I have already heard that assumption that a compiler can generate better code than a programmer a thousand of times, but it does not get more true by repeating it - it is false.
The metric that I given in my university computer architecture class was that a compiler can generate better code than 90% of assembly programmers. Which, when I examine higher level code written by a variety of programmers, some good, some bad, makes sense. Some people know all the details of a language and some don't. Some pay attention and some don't. I'm pretty sure it was backed up by a reference to an IEEE paper somewhere.
If large numbers humans could reliably write large volumes of high quality, optimized code, at high speed, we'd still be using assembly everywhere. But they can't. I certainly don't have the time or the inclination to learn all the ins and outs of every instruction set architecture I operate on to squeze every last bit of juice out of the machine. And I certainly am unwilling to give up the expresiveness of a highlevel compiled language.
But ultimately, the fraction of people that need to write things like texture mapping loops is very small, and the fact of the matter is that the loop is probably embeded in some higher level piece of code. So relax, compilers reliably produce better code than the majority of assembly programmers (maybe not on/.). Or more precisely, better machine code, than the majority of programmers, if they were asked to write assembly. --locust
Obsenity is NOT protected under the first amendment. Why is it that most of slashdot disagree? It's been ruled by the Supreme Court that obsenity is not protected.
[snip] This isn't about free speach, stuff like this isn't protected. It's about keeping the same standards that already apply to libraries to the new medium of the internet. It's not censorship if it's censoring things that aren't protected under the 1st amendment.
No, this is about who decides what is obscene. Deciding that something is or is not obsecene is a matter of freedom of thought (speech). And, that is protected.
If a society is to function, then it must be able to justify why somethings are not done, not seen, or not written. Simply erasing these, will not stamp them out. Otherwise someone else will think of them, try them, etc. Usually precisely because they are not spoken of (etc.). The individuals in the society must agree to a law if it is to function. They must find it reasonable. In order to do this they must reason about it. And they can't if the idea has already been restricted by somebody.
But, blocking 'obscene' sites is just the cheap fix for parenting. Rather than explaining to children why a parent thinks that porn is wrong (if a parent thinks that) and in the process (maybe) figuring out if the postion is justified. Porn or whatever is just blocked. Now along with it, whatever else is blocked, things that the parents would otherwise think is ok can be blocked. (Does the library throw away National Geographic because they show stone age cultures in thier natural state?) The free exchange of ideas is controlled and blocked. And another generation of cattle (much like thier parents) are produced.
I adhere in some ways to the Behaviorist notion that what matters about intelligence is a) what goes into the machine and b) what comes out. There is nothing else. If you feel that there is more going on inside you than what can be summarized by your external stimuli and your external reactions, then you are mistaken. You are only observing an internalized output to external stimuli. The feedback you would normally express in the outside world is instead being piped directly to your brain's input valve.
So what goes into the machine? And what comes out? And does the machine come with some internal state?
When you were born had you already begun to process inputs? Are you an extension of your mothers original state?
What you assert is fine in theory, but now try to nail it down, and apply it. The behaviorist tried, and failed miserably. (B.F. Skinner the behaviorist managed to screw up his kids by trying to teach them with stimulus response pairs).
Consider, in order to know all the inputs and outputs to a human being we need to know everything that is impacting them at this very moment. The new state of the human machine is a combination of its current state (lets say fedback inputs) and its current inputs. Thus we also need to know everything that has ever impacted them in the past. If you suppose that a child shares part of the mothers state, you must know all the inputs she had (and her mother, and so on). Even if you don't then the amount of data you need is monsterous. Now throw in physics theory that says we can't know the precise position or momentum of particle simultanously, or that electrons exist with certain probablilities in certain orbits, and none of this huge pool of data is certain. Now, on top of this your machine is self programming, on unknown stimuli (i.e. the same stimuli affect different human machines differently under identical external conditions)... And behaviorism appears to be a dead end until such time as we learn more about our universe.
It may be that it is through arrogance that we assume that we can know everything.
