If I ran an office, and could only hire highly skilled computer professionals for every job position, I would definitely go for the generic off the shelf products.
It is all percetion. Expensive one trick pony, or a cheap off the shelf extensible solution. Sounds like an easy decision.
Until you start getting bad data because there was no error checking.
Until you 20 users in one access VBA app blow up the database.
Until you realize your business unit is spending all their time trying to learn how to write a macro to turn Word into a Spreadsheet instead of actually making business decisions to make you money.
If we have immortality at 2030, the system will fail in 2031. He wasn't stating a present fact. He was making an anectdotal observation.
The actuarial analyisis on the health depends greatly on the life expectancy being short. if we all suddenly started living to 1000 years, without working a good portion of the extra 933 years after retirement, it most certainly would fail.
Pigs are currency in circles where they have real value. They are not non-negotiable currency though.
Perhaps you should site a reference, not wikipedia.
From Websters:
3. That which is in circulation, or is given and taken as having or representing value; as, the currency of a country; a specie currency; esp., government or bank notes circulating as a substitute for metallic money.
And I think he meant that they (stamps, not pigs) are covered under the same federal statutes as printed money. So, although I agree that currency was a poor choice for expressing his thought, your completely ill advised, pedantic response was even more incorrect.
This got out on the internet. People were openly ridiculing him on radio and television. This BOY was subjected to terrible humiliation.
I agree that we need to be able to laugh at ourselves. But not everyone can. If I can't laugh at myself, that doesn't give you some holy-right-from-on-high to humiliate me mercilessly until I can.
Is it terrible? No, not to me or you. It might cause him a great deal of shame. It isn't your, or anyone elses, decision to make.
It was wrong for who ever released it to have released it.
One of my first jobs as a contrator was to write some software that would eliminate about 50% of the jobs at a particular business.
I got almost sick when this realization hit me.
My program did eliminate about 30-50% of the non-technical, non-managerial staff. I was quite depressed for a little while. The the added efficiency of what my software provided spurred the companies profits, and need for staff again.
We have grown considerably, financially speaking, and acutally grown slightly in the staffing, hiring back quite a few of the people let go, that wanted to come back.
These sorts of improvements mean a business can start to concentrate on things it has always been lacking in, or new areas to grow in.
Well if they'd stop spending tons of money on CD's that they say they aren't buying to stick it to the RIAA, then they could pay it off in 10, like me.
Actually, I will have paid it off in 6. I waited 4 years to take one out.
I am not exactly sure what your point was, but it does underscore that he was being critical of the president in the same post he was claiming US censors its news.
Other people have pointed out that the business decisions of for profit news outlets are not the same thing as censorship, but the refutation of his own claim by the example of his post, that you have underscored, is just hilarious.
(But the point of the quote is, I think, that it should have been "shaken")
Not that I am promoting isolationism, but your point is sort of moot.
In your scenerio China (the government) would realize that once we go down the path of B above, since the 30% middle class is more people than America's middle class, then we will never go to A. Since they know we will never go to A, they will never fear A. Since they won't fear A, they won't change.
Trade sanctions will never work against China, and they know it. For starters, the party members experience a different level of comfort than non-party members, and government officials are even further detached. They know we will hurt ourselves if we impose any trade sanctions, and even if we were willing to take that risk, the officials don't care.
If we stop sending them bread, the government will most likely simply say "Let them eat cake." Or run over them with tanks.
"If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have no need for anonymity."
Slashdot needs to start posting more of these articles from around the world. The less astute among us will still cling to their lack of sensibilities on this subject, but people must start to realize that people really are persecuted for unpopular opinions (Your terrorist is my freedom fighter).
The more pervasive we make anonymity and cryptography everywhere, the easier it will be to protect people that need or deserve to be protected.
1. Handicapped people have mobility problems that might keep them from holding, seeing, or otherwise using any sort of interface. If I am blind, does it yell out my selection to me?
1. Fraudulent machines are instantly tabulated also, and not auditable at all.
3. How's this for progressive. A voting system you can't corrupt, that the people can use, and that can and is audited by external officials and judges from external countries.
