I have to laugh at this. Somehow young guys always come off like they're never going to be an "older guy". Most of the fears you list result from immaturity; as you grow older, you learn to respect people first, rather than challenge them, and to do all the other things you list (learn, take orders, eschew cynicism, integrate with a team). It's the young bucks that typically lack these skills.
BTW, I'm being specifically sexist here. Virtually all of the woman software engineers I've been privileged to work with start out with most of the positive attributes.
I highly recommend joining the Association for Computing Machinery, which is the preeminent computing society for software engineers (hardware engineers can play too). It's $200/year and worth every penny. You get access to a large online course library, a huge subset of O'Reilly's Safari Online books, and the entire history of all ACM computing journals, which often have landmark articles available nowhere else.
It's also worth seeing if a local ACM chapter is near you. You can connect at one of their meetings to any number of subject matter experts, who may well be willing to mentor you.
"Do you really think AI will not follow a moore type law? It will probably be even more aggressive."
NO, it will follow "The Dartmouth Law", which simply stated, is that AI predictions have been scaling back their expectations exponentially since 1956, and will steadily approach the certainty that AI is not possible.
The discipline of AI was founded at a conference at Dartmouth College, organized by AI pioneer John McCarthy, in the summer of 1956. Attendees would be the leaders of AI research for decades. Many predicted that a machine as intelligent as a human being would exist in no more than a generation and they were given millions of dollars i grants to achieve this goal. It was quickly obvious that researchers had grossly underestimated the difficulty of machine intelligence. Afer nearly 20 years of no progress, in response to the criticism of James Lighthill and ongoing pressure from congress, the U.S. and British Governments stopped funding undirected AI research. A few years later the Japanese Government drank the koolaid, and gave governments and industry billions of dollars for AI research. Before 1990 Japan recognized the waste and withdrew funding, demolishing AI research for a second time. This cycle continues to this day.
Which word? Plagiarist? Anthropogenic? Science? Censorship? Irony? Discussion? You seem to have your own definition for each of these. I side with Noah Webster myself.
Your reaction illustrates my point precisely. You automatically assume that somebody offering data contradicting your (presumed) belief in anthropogenic global warming is an "anti-science fool". Now, when a person such as yourself is also in position to squelch public discussion against their position, in a public forum such as Slashdot, and does do precisely that, that is censorship. The irony here is that my post was not about global warming per se, but about censorship itself. So we have Slashdot censoring a discussion of censorship. The irony twists tightly indeed.
It says "first time accepted submitter" because I've submitted before and been rejected, in my opinion because of liberal bias. A previous (unaccepted) post of mine noted that several major news networks had ignored a significant story reporting a study showing climactic temperature decline. Of course, with/. there is no discussion, no appeal. Only speedy, unexplained censorship.
P.S. I don't know Timothy.
I did copy your previous post, after I replied to it and Slashdot for some reason deleted the whole article. I had saved a copy and reposted to help propagate this inportant example of TSA idiocy. I didn't give you credit because you're the kind of person that calls someone a plagiarist for simply reposting the existence and summary of a widely available news item. You plagiarist, you;)
The EU is doomed to a steady slide into bureaucratic sludge, making it uncompetitive and irrelevant. Great for the U.S., where innovation still thrives (despite Nathan Myhrvold's defense of patent trolling and other intellectual property extorts).
I saw Mike Daisey cut off a woman's hand and feed it to her dog. For money.
No, wait. I didn't. That was theater.
Re:So simulation models are not as good as we thou
on
Physics Is (NP-)Hard
·
· Score: 1
Kate McAlpine, who wrote the story for Science Magazine, specifically says this is a statement from the team that wrote the paper:
Mathematicians recognize a set of truly hard problems that can't be simplified, Cubitt explains. They also know that these problems are all variations of one another. By showing that the challenge of turning physics data into equations is actually one of those problems in disguise, the team showed this task is also truly hard. As a result, any general algorithm that turns a data set into a formula that describes the system over time can't be simplified so that it can run on a computer, the team reports in an upcoming issue of Physical Review Letters.
