I followed your link and I don't see anything insipid about the show's description at all. It will be a fascinating psychological experiment and if it were broadcast through a subversive OGG video you'd probably think it was an amazingly cool underground thing to watch. But its broadcast on commercial television and therefore mainstream and therefore insipid. (although that implies that Jericho was insipid too, which would jibe with many of the negative reviews in this thread)
If I were the founder of a startup, the last thing I would do is take the money of a VC. That money is heavily tainted. Taking it would be akin to committing suicide. The only way I would take it is if it came with a contract that clearly stated that I would remain in complete control of the company as if I had not taken the funds at all. And I doubt any VC would ever sign such an agreement.
VCs sign such agreements all of the time. By definition if outside investors have less than 50% of the voting stock of the company then they do not have control. If you read the article you'll see that Graham gets 5-6% of the company. This means that he is very far away from having control of the company. I don't believe that Y Combinator has ever replaced the management of a company that they ran and I don't see how they could with such little equity.
Even in a more normal situation where a VC might want control of the company, there are many, many circumstances where their interests and those of the founders align. They do not always align, but they often do. People accepting VC money are not necessarily stupid. They take a risk to get money that they might not be able to succeed without. If your competitors are using VC money to grow much more quickly than you are then it makes more sense to shop around for VCs you can work with than to let them crush you through better capitalized marketing or a larger sales force. Google is a perfect example of one of these "VC-suicides" you talk about.
It appears IBM didn't dispute claims of mass layoffs either. They only discounted Cringley's numbers. IBM seems to be using Cringley's number problem as a red herring agaist the existence of coming layoffs.
I don't really think that it is IBM's responsibility to tie their hands by promising this or that. If Cringley is wrong on the most notable and falsifiable fact of the matter then why should we believe he is right on anything?
I remember first seeing this technique around 1997! I don't know how they are managing to reignite media interest in this idea that they've been flogging for a decade.
They might have made a systemic decision that a) handing with random stuff from one process to another is a security hole and b) if customers' applications can be made more reliable and repeatable then that is a good thing and not something to be ashamed of!
The question posed is "Is it Time for an Open Source Certificate Authority?" But the description does not address the question. Rather it addresses the question of whether there is an open source certificate authority. First: someone needs to define what it means for a service to be "open source". Second, they need to describe why anyone should care whether a service is open source. That would be a better start to the dicussion than a laundry list of certificate providers.
the REASON is that the anti-evolution crew is spreading their genetic material and creating offspring to advance their agenda, and the pro-science pro-evolution crew is cutting off their genetic material with families of 0-2 children.
Genes do not determine our religion (though there may be some currently unmeasured correlation). Priests can become atheists after witnessing a traumatic event and vice versa.
Our professional athletes, scientists and Engineers produce far fewer children than those at the bottom of our social order. For the sake of our species, I would advise you all (Creationists and Evolutionist) to pray (To Jesus or Darwin) that human intelligence is not seriously impacted by our genetic makeup.
What makes you think that people at the bottom of our social order necessarily have "lesser" genes than those at the top? Your reference to professional athletes is especially telling.
What do those rantings have to do with the price of tea in China? Why do you mention them? To discredit anyone who cares about the environmentalist as essentially a wacko? I don't see the relevance except as an ad hominim attack meant to discredit the great mainstream who DOES care about the environment.
The idea is that humans assist computers, providing what is cutely named artificial artifical intelligence.
You can spin this as "humans assisting computers" but you can just as easily think of it as humans doing work in a workflow dictated by computers. This idea is very, very, common. I mean a call-center is just a place where humans "help" computers to answer questions from other humans. And an IT support system is a place where humans "help" computers to solve the IT problems of other humans. Amazon has a workflow system paired with an odd job market. It's innovative and cool but its not "artificial artificial intelligence."
So here's what you should be asking yourselves: What is your time worth?