Why can we support this for other countries, and not here? Why is Jimmy Carter spending time in other countries ensuring fair elections, and not popping down to Florida?
Of course they should be randomly audited, but against what? Exit polls and past voting demographics by precinct?
This is why electronic voting is such a terrible idea. There is no good way to audit the votes. If you have a reciept that you drop in a box, why not just use paper. If you have some sort of personal identifier, why not just advertise your vote on some website?
Confessions can be, and are, coerced. People trying to protect a loved one often confess with little or no prodding. More simple people, or people not used to the system, can be bullied into confessing to crimes they aren't guilty of, whether they are completely innocent, or just guilty of a lesser crime.
Eyewitnesses are very rarely accurate or dependable. A lot of investigators have been quoted as saying they hate more than 1 eye witness. Not that 1 eyewitness is better, but they only get 1 story.
It is really hard to defend yourself against something you didn't do, when there is no real evidence to support or refute. I can not prove that I did not do something. I might be able to prove I wasn't there, or that the crime would have been tremendously hard for me to have comitted, but I can't prove I did not do it.
If I can be convicted with no real evidence against me, which I can be, what is going to stop corrupt cops from destroying evidence that doesn't support their case.
Re:Someone has been reading too much Cryptonomicon
on
Intro to Encryption
·
· Score: 1
Can you supply a link. I was not aware of the Poles role in the breaking of Enigma, what with all the movies one sees having no bearing on the truth.
Re:I realized something while reading the article.
on
Intro to Encryption
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
They didn't work well, which is why modern cryptography was born. As far as practical goes, practical is a function of necessity.
OTP has the significant shortcoming of key exchange. You have to have a method of distributing keys that will not be compromised. This is extremely hard to do.
If the book ever falls into the wrong hands, then you have to throw everyones book out, and start over. You have to have access to your agents that are inside. Are you just going to send them their new book to the Kremlin, postmark Blechley Park?
It can be done, it is inprenetrible, but has huge risks and shortcomings.
A hard science show that delves into the minutia of the matter, the math, the statistics, the detailed physics or chemistry, is not going to be enjoyable for anyone other than those already in the know.
I am of above average intelligence (however slightly). It isn't that I want to still watch Mr. Wizards World, but I also don't want to follow a statistics lecture, or inherently understand some anscillary chemical reaction, before I learn about a new technology.
My sister, doctorate in chemistry in hand, will not see the same utility in, and will, in fact be quite bored with, a chemistry show that holds my interest. I, on the flip side, wouldn't be able to follow a chemistry program that she would enjoy.
Where do you draw the line of "veneer of stupidity"? I think that is the question that needs to be asked, and the problem that needs to be solved.
That is the whole point. As soon as someone takes it upon themselves to publish your work, annotated, or whatever, you can't control what they are doing.
That is what copyright is all about, controling the use of your information. When someone steals your work, you have lost something very real: Control.
In this case, he is taking very innocuous pictures of a party, and turning them into a soap opera with possibly very bad outcome, or in poor taste.
You are forgetting, that once you made shareholders accountable, they would make themselves heard.
They would also realize that awarding a billion dollar award for pouring hot coffee on oneself will cost them money. Maybe they aren't invested in McDonalds, but their landlord is, or the company they are invested in has a similar lawsuit in the wings.
And it really woulnd't be the death of the small investor. My 10 shares in Microsoft would only garner me a couple hundered dollars of a loss in a billion dollar lawsuit. It might actually improve the markets distribution of shares, leaving the large investors less likely to shove the weight of their money around in one spot.
Slashdot Mirror
He needed some time to put his name on some one elses project, and write a configuration script authoring tool for it.
Yes.
If I ran an office, and could only hire highly skilled computer professionals for every job position, I would definitely go for the generic off the shelf products.
It is all percetion. Expensive one trick pony, or a cheap off the shelf extensible solution. Sounds like an easy decision.
Until you start getting bad data because there was no error checking.
Until you 20 users in one access VBA app blow up the database.
Until you realize your business unit is spending all their time trying to learn how to write a macro to turn Word into a Spreadsheet instead of actually making business decisions to make you money.
Starting at the post.
