Information isn't the only criteria: it's the quality of the way in which it's delivered. I live in the suburbs of a major mid-western city, and while they have an online trip planner it's worse than useless. It's incredibly picky about case and syntax, typically requires half a dozen "searches" until it comes up with something close to what you want. Doesn't inspire confidence, that's for sure. If nothing else, if Google can keep their information accurate and up-to-date their presentation of it will make them a winner.
Rather than being spread too thin, I think Google's problem is more akin to a typical standing army: they have all these people standing around being paid... you have to find something for them to do. That's just as much true for a few thousand buck privates as it is for a bunch of Ph.D's and engineers.
Yes. And the disturbing trend is that anyone wishing to do so is presumptively considered to be a criminal, or a potential one (or better yet, a "terrorist".) Given how many "spammers, phishing gangs and other net criminals" end up in my Inbox every day I'd say I have a good reason for wanting to keep that information secret. After all, I pay for the disk space used to store my domain information: I should be able to do with it as I will. And considering that domains are essentially a disposable commodity to "net criminals" any effort to require accurate information will, as always, primarily penalize legitimate users.
In other words, you don't want all your credit card issuers crying wolf on a regular basis. I would expect them, at some point, to do just that, and when millions of people start complaining they'll say, "See? Nobody really wants to be notified" and they'll go back to telling us nothing.
The last full-time position from which I resigned was some twenty years ago. The day before I resigned I removed the few personal items from my office (I mean, why wait until after you're escorted out to try and retrieve your personal property? If you're going to quit, prepare for it.) Coincidentally, the next morning I was called come into the owners' office (both of them) and was asked if I really wanted to work for them. I said, "no", and after they got over the shock (it took them several seconds to recover) of one of their programmers say he'd rather be elsewhere, they hauled out the big company checkbook and wrote me my final paycheck and severance pay, according to my contract. I was then asked to clean out my office: more shock when I told them I already had, so I just left the building and that was that.
Truth is, more than most other kinds of employees, software engineering and IT personnel are dangerous to have around if their loyalties are no longer squarely aligned with the organization's own. Could a janitor cause a corporation-wide dislocation in network operations? Could a mid-level manager insert a time-bomb into source for the company's latest product? Certain classes of employee, if so motivated, can produce negative impact that extends well beyond their immediate workgroups.
I agree with another poster, it's generally worse when a worker is fired than when he leaves of his own accord: but sometimes that leaving is motivated by issues that might cause him or her to do something stupid on the way out. The best thing a company can do is accept that the employee is no longer theirs, lock them out of any resources to which they had access, and escort them out of the building. In most cases that I know of, they are allowed to return to their office under supervision to retrieve their belongings. That is the most "professional" way to handle it. At that point, all that matters is whether the company honors its remaining obligations to that worker (severance pay, continuity of benefits, etc.)
Hey... why pick just on today's youth? I mean, you're right, of course, but older criminals like Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers shouldn't escape scrutiny. This problem is much more widespread than a few shoplifters: it is an issue of such magnitude that it's bringing this country to its collective knees. Politicians that make backroom trade deals with foreign powers, for example, and exhibit no remorse when caught selling out their fellow Americans. Corporate "leaders" who cheerfully and with malice aforethought sell out their employee's jobs and retirement funds to make a quick buck. And don't get me started on a whole generation of drain-bamaged MBAs who are just like that kid with the barcode, only with degrees from big-name Universities. None of these sociopaths give a flying you-know-what for the people they hurt, and the only tears they shed are for themselves when they slip up and get nailed.
America is being hoist by its own ethical petard, and we have no-one to blame but ourselves.
malware authors will immediately set up a network of computers to maintain a list of known honeypots so that they can be avoided while propagating. They could call it "WormGuardian", say.
Yeah, well. If they're going to turn that stuff into a product they'll need a better name to make it marketable. Nobody is going to use "smedwi spray" on me, that's for sure. Now, call it "Regeneron" or "Growback Machine" or something like that and it might be popular. Of course, since this is a gene you would some kind of gene replacement therapy to make it do anything.
Where. I'm an American, and given the way the rest of the world is "adapting" to our particularly dangerous brand of IP law (embracing and extending it, even) I'm not convinced that, ultimately, there will be any place to go that isn't third world. I like reliable electric power, I like hot and cold running water, and I like my fast Internet connection. I live quite happily without network television, however. It pains me to think that several thousand years of humanity's slow upward crawl towards technic civilization could be brought down, not by a Hitler, but by a corporate executive who can't see past the end of his own dick.