That approach is very short-sighted. You should instead be asking what new applications of photo editing this sort of thing will open up. You might want to do an investigation into how new product development happens: it isn't typically by trying to exactly duplicate the use-cases of established players. I would tell you all about it but I'm too busy integrating snipshot into the web app I'm building. And yes: it's an app for grandma (and your teen-aged nephew and...other people who don't even know what Photoshop is). What's wrong with that?
If it is going to be profitable and sustainable to provide this facility why do they need to raise sales taxes? Because the truth is they expect to make a net loss each year and need additional tax revenue to break even.
The people of Dona Ana county want their county to be the "Silicon Valley" or "Hollywood" or "Wall Street" of the commercial space business. It's a gamble, but on that they have a right to make. Governments all over the world are making similar investments and sometimes they work and other times they do not. It would be foolish for the people of New Mexico to declare that other states and countries are making targeted investments to build future-oriented businesses but New Mexico is above that sort of thing.
So you figure that anyone who claims to hate Microsoft but think that they are not always implacably and irredeemably evil must be a shill of one sort or the other?
Your grandparent didn't really say anything that controversial. Viewed from an early 1990s point of view, Windows NT and OS/2 did have a lot in common in that they were 32-bit, protected memory, pre-emptive multithreaded operating systems with a Windows API. Windows NT was supposed to be a continuation of the OS/2 line of operating systems. Yes, you are right that it was VMS-inspired and the team had influential VMS refugees. But anyhow, Bill Gates didn't predict the split with IBM and therefore didn't know that their future next generation operating system would be branded Windows instead of OS/2.
One fine example is a rare known fact that the first 4 references in a method are potentially faster to access than any others.
If a Java programmer who worked for me told me that they had reordered methods in a class in order to take advantage of a transient implementation detail of a specific JVM on a specific CPU, I would be sorely tempted to fire them.
I don't know how you can say all that without mentioning that the standard streaming format for the CBC is Windows Media. As far as show downloads: I can find no rhyme or reason. Some shows are in RealAudio, some in Windows Media, some in MP3. Every show maintains their own archives HTML page, sometimes well and sometimes poorly. There obviously is no overarching strategy when it comes to digital distribution which is a sad state of affairs in 2007.
Okay, but there are more straightforward ways to learn about the difference between a 32-bit number and a 64-bit one than using assembly. For example you could learn C, which is the language your database is implemented in. In fact, databases have such a complicated abstraction that you'd better learn a lot more about how their paging and indexing works etc. than how the C code that implements them is rendered into assembly language.
My philosophy is that you should know the layer beneath the layer you program on. Let's say you're working on Groovy code which is half-interpreted and half-compiled on a JVM which is written in C, perhaps using JIT or perhaps not, running on a CPU. Nothing that you can possibly known about how registers work or how jumps work will help you to understand the performance of your program several layers up -- especially given that your program will run on several different runtimes optimized in several different ways on several different CPUs.
But if you're going to program in Groovy then you should know Java and perhaps JVM IL. If you're going to program in C then you should know assembly. If you're programming in assembly then you should know about how CPUs will reorder your instructions etc. If you're building a CPU, then you'd better know physics.
I really don't think that if you're writing an app in Rails/Javascript/SQL you are going to achieve any performance or debugging benefits by understanding assembly language. It's just knee-jerk to say that every programmer, no matter what they do day-to-day should be knowledgeable about assembly. The same effort expended learning about the layer UNDER your development environment would have a much better payoff. E.g. a Javascript programmer reading the Firefox source code (or at least benchmarking FireFox and IE on important operations). With each level deeper you go, you achieve quickly diminishing returns.
Mod parent up. Grandparent's point is ridiculous on so many levels it isn't even funny. It would be horrendously expensive to make OpenBSD into a credible XP successor. It might be a smart move in the long run (probably not) but it certainly would not be substantially cheaper than developing Vista. Furthermore, a deep rewrite like that would exacerbate all of the bureaucratic issues that make development hard at Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
I followed your link and I don't see anything insipid about the show's description at all. It will be a fascinating psychological experiment and if it were broadcast through a subversive OGG video you'd probably think it was an amazingly cool underground thing to watch. But its broadcast on commercial television and therefore mainstream and therefore insipid. (although that implies that Jericho was insipid too, which would jibe with many of the negative reviews in this thread)
If I were the founder of a startup, the last thing I would do is take the money of a VC. That money is heavily tainted. Taking it would be akin to committing suicide. The only way I would take it is if it came with a contract that clearly stated that I would remain in complete control of the company as if I had not taken the funds at all. And I doubt any VC would ever sign such an agreement.