If we have immortality at 2030, the system will fail in 2031. He wasn't stating a present fact. He was making an anectdotal observation.
The actuarial analyisis on the health depends greatly on the life expectancy being short. if we all suddenly started living to 1000 years, without working a good portion of the extra 933 years after retirement, it most certainly would fail.
Pay attention.
Pigs are currency in circles where they have real value. They are not non-negotiable currency though.
Perhaps you should site a reference, not wikipedia.
From Websters:
3. That which is in circulation, or is given and taken as having or representing value; as, the currency of a country; a specie currency; esp., government or bank notes circulating as a substitute for metallic money.
And I think he meant that they (stamps, not pigs) are covered under the same federal statutes as printed money. So, although I agree that currency was a poor choice for expressing his thought, your completely ill advised, pedantic response was even more incorrect.
We need to dupe some poor spam creating company to push a spam email through one of these Chinese ISP's that claims Taiwan independance.
As soon as that happens, the Chinese government will shut down the spam servers in a heart beat.
Maybe we could convince Eddie Veder to try to spam the world about freeing Tibet.
Take it on the chin and laugh with his mates?
This got out on the internet. People were openly ridiculing him on radio and television. This BOY was subjected to terrible humiliation.
I agree that we need to be able to laugh at ourselves. But not everyone can. If I can't laugh at myself, that doesn't give you some holy-right-from-on-high to humiliate me mercilessly until I can.
Is it terrible? No, not to me or you. It might cause him a great deal of shame. It isn't your, or anyone elses, decision to make.
It was wrong for who ever released it to have released it.
Does anyone remember when Caldera was suing MS?
Whatever happened to that suit?
One of my first jobs as a contrator was to write some software that would eliminate about 50% of the jobs at a particular business.
I got almost sick when this realization hit me.
My program did eliminate about 30-50% of the non-technical, non-managerial staff. I was quite depressed for a little while. The the added efficiency of what my software provided spurred the companies profits, and need for staff again.
We have grown considerably, financially speaking, and acutally grown slightly in the staffing, hiring back quite a few of the people let go, that wanted to come back.
These sorts of improvements mean a business can start to concentrate on things it has always been lacking in, or new areas to grow in.
Well if they'd stop spending tons of money on CD's that they say they aren't buying to stick it to the RIAA, then they could pay it off in 10, like me.
Actually, I will have paid it off in 6. I waited 4 years to take one out.
Geeks fixing user mistakes aren't what we are talking about here.
These are the people that are still loading tapes at night.
These are the people loading the letterhead for this job, and the the pre-printed bills for that job.
Not techs, not admins, not developers. Operators.
One of the single largest reasons they are phasing out is electronic documents. A true paperless office would kill more than 50% of these jobs.
I am not exactly sure what your point was, but it does underscore that he was being critical of the president in the same post he was claiming US censors its news.
Other people have pointed out that the business decisions of for profit news outlets are not the same thing as censorship, but the refutation of his own claim by the example of his post, that you have underscored, is just hilarious.
(But the point of the quote is, I think, that it should have been "shaken")
Not that I am promoting isolationism, but your point is sort of moot.
In your scenerio China (the government) would realize that once we go down the path of B above, since the 30% middle class is more people than America's middle class, then we will never go to A. Since they know we will never go to A, they will never fear A. Since they won't fear A, they won't change.
Trade sanctions will never work against China, and they know it. For starters, the party members experience a different level of comfort than non-party members, and government officials are even further detached. They know we will hurt ourselves if we impose any trade sanctions, and even if we were willing to take that risk, the officials don't care.
If we stop sending them bread, the government will most likely simply say "Let them eat cake." Or run over them with tanks.
"If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have no need for anonymity."
Slashdot needs to start posting more of these articles from around the world. The less astute among us will still cling to their lack of sensibilities on this subject, but people must start to realize that people really are persecuted for unpopular opinions (Your terrorist is my freedom fighter).
The more pervasive we make anonymity and cryptography everywhere, the easier it will be to protect people that need or deserve to be protected.
1. Handicapped people have mobility problems that might keep them from holding, seeing, or otherwise using any sort of interface. If I am blind, does it yell out my selection to me?
