Yes, generalists are important for the reasons stated in the blurb. But specialists provide grist for the mill of generalists - you can only investigate different combinations of known components for so long.
Today DZERO announced that they did not see any signal where CDF claimed to see one. So one of the two projects has an error in their analysis.
Maybe the first party happened to observe a set of statistically anomalous events, which didn't re-occur when the second party looked into it. Like if I visited the desert for one day and it happened to rain, I might say, "we have reason to suspect this may be a wet climate," but as more people spent more days there trying to replicate my findings they would find this is not the case. That is not necessarily indicative of a mistake on anybody's part.
My question is, why hasn't Apple had the ability to sync the iPhone with iTunes over WiFi from the beginning? If anybody tried to patent such a thing, wouldn't we all be ranting about how obvious and un-patentable it was? I just don't think this functionality can be considered an "idea."
Looks to me like it was the guy who copied Apple's icons in the first place - it's an exact copy of the WiFi icon plus a copy of the Time Machine icon. WOW! He deserves to be a millionaire!
I think this standard is OK, *if* the banks are liable for compromises (as they are with credit/debit cards). Obviously this isn't totally secure, but you have to consider everybody's wasted time when weighing alternatives.
I'm starting to think natural gas will be the winner in all this over the next couple decades. And perhaps, rightly so. It obviously doesn't cut CO2 as much as nuclear, but it's better than coal, and cheaper than nuclear so you can get rid of more coal with the same investment. I would rather see something truly sustainable (solar) take over eventually, and yes I worry about fracking polluting aquifers, but I just don't see solar taking over fast enough.
the privacy concept of facebook is fundamentally flawed as your own private data that you share with friends and family is dependent on the common sense of these friends
Don't blame facebook; that principle is fundamental to security in general. If you share a secret with somebody not trustworthy (whether they're malicious, incompetent, or unknowingly compromised), the cat is out of the bag. DRM faces the same problem; how can I distribute data to people who pay me yet restrict them from redistributing it? You can't, not completely.
This won't stop entirely just because you opted out of Facebook, either. Anybody can post information about you.
I disagree; doctors cannot and should not be making up medicine as they go along. Medical practice (as opposed to medical research) is fundamentally the same as car repair; you map a set of symptoms to the correct treatment. A doctor who imagines himself to have some great inductive gift is a danger to his/her patients, because their eccentricities are almost certainly nothing more than bias, or anomalies in the small sample size constituting their personal experience.
I'm not sure how thinking vs. regurgitating applies here. Computers are far better than people at long chains of deduction, and probabilities, especially ones involving numerous variables, should that become necessary.
But don't get me wrong, I wouldn't yet want to undergo treatment suggested by an expert system without a human doctor reviewing it first. Aside from any "inherent" abilities of computers, it all depends on the quality and suitability of the particular implementation which is something else entirely.
Indeed. Money better spent padding the pockets of Wall Street, bailing out companies that are "too big to (be allowed to) fail", or making and dropping bombs.
How about investing it in more productive space exploration programs? Just because I see poor bang for the buck by the Shuttle and ISS doesn't mean I am against research funding in general or space exploration in particular. Even if you narrow it to manned space exploration, SpaceX is progressing rapidly for the amount of money spent.
Scientists compete against each other for money all the time - it's inherent in the process. So arguing against one research path in favor of another isn't anti-science, not even remotely.
Not gonna happen. The term "cyber security" is ubiquitous in defense and government circles. In fact "cyber" means "cyber security" now. If anything, I expect "cyber" will become more common among the broader field of computer security, the same way "hacker" won out over "cracker."
Surely "app-store only" will not apply to corporate deployments? Where I work, we only apply the updates they tell us to apply, after they test them with our corporate apps etc.
I think he was awarded it principally on the basis of winning the election, thereby breaking the racial barrier that precluded any black American from serving as President of the United States for its first 200+ years. That in itself was historic. Was it worthy of the Nobel? Questionable. It's easier to justify in the case of, say, Nelson Mandela, who served years in prison before winning office in South Africa, and where the transition away from apartheid was more abrupt and so easier to appreciate.
My opinion is, it's a pity, because novel architectures are becoming increasingly rare. Sony took a long shot in trying to replace the GPU with relatively more general-purpose SPUs. It failed, and they ended up falling back to a normal GPU for the PS3. But that doesn't mean the PS4 will be less impressive than the PS3 was at launch, it means the PS4 will be less impressive than the PS3 would have been, had all those R&D yen succeeded in developing a revolutionary architecture.