Seriously, the tendency is to think, "Well, our target market has at least 256 Mb of memory and a 1 Ghz. CPU, so there's plenty of room and no need to optimize". It's easy to start thinking that way, and I suppose exponentially increasing memory demands are what drove manufacturers to keep lowering the cost-per-bit. The problem is that once multitasking operating systems became the rule, an application developer could no longer depend upon having all of a machine's resources to himself, or even a significant fraction. There's still good reason to code efficiently, but nobody seems to want to make the investment. It's just easier to shift the burden of wasteful code onto the users.
But I will say that when I'm evaluating software, I appreciate the occasional well-written gem that I come across, amidst all the bloatware.
I wouldn't rate this as a troll, but for sure the ethnic conflicts that are oh-so-important to people in one part of the world seem trivial to those of another. The enmity between India and Pakistan is bit hard to grasp for an American like me: likewise the bald racism between blacks and whites (and yes, it goes both ways) that has been a part of American culture since our Civil War seems generally perceived as silly by some Europeans I've spoken to.
But when you get right down to it, racism, bigotry... all those things are artifacts of our similarities, points of tangency, more than our differences. It's easy to fear that which is truly different, much harder to hate it.
You should read Pournelle and Niven's Footfall. The not-so-friendly aliens in that book use inertial weapons against the world's militaries: basically rocks with guidance systems dropped from orbit. Cheap, and by their standards simple, and very destructive.
In any event, your original point is valid, and I can't see any military organization on this planet being willing to assume that a race capable of interstellar flight wouldn't be potentially dangerous. I mean, throughout history wars have started over misunderstandings between human beings, and odds are the cultural and linguistic gap between, say, the United States and the Soviet Empire will be tiny compared to humanity and any true alien visitors we may receive. Hell, nobody outside those respective governments really knows just how close the Cold War really came to going nuclear. Now magnify the diplomatic and communications difficulties that existed between those two powers by some unknown (but presumably large) factor, and then see just how comfortable you feel having an alien vessel (or fleet) with entirely unknown (but terrifyingly advanced) capabilities in orbit around Earth. No thanks.
Some of the other posters have gone off on tangents about how evolutionary theory does | does not assure us that "truly advanced" aliens will | will not be peaceful | warlike. Useless, woolly thinking: the truth of the matter is that anyone or anything with more on the ball than you is a threat. Period. The only question is how to eliminate the threat, and that requires detailed knowledge of the potential enemy that we might not have time to acquire. All sciences tend to advance in relation to each other... if he has an interstellar drive odds are his weapons are also up to snuff. Computing? Our best military-grade encryption should be considered useless. What do we do? Probably we'd wait for communications to be established, but what if all the enemy wants is time to get his cloaked attack satellites into orbit? What do we do? The presumption of friendliness due to "advancedness" would be stupid.
Put it this way: the United States has more raw military capability than any other nation for the moment, and that makes us a potential threat whether we ever use it or not. We may say that we won't use it, but how many of you believe us? How many of you would try to eliminate all of us if you could get away with it? And we, at least, are human beings just like you. The mere existence of weapons implies the potential for use, no matter who owns them.
Furthermore, don't forget that we humans are a fractious bunch, and if these hypothetical aliens decided, for example, to ally themselves exclusively with only one nation (China, say, or the U.S., or Russia) that in and of itself could start nukes flying, no matter how friendly the aliens themselves might be. The (correct) presumption would be that any significant advances in scientific or technological capability could have military application. Suppose, for example, these friendly aliens taught their newfound allies how to build a defensive force field to protect their cities from nuclear attack. A pre-emptive strike by that nation's own enemies might seem necessary.
It is possible, I suppose, that the aliens might be like the ones in Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End. Those beings monitored and guided us for centuries, and ultimately for our benefit (at least according to Clarke.) But I wouldn't hold your breath.
Slashdot Mirror
Call it "anxiety" or "concern". It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
ROFRMTP
Rolling On Floor Reading My Toilet Paper.
Ah. It makes so much more sense when you put it that way.
Information isn't the only criteria: it's the quality of the way in which it's delivered. I live in the suburbs of a major mid-western city, and while they have an online trip planner it's worse than useless. It's incredibly picky about case and syntax, typically requires half a dozen "searches" until it comes up with something close to what you want. Doesn't inspire confidence, that's for sure. If nothing else, if Google can keep their information accurate and up-to-date their presentation of it will make them a winner.