Having said that, any credit card company willing to issue a card to an addict should be prepared to accept some degree of responsibility for the conseequences. If you wave a bottle of whiskey in front of an alchoholic, the chances are they're not going to just close their eyes & ignore it.
How does the credit card company know you're a gambling addict without profiling you? If you become an addict after they've given you the card do they still have some responsibliity? Or can they ask you to tell them you have a problem? Or can they demand you ask just a few 'personal' questions?
While credit card companies do already profile thier users spending habits to a certain extent to make sure that the card has not been lost or stolen (i.e. I spend $4000 one day after averaging $100/month for that last year they will tell the next merchant to call you) I would find the sort of tracking where they ask me questions periodically too intrusive. And I suspect so would a large number of other people. Thus a credit card company has no way to know if you're an addict. Even then, would you want them to know? They would probably never give you credit again, and trash your credit record.
In this vein, there was a proposed law (it may have been a bank initiative) a little while ago that would require banks to be able to predict the spending of thier customers. It drew plenty of fire from privacy advocates, with good reason -Its nobodies business what I do with my money.
By asking corporations to be responsible for the habits of thier customers, in cases like this (faulty breaks are a different matter), you are not only inviting but forcing the corporation to take a much larger interest in your private life then I suspect you would like.
THe fof written by Jackson was so poorly constructed from a legal point of view that any appeal is likely to succeed regardless of the merits of the case. The fof contains many holes and overreaching conclusions that any judge would find unexceptable. Don't be surprised if the Supreme Court orders Jackson to try again.
Please explain/elaborate. All the legal analysis I've heard has been to the contrary. Maybe I'm hearing what I want to hear. How are the judges overall conclusions "overreaching"?
BTW-> I read your previous post on the subject, but it appears to be a proof by induction from one example. You add, "That is only one example of some of the questionable findings from a legal point of view that judge jackson made." If this is the case, can you cite some other examples of whats wrong with the decision? I'd like to know why all the lawyers (who have been following the trial) who looked at this up until now missed what appear some vital points. Finally, if as you say, "He is right about some things - MS does things that are restrictive and anticompetive and the court should require that MS change some of its practice." On what legal basis can he [Judge Jackson] or you (over?)reach such a conclusion if the FOF cannot stand -as your posts suggests?
The Register posted a rumor that it was going to be last friday. Now slashdot is posting rumors that its today. I don't know how reliable the source is, but I get the feeling that there will be rumors that every friday 'is it', from now until the finding of fact actually appears.
I know its hard, but lets just wait until Judge Jackson decides/is ready to present his finding of fact.
Seems to me they're probably using "Maglev" as a term people who have read Popular Science would be familliar with, but they must be really talking about a Mass Driver.
No, They're talking about using magnetic levitation, a linear motor.
Further, given that they are talking about trying to supply power only to small portions of the track at a time, I would guess they are trying to cut down costs for a really long track. As far as I understand the technology (and some of you physics guys can help me out here, 'cause its been a while since I looked at it) all the really expenisve bits (i.e. used for cooling) can go into the vehicle, and the track can be just turned off and on in time. The track both suspends and propels the vehicle.
The reall problem is shielding any human passanger from the magnetic fields that are going to be in the area. The shielding is gona be heavy. But There was at least one human usable maglev at an airport in england, so it is doable.
Scanning through the list of recomendations at the end of the mindcraft article they mention Carefully examine all software being installed on the servers. There's one thing they missed in this direction. When you are designing/writing a web based application, start thinking about security when you start building the app. You need to consider:
any known flaws/holes in the technologies you are going to use and how you can circomvent them if necessary,
how the new app. will interact with your existing secure infrastructre, and
how your app may get recycled in the future to do something slightly different that could impact your site's security.
These days I figure that any app. written, thats going to go online needs to be checked for security impact before the design is finished. Otherwise it shouldn't make it to a production server. I'd rather do more work up front, and save myself the trouble later when I can't take it down to fix it -'cause its already being used.