Strawman alert: Nobody has said simulations yield formulas. They use descriptive formulas, which are derived from empirical data such as weather statistics (temperature, humidity, air flow, etc). The whole point of the article is that such equations, upon which climate simulations do indeed depend, are not easily derived and may not be reliable in many cases. Thus the projections produced by simulations are not as reliable as we thought. Hardly sophomoric. GIGO
Re:So simulation models are not as good as we thou
on
Physics Is (NP-)Hard
·
· Score: 1
Really? Then why did the authors say:
"any general algorithm that turns a data set into a formula that describes the system over time can't be simplified so that it can run on a computer"
in an upcoming issue of Physical Review Letters? Seems like simulation of complex systems like climate are NP-Hard, which cast serious doubt on the models employed by proponents of human-induced climate change.
So simulation models are not as good as we thought
on
Physics Is (NP-)Hard
·
· Score: 1
"we show that, remarkably, identifying the underlying dynamical equation from any amount of experimental data, however precise, is a provably computationally hard problem"
Hmmm... dynamical equations for systems such as CLIMATE?
The Internet would not have been possible without the PSTN, it's true. But the ability to purchase high speed point-to-point circuits (e.g., greater than 56 Kbps) didn't occur until after divestiture. Divestiture caused the carriers to compete in the only unregulated area, business communications services. This resulted in an explosion in business communications, starting with the availability of T1 (1.544 Mbps) circuits in 1984. Although the first ARPANET connections used 56 Kbps DDS circuits, the commercial Internet could not begin growing until T1 circuits were deployed. I was there.
Sheesh. The judge clearly stated ""I find and conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer,"
Let me make the case that lessons in chemical engineering should be compulsory learning for modern school kids. Chemical plants help us automate and repeat the many complicated steps that make up the manufacture of materials that pervade our lives: whether that's a biologist attempting to titrate a water sample or an office administrator tasked with filling a warehouse with paper. The use of chemicals is a big part of what make us human, and the chemical plant is humanity's most fundamental source of consumer goods. The chemical plant makes us more efficient, and enables and empowers us to achieve far more than we ever could otherwise. Yet the majority of us are entirely dependent on a select few, to enable us to achieve what we want. Chemical engineering is the act of giving chemical workers and machines steps to perform. This is true whether the output is vinegar, linseed oil or Rhodamine 6G. If you can't engineer chemical synthesis, you are forced to rely on those that can to ensure that you can benefit from the greatest tool at your disposal.
Actually, yes, being bootstrapped should result in a long-term debt to the tax payer, because AT&T could not have existed without that bootstrapping.
Um, NO. the Public Switched Telephone Network would not have existed if the government hadn't bootstrapped AT&T's Bell System, which is not the AT&T of today. The government granted a temporary monopoly so that private enterprise could get the public rights-of-way needed to construct a coast-to-coast voice network. Then the government broke up that monopoly in 1982, creating the "Baby Bells". Since then, company names and assets have been sold and swapped so many times that there is no longer any financial or legal connection back to the original Bell System.
The result of complete privatization has been massively good for the consumer: plummeting long distance rates, huge end-user interface improvements that the monopoly-AT&T had sat upon (such as digital voice and feature packages), and The Internet.
Ignorance is embarrassing, Garriden. When you say "harvesting fetuses is not how we get embryonic stem cells; excess fertilized embryos are a byproduct of in vitro fertilization," you neglected to note that the difference between "embryo" and "fetus" is an arbitrary time interval (eight weeks post in vitro). There is no definitive functional demarcation between the two stages. For example, at week 5 the embyo has a heartbeat. At week 7 the head eyes develop. Week 9 brings toes, eyelids, and ears form. No single developmental step draws a bright line between embryo and fetus.