Does that mean the PC won? I guess, sort of; Sony failed to out-engineer the entire PC industry. But the PS4 probably won't seem any more PC-like in how it is used than any other console. Perhaps even less, since Sony clearly lost interest in making the PS3 useful as a PC (OtherOS).
While the cause is too complicated to detail here, part of the issue was that Airbus believes the computers are highly accurate, and in many cases if there seems to be a discrepancy between what the pilot wants and what the computer wants, it has the computer win.
I disagree with that synopsis, my understanding is the pilot started fighting the autopilot without disengaging it. The plane might have been fine if it had totally disregarded the pilot.
The fact that in some cases the computers can override pilot inputs is one of the few things that make me nervous about Airbus planes.
My understanding of what happened here is the autopilot was automatically disengaged (because it didn't believe the airspeed reading it received) and handed control over to a human, who proceeded to stall and crash the plane. It's too bad the autopilot wasn't programmed simply to do the best it could instead of handing over to the pilot (in the errant assumption a person would do a better job coping with the situation).
During those two minutes, was the airplane catastrophically slowing down?
Yes, because when the autopilot realized it didn't have a good airspeed indication and thus disengaged, the copilot sent the plane into a sudden climb.
The rest is just my speculation - it seems like he wasn't paying much attention, was letting the autopilot do its thing, then when he suddenly had to resume manual control, his first impulse was fear of crashing into the ground, so he yanked back the stick and went into a terrible stall from which they never recovered.
Who do you think invented, produced and sold you the creature comforts you enjoy every day?
Whether you're typing this on a Linux or Windows machine, it was brought to you by a superhero of the real world, be it Torvalds or Gates.
Computers and the software they run (like everything else) are the sum total of the contributions of tens of thousands of people. Some contributed much more than others, but none were indispensable. There is no single person without whom you would not be sitting at a personal computer right now.
Nuclear power wouldn't have a prayer in a truly libertarian society, because strip-mining coal will be the cheapest energy source for decades if not centuries to come. Protecting commons (e.g., air) is a problem that individualism simply does not solve.
Ayn Rand's exasperatingly long novel was never as current, I gotta say.
If this were an Ayn Rand novel, a capitalist superhero would invent a breakthrough energy source and the only problem would be redistribution of the economic benefit. Unfortunately this is the real world, and no such superheroes exist.
I don't think her music can stand on its own, but I enjoyed her performances on SNL as visual spectacle. I am not sure how her performances are supposed to be taken, or if she even has anything particular in mind; maybe it's unintentionally funny, or maybe that is the intention.
Could you start a competing business yourself, and win? If you take that line with your present employer, you need to be ready to do that.
In college I was the sole programmer for a website that became relatively successful. The owner was making a living off it. My equity was 0%. What I learned was that equity has nothing to do with who contributes what; it's simply a matter of who owns what. Think about the stock market; if you buy a few shares of McDonald's, you probably have more equity than 95% of the people who work there.
Slashdot Mirror
We're #2! We're #2!!!
Just doesn't have the same ring to it...
Yes, generalists are important for the reasons stated in the blurb. But specialists provide grist for the mill of generalists - you can only investigate different combinations of known components for so long.
Maybe the first party happened to observe a set of statistically anomalous events, which didn't re-occur when the second party looked into it. Like if I visited the desert for one day and it happened to rain, I might say, "we have reason to suspect this may be a wet climate," but as more people spent more days there trying to replicate my findings they would find this is not the case. That is not necessarily indicative of a mistake on anybody's part.
My question is, why hasn't Apple had the ability to sync the iPhone with iTunes over WiFi from the beginning? If anybody tried to patent such a thing, wouldn't we all be ranting about how obvious and un-patentable it was? I just don't think this functionality can be considered an "idea."
Looks to me like it was the guy who copied Apple's icons in the first place - it's an exact copy of the WiFi icon plus a copy of the Time Machine icon. WOW! He deserves to be a millionaire!
Why not just attach a camera to a brooom handle and swing it around in the bat cloud? It would be far quieter.
I think this standard is OK, *if* the banks are liable for compromises (as they are with credit/debit cards). Obviously this isn't totally secure, but you have to consider everybody's wasted time when weighing alternatives.
I'm starting to think natural gas will be the winner in all this over the next couple decades. And perhaps, rightly so. It obviously doesn't cut CO2 as much as nuclear, but it's better than coal, and cheaper than nuclear so you can get rid of more coal with the same investment. I would rather see something truly sustainable (solar) take over eventually, and yes I worry about fracking polluting aquifers, but I just don't see solar taking over fast enough.
