 actual x86 cores. It is sure to be much more general purpose. From the article: "Unlike other co-processors, the MIC is fully accessible and programmable as though it were a fully functional HPC node." It sounds like a cluster on a chip. I am curious about the memory model.
Most of these break-ins are due to IT negligence, not hacker genius.
I think negligence would be *very* hard to establish. First, most computer bugs, including vulnerabilities, are very obvious - in retrospect. Finding the needle in the haystack is easy after somebody points it out to you. That's entirely different than integrating hundreds of software components without creating any "obvious" holes.
Second, how many sysadmins are given all the resources they would like to do their jobs? Security is cost/benefit, like anything else, you devote enough resources to make the pain tolerable, and no more. That means most admins have far more responsibilities than they can cover 100%.
AFAIK we don't know enough about how the brain works to pre-program such components and it would need to be strongly tuned to the destination brain, otherwise it won't work very well or at all.
It's true that throwing a bunch of neuron simulators into a pot won't automatically do anything, until you figure out how to program it. But advances in hardware and programming are quite tightly coupled - you make a new machine, then you spend a lot of time figuring out how to get the most out of it, until you find its limitations which inspires the design of the next generation machine.
Turing Completeness gives us the idea that hardware doesn't really matter, since any computer can run any program (if it has enough memory), but this is misleading. For example, you didn't see a lot of cellphone apps written in the 1970's, even though big iron at the time was able to run the algorithms. Similarly, simulating huge neural networks currently requires massive clusters of computers that require thousands of dollars per day in electricity alone. That sharply limits how many people can experiment with them.
I wish I could get more excited about exploring the fundamental issues you raise, but I think we all know how this will turn out. Even if the judge rules in favor of reselling, a new law would be passed within a year or two to close this "loophole."
Everybody files taxes. To be considered a big risk for identity theft, there would have to be thousands of cases of identity theft resulting from it. That isn't the case. You would have heard about it.
Names like Cray and Silicon Graphics are associated with a time when most of us could only imagine what incredible technology existed behind closed doors, inaccessible to mere mortals. Now all the excitement is behind commodity items that sell for $500 or less. It's fantastic. Yet, where's the mystique? I miss it.
Check the facts. Private R&D investment has been stagnant since the '60's, but government R&D investment is down by about 66%!
Yeah, top research schools charge bloated undergraduate tuition to support research. Do you think gutting non-tuition sources of support for R&D is likely to improve that situation?
Yes, MIT is selfishly arguing in its own best interests. Why should we listen? Because the institution exemplifies the qualities we need to forge a brighter future.
Yes, there have been incidents of all those things, but that's quite different from claiming an occupation would go unopposed. For example, pot growers in national parks - they've caught a few trying it, but has the government ever given in and allowed them to do so, knowing where they were, due to corruption or fear? No. And as misguided or reckless as you might find Fast and Furious, the intention was to catch gun runners, which is much different than if a network of senior US officials were caught selling arms to cartels for personal profit (corruption). That is the kind of thing happening in Mexico, and it is truly frightening, because then honest people have no recourse.
By the way, I live next door in New Mexico. I find it interesting that fever pitch over border issues in Arizona is not found here. Are the events on the ground really so different? I think it just shows how much of it is a cultural construct.
Yes, the cartels are already levying taxes in places, but there isn't enough money in Mexico to create problems the Mexicans themselves cannot control. The reason Mexico is overturning is because the cash influx from the drug trade is greater than the tax base, thus the cartels are more powerful than the government. The cartels get their strength, their lifeblood, from drug users here in the US. Without that, the cartels would still want to profit from violence if necessary, but they wouldn't have the means.
And to say "the US obviously isn't going to do anything" about an invasion of Mexican drug cartels is absurd. By arguing we don't kick out migrant workers so we wouldn't kick out narcos, you're equating migrant workers, who bust their butts for meager wages (with the complicity of US business) with narcos who make huge profits, in part by killing people. They are opposites.
Do you want to know why the American economy is swirling down the shitter? It's became Americans have become nancies. They have become sissies, if you will. They don't have the guts to take real risks.
That's incredibly ironic, since the *actual* reason the economy is in the shitter is because of reckless risk-taking (over-leveraging). Boom and bust, greed and fear, the endless cycle.
Secondly, the Chevy Volt has not been banned or recalled, even after the fire. So if anything it's evidence that people do tolerate some level of risk.
It just amazes me so many people will jump in to support an idea that attracts them, even if it flies in the face of the case in point.
Slashdot Mirror
What's easy about it? Statistics show that combining #1 with #2, #3, and #4 is not easy at all. Not just my opinion, but statistics.
It leads to advising women who might otherwise fall into a more conventionally female field to also consider computer science.
I think that's it right there - if you are admitted to an elite school but only on the basis you pay full fare, they don't really want you, and you likely don't really belong there. Go to a cheaper school. But if you not only get admitted but they want you enough to give you a deal, well, what are you waiting for?
Well, surviving a long, cold winter on meager rations isn't considered a "sport," so let's say... jockey?