VCs sign such agreements all of the time. By definition if outside investors have less than 50% of the voting stock of the company then they do not have control. If you read the article you'll see that Graham gets 5-6% of the company. This means that he is very far away from having control of the company. I don't believe that Y Combinator has ever replaced the management of a company that they ran and I don't see how they could with such little equity.
Even in a more normal situation where a VC might want control of the company, there are many, many circumstances where their interests and those of the founders align. They do not always align, but they often do. People accepting VC money are not necessarily stupid. They take a risk to get money that they might not be able to succeed without. If your competitors are using VC money to grow much more quickly than you are then it makes more sense to shop around for VCs you can work with than to let them crush you through better capitalized marketing or a larger sales force. Google is a perfect example of one of these "VC-suicides" you talk about.
It appears IBM didn't dispute claims of mass layoffs either. They only discounted Cringley's numbers. IBM seems to be using Cringley's number problem as a red herring agaist the existence of coming layoffs.
I don't really think that it is IBM's responsibility to tie their hands by promising this or that. If Cringley is wrong on the most notable and falsifiable fact of the matter then why should we believe he is right on anything?
I wish I had mod points...
The Cylons are religious and religion doesn't have to make sense.
I remember first seeing this technique around 1997! I don't know how they are managing to reignite media interest in this idea that they've been flogging for a decade.
AMD and Intel exist to keep each other at bay.
And here I thought that they exist to make their shareholders money. Silly me.
They might have made a systemic decision that a) handing with random stuff from one process to another is a security hole and b) if customers' applications can be made more reliable and repeatable then that is a good thing and not something to be ashamed of!
The question posed is "Is it Time for an Open Source Certificate Authority?" But the description does not address the question. Rather it addresses the question of whether there is an open source certificate authority. First: someone needs to define what it means for a service to be "open source". Second, they need to describe why anyone should care whether a service is open source. That would be a better start to the dicussion than a laundry list of certificate providers.
Are you looking for a definition of the Internet, a description of the Internet or an analogy for the Internet? Those are three different things.
The definition is fairly easy: "The dominant global network of interconnected computers."
How do you respond to this: http://kleercut.net/en/node/26
the REASON is that the anti-evolution crew is spreading their genetic material and creating offspring to advance their agenda, and the pro-science pro-evolution crew is cutting off their genetic material with families of 0-2 children.
Genes do not determine our religion (though there may be some currently unmeasured correlation). Priests can become atheists after witnessing a traumatic event and vice versa.
Please re-read my post and that of the parent. The topic was "human intelligence."
Our professional athletes, scientists and Engineers produce far fewer children than those at the bottom of our social order. For the sake of our species, I would advise you all (Creationists and Evolutionist) to pray (To Jesus or Darwin) that human intelligence is not seriously impacted by our genetic makeup.
What makes you think that people at the bottom of our social order necessarily have "lesser" genes than those at the top? Your reference to professional athletes is especially telling.
What do those rantings have to do with the price of tea in China? Why do you mention them? To discredit anyone who cares about the environmentalist as essentially a wacko? I don't see the relevance except as an ad hominim attack meant to discredit the great mainstream who DOES care about the environment.
The idea is that humans assist computers, providing what is cutely named artificial artifical intelligence.
You can spin this as "humans assisting computers" but you can just as easily think of it as humans doing work in a workflow dictated by computers. This idea is very, very, common. I mean a call-center is just a place where humans "help" computers to answer questions from other humans. And an IT support system is a place where humans "help" computers to solve the IT problems of other humans. Amazon has a workflow system paired with an odd job market. It's innovative and cool but its not "artificial artificial intelligence."
