He lobbed the "voter attention redirection" handgrenade 11 days before the election, which had the effect of making non-committal swing voters think "damn, the person I'm thinking of voting for is probably a criminal - the FBI is investigating her."
From that moment to the election day, the "poll question" became "is Hillary criminal or not?" as opposed to "can we risk that Trump bozo?".
checking out the comment section as suggested on the show for an automated botnet DDOS attack kind of just paints the FCC leadership as technoramouses (contraction of "technology ignoramous").
Just the kind of duffoons you want deciding on tech regulation policy.
"The Trump Administration - Preparing America for a Knowledge Freedom Economy"
In that case, with enough development of AI sophistication, it could peruse the scientific articles published in the fields of atmospheric physics and chemistry, climate modelling, and in basic physics (absorption/emission spectra of different molecules etc) and draw its own conclusions.
The beauty is, the computer program wouldn't care how hot it's going to get or not, or how big of a truck it wants to buy or not. It would just report out on how the facts and probabilities fit together. Data from "all sides" of the human debate would no doubt be input.
and the reason people have bought bigger vehicles (and thus not helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions) as fuel efficiency increased is because governments did not have the mental acuity and testicular fortitude to increase gas taxes as fuel efficiency increased, which would have led to people having the same cost as before for operating a vehicle of the same size as before, so they would have stuck with the smaller vehicles they were happy enough with before (and are still happy with in most other countries in the world.)
If you want to use efficiency gains for environmental benefit, you must increase the cost per unit of the input fuel at a rate equal to the efficiency gains. That reduces the consumption of the fuel in the economy and the emissions, and has no negative impact on utility. It's so logical that it has no chance in hell of ever being adopted as government policy.
But a good system can use scientific process, observation, measurement, bias-detection, logic, probability, model formation etc. so that if all it is getting in input is garbage, it will know that and refuse to output based on it, other than to say "It's pretty much all garbage. - except for this little bit here - there seems to be a grain of potential truth there. - no, squint more - just there."
Actually doesn't most of the finance-based economy just hum along based on random "churn" and promises?
Have you ever stopped to think that probably 90% of the businesses you see at any given moment on the web and walking down the street are unprofitable from the get-go and destined to fail. Just slowly, while creating a few jobs here and there in the process. What does support all of this anyway? Raw, fallacious faith? Well if the placebo effect works, maybe just go with it?
It will shortly be possible to build a kind of philosopher-king AI which can evaluate the credibility of various models of what's going on in the world, and thus the credibility of various assertions about the world or about what is a good plan.
It could be given heuristics about evaluating the interests and allegiances of utterers of assertions, and factor those out. Disinterested parties are more likely to be more objective in their description of a situation and their prescription for fixing "bad" situations. Parties/sources with only passing beneficiary interest in the outcome, and with education in and demonstrated sound use of logic and probability, would be given more credibility, a priori, until proven wrong. etc.
The system would have to have a model of group-allegiance and group-think and group-speak etc. so that it could properly discount it.
Here's what you need to do: 1) Make sure that software-delivered idea is novel, useful, fits a strong need, and is going to be usable easily. 2) Hire the smartest developers you can who also are friendly and have a good work ethic. 3) Have a good process (e.g. OKRs) for ensuring focus (prioritized but adaptable focus). 4) Have a good process for exploratory development and iterations/sprints with re-prioritization after each version. 5) Have a good process for eliminating technical debt as you go.
Then you just have to trust that you'll get the best thing you could have got, in the time and money you allocate.
You have to hope that it's good enough to be a minimum viable product. If not, you simply couldn't afford to put together a software product in the first place, and no amount of estimating would have changed that.
No. F**k it. Internet pipes in your country are like the road network or the telephone network. It should be considered public infrastructure with egalitarian access. It's pretty F'ing simple.
Getting rid of net neutrality regulations is like saying "It's ok. Just set up your highway robbery checkpoint in the middle of the on-ramp to the highway, but make sure to let your business partners limos through without paying the ransom."
because all good cable companies (and gubments) know that what consumers want is to be spoon-fed Pay TV, not to have general, flexible, peer to peer, decentralized (let's just come right out and say it "COMMUNISTIC") Internet. Please tell me I don't need sarcasm quotes around that.
So then we can expect removal of the burdensome, ineffective regulation of psychotropic drugs such as cannabis etc etc to quickly follow, I am confident. (By your logic).
Unfortunately we're currently unburying and burning 400 years worth of old trees per year. Can't compensate for that by growing trees (one year's worth of trees per year). We're off by two orders of magnitude.