Don't blame facebook; that principle is fundamental to security in general. If you share a secret with somebody not trustworthy (whether they're malicious, incompetent, or unknowingly compromised), the cat is out of the bag. DRM faces the same problem; how can I distribute data to people who pay me yet restrict them from redistributing it? You can't, not completely.
This won't stop entirely just because you opted out of Facebook, either. Anybody can post information about you.
The free market would just build a bunch of nice cheap coal plants with nothing to scrub the pollution but the lungs of the hapless public.
I'm not sure how thinking vs. regurgitating applies here. Computers are far better than people at long chains of deduction, and probabilities, especially ones involving numerous variables, should that become necessary.
But don't get me wrong, I wouldn't yet want to undergo treatment suggested by an expert system without a human doctor reviewing it first. Aside from any "inherent" abilities of computers, it all depends on the quality and suitability of the particular implementation which is something else entirely.
How about investing it in more productive space exploration programs? Just because I see poor bang for the buck by the Shuttle and ISS doesn't mean I am against research funding in general or space exploration in particular. Even if you narrow it to manned space exploration, SpaceX is progressing rapidly for the amount of money spent.
Scientists compete against each other for money all the time - it's inherent in the process. So arguing against one research path in favor of another isn't anti-science, not even remotely.
Here you have two huge programs whose main reason to exist was simply to support the other.
Not gonna happen. The term "cyber security" is ubiquitous in defense and government circles. In fact "cyber" means "cyber security" now. If anything, I expect "cyber" will become more common among the broader field of computer security, the same way "hacker" won out over "cracker."
The reason to top off is because sometimes it clicks off for no apparent reason; you might only have filled half way up so far.
Surely "app-store only" will not apply to corporate deployments? Where I work, we only apply the updates they tell us to apply, after they test them with our corporate apps etc.
I think he was awarded it principally on the basis of winning the election, thereby breaking the racial barrier that precluded any black American from serving as President of the United States for its first 200+ years. That in itself was historic. Was it worthy of the Nobel? Questionable. It's easier to justify in the case of, say, Nelson Mandela, who served years in prison before winning office in South Africa, and where the transition away from apartheid was more abrupt and so easier to appreciate.
Does that mean the PC won? I guess, sort of; Sony failed to out-engineer the entire PC industry. But the PS4 probably won't seem any more PC-like in how it is used than any other console. Perhaps even less, since Sony clearly lost interest in making the PS3 useful as a PC (OtherOS).
I disagree with that synopsis, my understanding is the pilot started fighting the autopilot without disengaging it. The plane might have been fine if it had totally disregarded the pilot.
My understanding of what happened here is the autopilot was automatically disengaged (because it didn't believe the airspeed reading it received) and handed control over to a human, who proceeded to stall and crash the plane. It's too bad the autopilot wasn't programmed simply to do the best it could instead of handing over to the pilot (in the errant assumption a person would do a better job coping with the situation).
Yes, because when the autopilot realized it didn't have a good airspeed indication and thus disengaged, the copilot sent the plane into a sudden climb.
The rest is just my speculation - it seems like he wasn't paying much attention, was letting the autopilot do its thing, then when he suddenly had to resume manual control, his first impulse was fear of crashing into the ground, so he yanked back the stick and went into a terrible stall from which they never recovered.
Computers and the software they run (like everything else) are the sum total of the contributions of tens of thousands of people. Some contributed much more than others, but none were indispensable. There is no single person without whom you would not be sitting at a personal computer right now.
Nuclear power wouldn't have a prayer in a truly libertarian society, because strip-mining coal will be the cheapest energy source for decades if not centuries to come. Protecting commons (e.g., air) is a problem that individualism simply does not solve.
If this were an Ayn Rand novel, a capitalist superhero would invent a breakthrough energy source and the only problem would be redistribution of the economic benefit. Unfortunately this is the real world, and no such superheroes exist.
I don't think her music can stand on its own, but I enjoyed her performances on SNL as visual spectacle. I am not sure how her performances are supposed to be taken, or if she even has anything particular in mind; maybe it's unintentionally funny, or maybe that is the intention.
In college I was the sole programmer for a website that became relatively successful. The owner was making a living off it. My equity was 0%. What I learned was that equity has nothing to do with who contributes what; it's simply a matter of who owns what. Think about the stock market; if you buy a few shares of McDonald's, you probably have more equity than 95% of the people who work there.
Even the owner is dispensable. Few companies are run by their founders. Some crash and burn after the founder leaves, others grow.