So here's what you should be asking yourselves: What is your time worth?
That approach is very short-sighted. You should instead be asking what new applications of photo editing this sort of thing will open up. You might want to do an investigation into how new product development happens: it isn't typically by trying to exactly duplicate the use-cases of established players. I would tell you all about it but I'm too busy integrating snipshot into the web app I'm building. And yes: it's an app for grandma (and your teen-aged nephew and...other people who don't even know what Photoshop is). What's wrong with that?
If it is going to be profitable and sustainable to provide this facility why do they need to raise sales taxes? Because the truth is they expect to make a net loss each year and need additional tax revenue to break even.
The people of Dona Ana county want their county to be the "Silicon Valley" or "Hollywood" or "Wall Street" of the commercial space business. It's a gamble, but on that they have a right to make. Governments all over the world are making similar investments and sometimes they work and other times they do not. It would be foolish for the people of New Mexico to declare that other states and countries are making targeted investments to build future-oriented businesses but New Mexico is above that sort of thing.
So you figure that anyone who claims to hate Microsoft but think that they are not always implacably and irredeemably evil must be a shill of one sort or the other?
Your grandparent didn't really say anything that controversial. Viewed from an early 1990s point of view, Windows NT and OS/2 did have a lot in common in that they were 32-bit, protected memory, pre-emptive multithreaded operating systems with a Windows API. Windows NT was supposed to be a continuation of the OS/2 line of operating systems. Yes, you are right that it was VMS-inspired and the team had influential VMS refugees. But anyhow, Bill Gates didn't predict the split with IBM and therefore didn't know that their future next generation operating system would be branded Windows instead of OS/2.
One fine example is a rare known fact that the first 4 references in a method are potentially faster to access than any others.
If a Java programmer who worked for me told me that they had reordered methods in a class in order to take advantage of a transient implementation detail of a specific JVM on a specific CPU, I would be sorely tempted to fire them.
I don't know how you can say all that without mentioning that the standard streaming format for the CBC is Windows Media. As far as show downloads: I can find no rhyme or reason. Some shows are in RealAudio, some in Windows Media, some in MP3. Every show maintains their own archives HTML page, sometimes well and sometimes poorly. There obviously is no overarching strategy when it comes to digital distribution which is a sad state of affairs in 2007.
Okay, but there are more straightforward ways to learn about the difference between a 32-bit number and a 64-bit one than using assembly. For example you could learn C, which is the language your database is implemented in. In fact, databases have such a complicated abstraction that you'd better learn a lot more about how their paging and indexing works etc. than how the C code that implements them is rendered into assembly language.
My philosophy is that you should know the layer beneath the layer you program on. Let's say you're working on Groovy code which is half-interpreted and half-compiled on a JVM which is written in C, perhaps using JIT or perhaps not, running on a CPU. Nothing that you can possibly known about how registers work or how jumps work will help you to understand the performance of your program several layers up -- especially given that your program will run on several different runtimes optimized in several different ways on several different CPUs.
But if you're going to program in Groovy then you should know Java and perhaps JVM IL. If you're going to program in C then you should know assembly. If you're programming in assembly then you should know about how CPUs will reorder your instructions etc. If you're building a CPU, then you'd better know physics.
I really don't think that if you're writing an app in Rails/Javascript/SQL you are going to achieve any performance or debugging benefits by understanding assembly language. It's just knee-jerk to say that every programmer, no matter what they do day-to-day should be knowledgeable about assembly. The same effort expended learning about the layer UNDER your development environment would have a much better payoff. E.g. a Javascript programmer reading the Firefox source code (or at least benchmarking FireFox and IE on important operations). With each level deeper you go, you achieve quickly diminishing returns.
Mod parent up. Grandparent's point is ridiculous on so many levels it isn't even funny. It would be horrendously expensive to make OpenBSD into a credible XP successor. It might be a smart move in the long run (probably not) but it certainly would not be substantially cheaper than developing Vista. Furthermore, a deep rewrite like that would exacerbate all of the bureaucratic issues that make development hard at Microsoft.