.
The difference between harvesting embryos and harvesting fetuses is purely semantic. Both are fertilized, living cells, and both are, in the eyes of the U.S. Supreme Court, a person when gestating within a woman. On a scientific level, if they're people within the womb, they're still people outside the womb. Science doesn't make the legal distinction based on location.
Without a doubt we are harvesting people to get embryonic stem cells. You can argue the ethics of harvesting people in the service of a greater good if the people would be thrown away anyway. But the distinction between embryo and fetus is no divider between object and person.
Please, inform yourself.
I use Cocoon (GetCoccon.com). It's free, and they are very clear in their privacy policy that they don't store logs tracking where you go:
.
"Inside Cocoon we do not track where you go or what you do online... Only operational information, such as processing speed or what features are under greatest demand, may be used to ensure Cocoon provides the best possible performance and experience to our users."
There is the question of how enforceable this promise is, since Cocoon is ad-supported. It's in their privacy policy, however, so I presume that is legally binding on them. I like that Cocoon comes right out and say that they don't track anything, though. Does any other proxy do that?
This looks like a complete abdication of the dictionary definition of biological evolution, which requires genetic changes as a result of random mutations. According to the paper, Radcliff "observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes" -- existing genotypes, not new ones. No discussion of a mutating agent, just direct environmental manipulation.
That's not evolution. In anyone's book.
Yes. Plus Airframes and Powerplants. You haven't shopped until you've shopped with a cart sporting an Allison 250-C18 turboshaft engine and a five-blade main rotor.
Amazing development from such a tiny operation! However, I recommend he employ a professional welder. The one rather important-looking weld he shows in a pic looks a little dodgy.
For cat's sake, if somebody is paying attention at Slashdot, please change the false headline! Nerds can dicker over the semantics, but "The Register Hacked" is clearly false, as is the body text: "Looks like The Register has been hacked..."
I suggest the following much more informative and accurate headline and body:
NetNames Hacked, Turks temporarily hijack The Register's DNS
NetNames formal statement:
At approximately 2100BST on Sunday 4 September 2011 a very small number of customer domains were redirected to an unauthorised domain name server (DNS server). This was done by placing unauthorised re-delegation orders through to the registries via our provisioning system. These orders updated the address of the master DNS servers responsible for serving data for these domains. The rogue name server then served incorrect DNS data to redirect legitimate web traffic intended for customer web sites through to a hacker holding page branded TurkGuvenligi. The unauthorised orders were added by using a SQL injection attack to gain access to a number of our customer accounts.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to laugh at this. Somehow young guys always come off like they're never going to be an "older guy". Most of the fears you list result from immaturity; as you grow older, you learn to respect people first, rather than challenge them, and to do all the other things you list (learn, take orders, eschew cynicism, integrate with a team). It's the young bucks that typically lack these skills.
BTW, I'm being specifically sexist here. Virtually all of the woman software engineers I've been privileged to work with start out with most of the positive attributes.
I highly recommend joining the Association for Computing Machinery, which is the preeminent computing society for software engineers (hardware engineers can play too). It's $200/year and worth every penny. You get access to a large online course library, a huge subset of O'Reilly's Safari Online books, and the entire history of all ACM computing journals, which often have landmark articles available nowhere else.
It's also worth seeing if a local ACM chapter is near you. You can connect at one of their meetings to any number of subject matter experts, who may well be willing to mentor you.
"Do you really think AI will not follow a moore type law? It will probably be even more aggressive."
NO, it will follow "The Dartmouth Law", which simply stated, is that AI predictions have been scaling back their expectations exponentially since 1956, and will steadily approach the certainty that AI is not possible.