... you have to find something for them to do. That's just as much true for a few thousand buck privates as it is for a bunch of Ph.D's and engineers.
Rather than being spread too thin, I think Google's problem is more akin to a typical standing army: they have all these people standing around being paid
Yes. And the disturbing trend is that anyone wishing to do so is presumptively considered to be a criminal, or a potential one (or better yet, a "terrorist".) Given how many "spammers, phishing gangs and other net criminals" end up in my Inbox every day I'd say I have a good reason for wanting to keep that information secret. After all, I pay for the disk space used to store my domain information: I should be able to do with it as I will. And considering that domains are essentially a disposable commodity to "net criminals" any effort to require accurate information will, as always, primarily penalize legitimate users.
... but people have to respect intellectual property.
Why?
In other words, you don't want all your credit card issuers crying wolf on a regular basis. I would expect them, at some point, to do just that, and when millions of people start complaining they'll say, "See? Nobody really wants to be notified" and they'll go back to telling us nothing.
Yes, but in both cases saying "theft" makes it sound cooler. And besides, "copyright infringement" just has too many syllables.
I dunno about the herb thing ... but this is pretty close to that syrup mixture
The last full-time position from which I resigned was some twenty years ago. The day before I resigned I removed the few personal items from my office (I mean, why wait until after you're escorted out to try and retrieve your personal property? If you're going to quit, prepare for it.) Coincidentally, the next morning I was called come into the owners' office (both of them) and was asked if I really wanted to work for them. I said, "no", and after they got over the shock (it took them several seconds to recover) of one of their programmers say he'd rather be elsewhere, they hauled out the big company checkbook and wrote me my final paycheck and severance pay, according to my contract. I was then asked to clean out my office: more shock when I told them I already had, so I just left the building and that was that.
Truth is, more than most other kinds of employees, software engineering and IT personnel are dangerous to have around if their loyalties are no longer squarely aligned with the organization's own. Could a janitor cause a corporation-wide dislocation in network operations? Could a mid-level manager insert a time-bomb into source for the company's latest product? Certain classes of employee, if so motivated, can produce negative impact that extends well beyond their immediate workgroups.
I agree with another poster, it's generally worse when a worker is fired than when he leaves of his own accord: but sometimes that leaving is motivated by issues that might cause him or her to do something stupid on the way out. The best thing a company can do is accept that the employee is no longer theirs, lock them out of any resources to which they had access, and escort them out of the building. In most cases that I know of, they are allowed to return to their office under supervision to retrieve their belongings. That is the most "professional" way to handle it. At that point, all that matters is whether the company honors its remaining obligations to that worker (severance pay, continuity of benefits, etc.)
{sigh} rather makes you wonder if the word "megalomania" has some application to our current Administration.
software piracy rate is rampant
Stop it. Stop it, I say. I can't stand the words "rampant" and "piracy" in the same sentence anymore. And besides, how can a rate be rampant?
So ... are you a meteorologist, or do you just play one on TV?
Hey ... why pick just on today's youth? I mean, you're right, of course, but older criminals like Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers shouldn't escape scrutiny. This problem is much more widespread than a few shoplifters: it is an issue of such magnitude that it's bringing this country to its collective knees. Politicians that make backroom trade deals with foreign powers, for example, and exhibit no remorse when caught selling out their fellow Americans. Corporate "leaders" who cheerfully and with malice aforethought sell out their employee's jobs and retirement funds to make a quick buck. And don't get me started on a whole generation of drain-bamaged MBAs who are just like that kid with the barcode, only with degrees from big-name Universities. None of these sociopaths give a flying you-know-what for the people they hurt, and the only tears they shed are for themselves when they slip up and get nailed.
America is being hoist by its own ethical petard, and we have no-one to blame but ourselves.
malware authors will immediately set up a network of computers to maintain a list of known honeypots so that they can be avoided while propagating. They could call it "WormGuardian", say.
This all came about because of his grade-school nickname ... squeaky.
Yeah, well. If they're going to turn that stuff into a product they'll need a better name to make it marketable. Nobody is going to use "smedwi spray" on me, that's for sure. Now, call it "Regeneron" or "Growback Machine" or something like that and it might be popular. Of course, since this is a gene you would some kind of gene replacement therapy to make it do anything.