But perpetual copyright actually does benefit creators, because it increases the market value of their copyrights even before they die. I suppose I could even say, "if you pay me $X now, I will sign a contract that copyright of my works transfers to you upon my death."
Recycling a name for a new incompatible format is a terrible idea. If I have a png image and software that supports pngs, I should be able to read that image, period.
It's very cool either way, but are the wheels in its underbelly powered, or are they passive, leaving the serpentine motion to provide forward impetus? In other words, could it remain perfectly straight and still drive forward?
My answer to that is, they did! I think there's a huge overlap between OWS protesters and disappointed (former?) Obama supporters.
If the press really wanted to understand the Occupy movement, it wouldn't just stand back and complain that the movement is not producing a manifesto. Rather, they would take an empirical approach, by conducting surveys with the protesters, to see which attitudes best characterize them, statistically. (Quick, somebody write an app for that).
I think the Occupy Wall Street movement is tackling an important issue, and co-opting the name for a trivial issue like this is unnecessary and unfortunate.
I agree, but the rationale in your second post is much better than in the first. It's easy to get lazy and assume any leader who draws protest or revolt is illegitimate and must go. I suppose the real test is whether a leader will allow fair elections, and abide by them. Of course there are many shades of gray in election fraud.
Be sure to run such arguments through the Abraham Lincoln test. Quite a few Americans were killed in defense of his "regime."
To me it sounds like much more. The "cores" on a GPU are not equivalent to CPU cores, whereas on Knight's Corner you get 50 actual x86 cores. It is sure to be much more general purpose. From the article: "Unlike other co-processors, the MIC is fully accessible and programmable as though it were a fully functional HPC node." It sounds like a cluster on a chip. I am curious about the memory model.
Do we have some reason to think the intruder in this case built his own toolkit or devised his own methods?
So anybody who can smash a car window and steal a stereo is smarter than the guys who design cars? That is not a logical conclusion.
I think negligence would be *very* hard to establish. First, most computer bugs, including vulnerabilities, are very obvious - in retrospect. Finding the needle in the haystack is easy after somebody points it out to you. That's entirely different than integrating hundreds of software components without creating any "obvious" holes.
Second, how many sysadmins are given all the resources they would like to do their jobs? Security is cost/benefit, like anything else, you devote enough resources to make the pain tolerable, and no more. That means most admins have far more responsibilities than they can cover 100%.
It's true that throwing a bunch of neuron simulators into a pot won't automatically do anything, until you figure out how to program it. But advances in hardware and programming are quite tightly coupled - you make a new machine, then you spend a lot of time figuring out how to get the most out of it, until you find its limitations which inspires the design of the next generation machine.
Turing Completeness gives us the idea that hardware doesn't really matter, since any computer can run any program (if it has enough memory), but this is misleading. For example, you didn't see a lot of cellphone apps written in the 1970's, even though big iron at the time was able to run the algorithms. Similarly, simulating huge neural networks currently requires massive clusters of computers that require thousands of dollars per day in electricity alone. That sharply limits how many people can experiment with them.
I wish I could get more excited about exploring the fundamental issues you raise, but I think we all know how this will turn out. Even if the judge rules in favor of reselling, a new law would be passed within a year or two to close this "loophole."
Did the above really get modded to -1? I think it is correct.
Everybody files taxes. To be considered a big risk for identity theft, there would have to be thousands of cases of identity theft resulting from it. That isn't the case. You would have heard about it.
Names like Cray and Silicon Graphics are associated with a time when most of us could only imagine what incredible technology existed behind closed doors, inaccessible to mere mortals. Now all the excitement is behind commodity items that sell for $500 or less. It's fantastic. Yet, where's the mystique? I miss it.
Check the facts. Private R&D investment has been stagnant since the '60's, but government R&D investment is down by about 66%!
Yeah, top research schools charge bloated undergraduate tuition to support research. Do you think gutting non-tuition sources of support for R&D is likely to improve that situation?
Yes, MIT is selfishly arguing in its own best interests. Why should we listen? Because the institution exemplifies the qualities we need to forge a brighter future.
By the way, I live next door in New Mexico. I find it interesting that fever pitch over border issues in Arizona is not found here. Are the events on the ground really so different? I think it just shows how much of it is a cultural construct.
And to say "the US obviously isn't going to do anything" about an invasion of Mexican drug cartels is absurd. By arguing we don't kick out migrant workers so we wouldn't kick out narcos, you're equating migrant workers, who bust their butts for meager wages (with the complicity of US business) with narcos who make huge profits, in part by killing people. They are opposites.
That's incredibly ironic, since the *actual* reason the economy is in the shitter is because of reckless risk-taking (over-leveraging). Boom and bust, greed and fear, the endless cycle.
Secondly, the Chevy Volt has not been banned or recalled, even after the fire. So if anything it's evidence that people do tolerate some level of risk.
It just amazes me so many people will jump in to support an idea that attracts them, even if it flies in the face of the case in point.