1. Fraudulent machines are instantly tabulated also, and not auditable at all.
3. How's this for progressive. A voting system you can't corrupt, that the people can use, and that can and is audited by external officials and judges from external countries.
Why can we support this for other countries, and not here? Why is Jimmy Carter spending time in other countries ensuring fair elections, and not popping down to Florida?
Of course they should be randomly audited, but against what? Exit polls and past voting demographics by precinct?
This is why electronic voting is such a terrible idea. There is no good way to audit the votes. If you have a reciept that you drop in a box, why not just use paper. If you have some sort of personal identifier, why not just advertise your vote on some website?
Confessions can be, and are, coerced. People trying to protect a loved one often confess with little or no prodding. More simple people, or people not used to the system, can be bullied into confessing to crimes they aren't guilty of, whether they are completely innocent, or just guilty of a lesser crime.
Eyewitnesses are very rarely accurate or dependable. A lot of investigators have been quoted as saying they hate more than 1 eye witness. Not that 1 eyewitness is better, but they only get 1 story.
It is really hard to defend yourself against something you didn't do, when there is no real evidence to support or refute. I can not prove that I did not do something. I might be able to prove I wasn't there, or that the crime would have been tremendously hard for me to have comitted, but I can't prove I did not do it.
If I can be convicted with no real evidence against me, which I can be, what is going to stop corrupt cops from destroying evidence that doesn't support their case.
Can you supply a link. I was not aware of the Poles role in the breaking of Enigma, what with all the movies one sees having no bearing on the truth.
They didn't work well, which is why modern cryptography was born. As far as practical goes, practical is a function of necessity.
OTP has the significant shortcoming of key exchange. You have to have a method of distributing keys that will not be compromised. This is extremely hard to do.
If the book ever falls into the wrong hands, then you have to throw everyones book out, and start over. You have to have access to your agents that are inside. Are you just going to send them their new book to the Kremlin, postmark Blechley Park?
It can be done, it is inprenetrible, but has huge risks and shortcomings.
A hard science show that delves into the minutia of the matter, the math, the statistics, the detailed physics or chemistry, is not going to be enjoyable for anyone other than those already in the know.
I am of above average intelligence (however slightly). It isn't that I want to still watch Mr. Wizards World, but I also don't want to follow a statistics lecture, or inherently understand some anscillary chemical reaction, before I learn about a new technology.
My sister, doctorate in chemistry in hand, will not see the same utility in, and will, in fact be quite bored with, a chemistry show that holds my interest. I, on the flip side, wouldn't be able to follow a chemistry program that she would enjoy.
Where do you draw the line of "veneer of stupidity"? I think that is the question that needs to be asked, and the problem that needs to be solved.
They designed this backward, because they were thinking backward with their measurments.
Just another example of why the US should be using the metric system. The antiquated english measurement system is the root cause of this problem.
The meter, and the cubic meter are the natural measurements, existing and demonstrated time and again throughout nature.
Did video kill the radio star?
And still not to mention how chopped up the original cartoon was from the dark, underground, college campus comic that started it all.
The cartoon was a pale comparison to the comic.
"If they weren't crude about it."
That is the whole point. As soon as someone takes it upon themselves to publish your work, annotated, or whatever, you can't control what they are doing.
That is what copyright is all about, controling the use of your information. When someone steals your work, you have lost something very real: Control.
In this case, he is taking very innocuous pictures of a party, and turning them into a soap opera with possibly very bad outcome, or in poor taste.
You are forgetting, that once you made shareholders accountable, they would make themselves heard.
They would also realize that awarding a billion dollar award for pouring hot coffee on oneself will cost them money. Maybe they aren't invested in McDonalds, but their landlord is, or the company they are invested in has a similar lawsuit in the wings.
And it really woulnd't be the death of the small investor. My 10 shares in Microsoft would only garner me a couple hundered dollars of a loss in a billion dollar lawsuit. It might actually improve the markets distribution of shares, leaving the large investors less likely to shove the weight of their money around in one spot.
I think it is more probable that they finally changed the password on the server that housed the questions.