Yeah, today if only reboots frequently because someone let Bill Gates run the first successful software and OS company, and we've been paying the price of sloppy design at the core ever since. For contrast, some of my linux servers have uptimes measured in multiple years. Possible if your security strategy is firewall the hell out of it and leave it un-upgraded for stability.
If you were any good and had a "serious" program to build, you would realize the lack of a) structured loops b) structured if then else c) conventional ways of passing arguments into subroutines
in early basic and learn by experience how to invent all of those out of re-usable patterns of gotos and assignments.
This was actually really good for you, kind of like Army bootcamp.
Hopefully you later realized that PL/1 was roughly the worst idea in computing, ever.
On the plus side, it did have the property. I seem to remember, that you could feed a Shakespeare sonnet into the compiler and it would compile it as a valid program.
Apple BASIC (friend's dad was an accountant and had an AppleII+), FORTRAN (punch card which grd 12 physics teacher took to school board's computer at another school. Results printed out on teletype in the physics classroom.) PASCAL (1st year comp sci). assembly language (learned how shitty i86 architecture was compared to motorola 68000) TTL boolean logic (traffic light timing controller using car sensor input from each street, that was fun) SmallTalk and Forth (making "ForthTalk" for 32kB RAM BBC microcomputer) at a summer job PL/1, LISP, Prolog C++
That (a series or network of tubes) was actually a pretty good analogy to describe internet and its data flow to lay people.
Bandwidth, latency etc can be well understood with this analogy.
I think the people who laughed at this description of the Internet are severely imagination-deficient. And no, I have no idea what political side the guy who described the net thus is on, so I have no axe to grind either way.
Explaining by good analogy is actually an intellectual skill and a gift. Kind of like a box of chocolates...
Slashdot Mirror
He lobbed the "voter attention redirection" handgrenade 11 days before the election, which had the effect of making non-committal swing voters think "damn, the person I'm thinking of voting for is probably a criminal - the FBI is investigating her."
From that moment to the election day, the "poll question" became "is Hillary criminal or not?" as opposed to "can we risk that Trump bozo?".
After all it was Comey who got him elected.
checking out the comment section as suggested on the show for an automated botnet DDOS attack kind of just paints the FCC leadership as technoramouses (contraction of "technology ignoramous").
Just the kind of duffoons you want deciding on tech regulation policy.
"The Trump Administration - Preparing America for a Knowledge Freedom Economy"
Or, you know, the sun to power the machines.
https://blog.google/topics/env...
Luckily, our rockets travel kilometers, not miles, as in "10 kilometers down range - all systems nominal". So I think we're good.
In that case, with enough development of AI sophistication, it could peruse the scientific articles published in the fields of atmospheric physics and chemistry, climate modelling, and in basic physics (absorption/emission spectra of different molecules etc) and draw its own conclusions.
The beauty is, the computer program wouldn't care how hot it's going to get or not, or how big of a truck it wants to buy or not. It would just report out on how the facts and probabilities fit together. Data from "all sides" of the human debate would no doubt be input.
and the reason people have bought bigger vehicles (and thus not helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions) as fuel efficiency increased is because governments did not have the mental acuity and testicular fortitude to increase gas taxes as fuel efficiency increased, which would have led to people having the same cost as before for operating a vehicle of the same size as before, so they would have stuck with the smaller vehicles they were happy enough with before (and are still happy with in most other countries in the world.)
If you want to use efficiency gains for environmental benefit, you must increase the cost per unit of the input fuel at a rate equal to the efficiency gains. That reduces the consumption of the fuel in the economy and the emissions, and has no negative impact on utility. It's so logical that it has no chance in hell of ever being adopted as government policy.
But a good system can use scientific process, observation, measurement, bias-detection, logic, probability, model formation etc. so that if all it is getting in input is garbage, it will know that and refuse to output based on it, other than to say "It's pretty much all garbage. - except for this little bit here - there seems to be a grain of potential truth there. - no, squint more - just there."
that's the way to do it.
Just do something, anything! Shake it!
Actually doesn't most of the finance-based economy just hum along based on random "churn" and promises?
Have you ever stopped to think that probably 90% of the businesses you see at any given moment on the web and walking down the street are unprofitable from the get-go and destined to fail. Just slowly, while creating a few jobs here and there in the process. What does support all of this anyway? Raw, fallacious faith? Well if the placebo effect works, maybe just go with it?