The discipline of AI was founded at a conference at Dartmouth College, organized by AI pioneer John McCarthy, in the summer of 1956. Attendees would be the leaders of AI research for decades. Many predicted that a machine as intelligent as a human being would exist in no more than a generation and they were given millions of dollars i grants to achieve this goal. It was quickly obvious that researchers had grossly underestimated the difficulty of machine intelligence. Afer nearly 20 years of no progress, in response to the criticism of James Lighthill and ongoing pressure from congress, the U.S. and British Governments stopped funding undirected AI research. A few years later the Japanese Government drank the koolaid, and gave governments and industry billions of dollars for AI research. Before 1990 Japan recognized the waste and withdrew funding, demolishing AI research for a second time. This cycle continues to this day.
Which word? Plagiarist? Anthropogenic? Science? Censorship? Irony? Discussion? You seem to have your own definition for each of these. I side with Noah Webster myself.
Your reaction illustrates my point precisely. You automatically assume that somebody offering data contradicting your (presumed) belief in anthropogenic global warming is an "anti-science fool". Now, when a person such as yourself is also in position to squelch public discussion against their position, in a public forum such as Slashdot, and does do precisely that, that is censorship. The irony here is that my post was not about global warming per se, but about censorship itself. So we have Slashdot censoring a discussion of censorship. The irony twists tightly indeed.
It says "first time accepted submitter" because I've submitted before and been rejected, in my opinion because of liberal bias. A previous (unaccepted) post of mine noted that several major news networks had ignored a significant story reporting a study showing climactic temperature decline. Of course, with /. there is no discussion, no appeal. Only speedy, unexplained censorship.
P.S. I don't know Timothy.
I did copy your previous post, after I replied to it and Slashdot for some reason deleted the whole article. I had saved a copy and reposted to help propagate this inportant example of TSA idiocy. I didn't give you credit because you're the kind of person that calls someone a plagiarist for simply reposting the existence and summary of a widely available news item. You plagiarist, you ;)
The EU is doomed to a steady slide into bureaucratic sludge, making it uncompetitive and irrelevant. Great for the U.S., where innovation still thrives (despite Nathan Myhrvold's defense of patent trolling and other intellectual property extorts).
No, wait. I didn't. That was theater.
Mathematicians recognize a set of truly hard problems that can't be simplified, Cubitt explains. They also know that these problems are all variations of one another. By showing that the challenge of turning physics data into equations is actually one of those problems in disguise, the team showed this task is also truly hard. As a result, any general algorithm that turns a data set into a formula that describes the system over time can't be simplified so that it can run on a computer, the team reports in an upcoming issue of Physical Review Letters.
Strawman alert: Nobody has said simulations yield formulas. They use descriptive formulas, which are derived from empirical data such as weather statistics (temperature, humidity, air flow, etc). The whole point of the article is that such equations, upon which climate simulations do indeed depend, are not easily derived and may not be reliable in many cases. Thus the projections produced by simulations are not as reliable as we thought. Hardly sophomoric. GIGO
"any general algorithm that turns a data set into a formula that describes the system over time can't be simplified so that it can run on a computer"
in an upcoming issue of Physical Review Letters? Seems like simulation of complex systems like climate are NP-Hard, which cast serious doubt on the models employed by proponents of human-induced climate change.
Hmmm... dynamical equations for systems such as CLIMATE?
The Internet would not have been possible without the PSTN, it's true. But the ability to purchase high speed point-to-point circuits (e.g., greater than 56 Kbps) didn't occur until after divestiture. Divestiture caused the carriers to compete in the only unregulated area, business communications services. This resulted in an explosion in business communications, starting with the availability of T1 (1.544 Mbps) circuits in 1984. Although the first ARPANET connections used 56 Kbps DDS circuits, the commercial Internet could not begin growing until T1 circuits were deployed. I was there.
.
Obviously, Macs are excluded.
The telling question to see where the real issue lies is this one: do you believe a fetus just before birth is a person?