Where. I'm an American, and given the way the rest of the world is "adapting" to our particularly dangerous brand of IP law (embracing and extending it, even) I'm not convinced that, ultimately, there will be any place to go that isn't third world. I like reliable electric power, I like hot and cold running water, and I like my fast Internet connection. I live quite happily without network television, however. It pains me to think that several thousand years of humanity's slow upward crawl towards technic civilization could be brought down, not by a Hitler, but by a corporate executive who can't see past the end of his own dick.
You forgot to mention Windows and KDE.
Seriously, the tendency is to think, "Well, our target market has at least 256 Mb of memory and a 1 Ghz. CPU, so there's plenty of room and no need to optimize". It's easy to start thinking that way, and I suppose exponentially increasing memory demands are what drove manufacturers to keep lowering the cost-per-bit. The problem is that once multitasking operating systems became the rule, an application developer could no longer depend upon having all of a machine's resources to himself, or even a significant fraction. There's still good reason to code efficiently, but nobody seems to want to make the investment. It's just easier to shift the burden of wasteful code onto the users.
But I will say that when I'm evaluating software, I appreciate the occasional well-written gem that I come across, amidst all the bloatware.
I wouldn't rate this as a troll, but for sure the ethnic conflicts that are oh-so-important to people in one part of the world seem trivial to those of another. The enmity between India and Pakistan is bit hard to grasp for an American like me: likewise the bald racism between blacks and whites (and yes, it goes both ways) that has been a part of American culture since our Civil War seems generally perceived as silly by some Europeans I've spoken to.
... all those things are artifacts of our similarities, points of tangency, more than our differences. It's easy to fear that which is truly different, much harder to hate it.
But when you get right down to it, racism, bigotry
Toxic Moondust Bounces Like A Cannonball
Cannonballs bounce?
Hard to say ... but it might have been as simple as keeping him out of someone else's hands.
Yes indeed, but since when did double-standards ever trouble Microsoft?
You should read Pournelle and Niven's Footfall. The not-so-friendly aliens in that book use inertial weapons against the world's militaries: basically rocks with guidance systems dropped from orbit. Cheap, and by their standards simple, and very destructive.
... if he has an interstellar drive odds are his weapons are also up to snuff. Computing? Our best military-grade encryption should be considered useless. What do we do? Probably we'd wait for communications to be established, but what if all the enemy wants is time to get his cloaked attack satellites into orbit? What do we do? The presumption of friendliness due to "advancedness" would be stupid.
In any event, your original point is valid, and I can't see any military organization on this planet being willing to assume that a race capable of interstellar flight wouldn't be potentially dangerous. I mean, throughout history wars have started over misunderstandings between human beings, and odds are the cultural and linguistic gap between, say, the United States and the Soviet Empire will be tiny compared to humanity and any true alien visitors we may receive. Hell, nobody outside those respective governments really knows just how close the Cold War really came to going nuclear. Now magnify the diplomatic and communications difficulties that existed between those two powers by some unknown (but presumably large) factor, and then see just how comfortable you feel having an alien vessel (or fleet) with entirely unknown (but terrifyingly advanced) capabilities in orbit around Earth. No thanks.
Some of the other posters have gone off on tangents about how evolutionary theory does | does not assure us that "truly advanced" aliens will | will not be peaceful | warlike. Useless, woolly thinking: the truth of the matter is that anyone or anything with more on the ball than you is a threat. Period. The only question is how to eliminate the threat, and that requires detailed knowledge of the potential enemy that we might not have time to acquire. All sciences tend to advance in relation to each other
Put it this way: the United States has more raw military capability than any other nation for the moment, and that makes us a potential threat whether we ever use it or not. We may say that we won't use it, but how many of you believe us? How many of you would try to eliminate all of us if you could get away with it? And we, at least, are human beings just like you. The mere existence of weapons implies the potential for use, no matter who owns them.
Furthermore, don't forget that we humans are a fractious bunch, and if these hypothetical aliens decided, for example, to ally themselves exclusively with only one nation (China, say, or the U.S., or Russia) that in and of itself could start nukes flying, no matter how friendly the aliens themselves might be. The (correct) presumption would be that any significant advances in scientific or technological capability could have military application. Suppose, for example, these friendly aliens taught their newfound allies how to build a defensive force field to protect their cities from nuclear attack. A pre-emptive strike by that nation's own enemies might seem necessary.
It is possible, I suppose, that the aliens might be like the ones in Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End. Those beings monitored and guided us for centuries, and ultimately for our benefit (at least according to Clarke.) But I wouldn't hold your breath.
that there are a number of crack development teams in India just waiting for a chance to prove themselves.
Go for it.