It will shortly be possible to build a kind of philosopher-king AI which can evaluate the credibility of various models of what's going on in the world, and thus the credibility of various assertions about the world or about what is a good plan.
It could be given heuristics about evaluating the interests and allegiances of utterers of assertions, and factor those out. Disinterested parties are more likely to be more objective in their description of a situation and their prescription for fixing "bad" situations. Parties/sources with only passing beneficiary interest in the outcome, and with education in and demonstrated sound use of logic and probability, would be given more credibility, a priori, until proven wrong. etc.
The system would have to have a model of group-allegiance and group-think and group-speak etc. so that it could properly discount it.
Here's what you need to do:
1) Make sure that software-delivered idea is novel, useful, fits a strong need, and is going to be usable easily.
2) Hire the smartest developers you can who also are friendly and have a good work ethic.
3) Have a good process (e.g. OKRs) for ensuring focus (prioritized but adaptable focus).
4) Have a good process for exploratory development and iterations/sprints with re-prioritization after each version.
5) Have a good process for eliminating technical debt as you go.
Then you just have to trust that you'll get the best thing you could have got, in the time and money you allocate.
You have to hope that it's good enough to be a minimum viable product. If not, you simply couldn't afford to put together a software product in the first place, and no amount of estimating would have changed that.
I use "double it and add 30".
The nice thing about this rule of thumb is it also works pretty good for converting Celsius to Fahrenheit.
No. F**k it. Internet pipes in your country are like the road network or the telephone network. It should be considered public infrastructure with egalitarian access.
It's pretty F'ing simple.
Getting rid of net neutrality regulations is like saying "It's ok. Just set up your highway robbery checkpoint in the middle of the on-ramp to the highway, but make sure to let your business partners limos through without paying the ransom."
because all good cable companies (and gubments) know that what consumers want is to be spoon-fed Pay TV, not to have general, flexible, peer to peer, decentralized (let's just come right out and say it "COMMUNISTIC") Internet. Please tell me I don't need sarcasm quotes around that.
So then we can expect removal of the burdensome, ineffective regulation of psychotropic drugs such as cannabis etc etc to quickly follow, I am confident. (By your logic).
Unfortunately we're currently unburying and burning 400 years worth of old trees per year. Can't compensate for that by growing trees (one year's worth of trees per year). We're off by two orders of magnitude.
You mean other than Godzilla-sized caterpillars roaming downtown streets eating people because of their delicious nylon candy coating?
Gabbing, food-plate moneyshots, selfie-admiration and laughing at animals does not necessarily lead to productivity.
Yeah, today if only reboots frequently because someone let Bill Gates run the first successful software and OS company, and we've been paying the price of sloppy design at the core ever since. For contrast, some of my linux servers have uptimes measured in multiple years. Possible if your security strategy is firewall the hell out of it and leave it un-upgraded for stability.
I totally disagree.
If you were any good and had a "serious" program to build, you would realize the lack of
a) structured loops
b) structured if then else
c) conventional ways of passing arguments into subroutines
in early basic and learn by experience how to invent all of those out of re-usable patterns of gotos and assignments.
This was actually really good for you, kind of like Army bootcamp.
Hopefully you later realized that PL/1 was roughly the worst idea in computing, ever.
On the plus side, it did have the property. I seem to remember, that you could feed a Shakespeare sonnet into the compiler and it would compile it as a valid program.
Apple BASIC (friend's dad was an accountant and had an AppleII+),
FORTRAN (punch card which grd 12 physics teacher took to school board's computer at another school. Results printed out on teletype in the physics classroom.)
PASCAL (1st year comp sci).
assembly language (learned how shitty i86 architecture was compared to motorola 68000)
TTL boolean logic (traffic light timing controller using car sensor input from each street, that was fun)
SmallTalk and Forth (making "ForthTalk" for 32kB RAM BBC microcomputer) at a summer job
PL/1, LISP, Prolog
C++
the soy protein is probably healthier food than chicken meat.
That (a series or network of tubes) was actually a pretty good analogy to describe internet and its data flow to lay people.
Bandwidth, latency etc can be well understood with this analogy.
I think the people who laughed at this description of the Internet are severely imagination-deficient. And no, I have no idea what political side the guy who described the net thus is on, so I have no axe to grind either way.
Explaining by good analogy is actually an intellectual skill and a gift. Kind of like a box of chocolates...
Hey naysayers,
Just shut up and get out of the way of those doing it.
Hey fossil-fueled, dinosaur-brained federal government, just shut up and get out of the way of those doing it.