Let me make the case that lessons in chemical engineering should be compulsory learning for modern school kids. Chemical plants help us automate and repeat the many complicated steps that make up the manufacture of materials that pervade our lives: whether that's a biologist attempting to titrate a water sample or an office administrator tasked with filling a warehouse with paper. The use of chemicals is a big part of what make us human, and the chemical plant is humanity's most fundamental source of consumer goods. The chemical plant makes us more efficient, and enables and empowers us to achieve far more than we ever could otherwise. Yet the majority of us are entirely dependent on a select few, to enable us to achieve what we want. Chemical engineering is the act of giving chemical workers and machines steps to perform. This is true whether the output is vinegar, linseed oil or Rhodamine 6G. If you can't engineer chemical synthesis, you are forced to rely on those that can to ensure that you can benefit from the greatest tool at your disposal.
Actually, yes, being bootstrapped should result in a long-term debt to the tax payer, because AT&T could not have existed without that bootstrapping.
Um, NO. the Public Switched Telephone Network would not have existed if the government hadn't bootstrapped AT&T's Bell System, which is not the AT&T of today. The government granted a temporary monopoly so that private enterprise could get the public rights-of-way needed to construct a coast-to-coast voice network. Then the government broke up that monopoly in 1982, creating the "Baby Bells". Since then, company names and assets have been sold and swapped so many times that there is no longer any financial or legal connection back to the original Bell System.
The result of complete privatization has been massively good for the consumer: plummeting long distance rates, huge end-user interface improvements that the monopoly-AT&T had sat upon (such as digital voice and feature packages), and The Internet.
.
The difference between harvesting embryos and harvesting fetuses is purely semantic. Both are fertilized, living cells, and both are, in the eyes of the U.S. Supreme Court, a person when gestating within a woman. On a scientific level, if they're people within the womb, they're still people outside the womb. Science doesn't make the legal distinction based on location.
Without a doubt we are harvesting people to get embryonic stem cells. You can argue the ethics of harvesting people in the service of a greater good if the people would be thrown away anyway. But the distinction between embryo and fetus is no divider between object and person. Please, inform yourself.
.
"Inside Cocoon we do not track where you go or what you do online... Only operational information, such as processing speed or what features are under greatest demand, may be used to ensure Cocoon provides the best possible performance and experience to our users."
There is the question of how enforceable this promise is, since Cocoon is ad-supported. It's in their privacy policy, however, so I presume that is legally binding on them. I like that Cocoon comes right out and say that they don't track anything, though. Does any other proxy do that?
This looks like a complete abdication of the dictionary definition of biological evolution, which requires genetic changes as a result of random mutations. According to the paper, Radcliff "observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes" -- existing genotypes, not new ones. No discussion of a mutating agent, just direct environmental manipulation. That's not evolution. In anyone's book.
Cocoon is a proxy that is trustworthy, fast, and has some slick extra features. Http://GetCocoon.com
Yes. Plus Airframes and Powerplants. You haven't shopped until you've shopped with a cart sporting an Allison 250-C18 turboshaft engine and a five-blade main rotor.
I'm a licensed A&P mechanic. The bead is very uneven and the joint on the left side looks poorly formed.
Amazing development from such a tiny operation! However, I recommend he employ a professional welder. The one rather important-looking weld he shows in a pic looks a little dodgy.
I suggest the following much more informative and accurate headline and body:
NetNames Hacked, Turks temporarily hijack The Register's DNS
NetNames formal statement: At approximately 2100BST on Sunday 4 September 2011 a very small number of customer domains were redirected to an unauthorised domain name server (DNS server). This was done by placing unauthorised re-delegation orders through to the registries via our provisioning system. These orders updated the address of the master DNS servers responsible for serving data for these domains. The rogue name server then served incorrect DNS data to redirect legitimate web traffic intended for customer web sites through to a hacker holding page branded TurkGuvenligi. The unauthorised orders were added by using a SQL injection attack to gain access to a number of our customer accounts.