For example, *no* features are to be added after the design phase, unless it is absolutely critical the requestors understand the implications to the schedule (ie, more features = more implementation = more testing)
God, I wish it worked that way. But managers/buyers/etc. by thier very nature (in my experience) can rarely know the technical technical ramifications of thier requests. Thier job is to paint in broad strokes. If they had to pay attention to all the details they couldn't actually do thier jobs. Like come up with new stuff for you to do.
The next problem is what one of my co-workers calls suits with enough of a technical clue to be dangerous. These will try to dictate the technology you will use regardless of what is actually required/best. The problem here is that they think they know the complexity of the changes being made!
I think he understands that it's necessary for him to accept criticism now, but he's not ready to forgive me for offering that criticism. Waiting is.
This is probably not my place, but:
Bruce, don't act like a child. You have a grievence with ESR. This is not the time or the place to describe your own righteousness. If you feel you have been wronged, then telling ESR that he's not ready to forgive won't make it happen any sooner. locust
I've read Cryptonomicon, Snowcrash, Diamond Age (see below) and Zodiac as well as Interface, published as Stephen Bury (sp?) -I'm still tracking down the others written as Bury.
I couldn't finish Diamond Age. About three quaters throught the book all semblance of a captivating plot disapears and the book degenerates into a bunch of frayed threads, that dangle in the air. (I'm trying not to post spoilers, but I'll be more specific if anyone likes).
Don't get me wrong, Stephenson numbers amoung my favorite authors, but even the best authors have thier off days. IMHO, Zodiac (about an eco-terrorist) is a much better read then diamond age, (its about the same length) and it actually ends pretty well.
The world consists of domains outside of.com,.edu,.org,.net and.mil [1]. There are sites such as the BBC that don't reside on US soil (or in a US domain), and they do very well. The point here (John) is that placing any country at the center of the web, and asuming only it is important to a world wide audience, is as out moded as the 3 minutes of world news on any of the big 3 US networks (ABC/NBC/CBS) when there is no crisis (sic) anywhere. -locust
[1] I know, I know a bunch of companies outside the US have.coms.
So for a criminal with a life sentence, should we extend his life? I mean but are we really extending his life?
This is real a double edged sword. In the western world, for them most part, we go out of our way to make prisons comfortable for those being held captive. Otherwise the conditions are considered cruel and inhuman. Here we have the oportunity to say to a prisioner, not only are we going to leave you in a cell till you die but, we're also going to make sure that your body stays healthy so we can keep you there for a longer than you naturally would have been. Were I stuck in a cell for years on end, with no hope of ever seeing the outside world, I think I would yearn for the release that death would bring. This is would take that from me. Which is then more humane -to let him/her die, or to keep him/her alive. I guess this is the same sort of question people ask when dealing with euthenasia.
Further, as I consider it, this appears to put a yet greater burden upon the general population. As it is now the cost of internment of a prisoner (on average) in a Canadian Prision is $60K (cnd) per year. Here we just add more years and more cost to the general public. The public always gets screwed twice. Once when the person commits the crime, and then again when they have to pay to keep him locked up. In the end I think society in general will have to come up with a better solution to crime than internment. But I'm open to suggestions as to what that is. The death of personality seems viable -if we could do it- but it to has its scary side.
The comment that the author bailed on his install, and then asserted that it was to hard for him and he does this for a living (sic) made me laugh. It reminds me of a story where a lady asks a physist to explain the finer points of particle physics without using technical terms, but that she's sure he can do it because he's very good at what he does. Honestly, how technical can the author be? If he was planning to install the operating system he must have heard that it was just a touch more involved then the install of a windows box.
This is a just new twist on old FUD. Now not only is Linux hard to install, but its hard for technical people to install. Which technical people?! Those who consider reading too hard? Maybe I'll take a M$ Cert. Eng exam they must be written as connect-the-dot diagrams, so that they won't be too hard for technical people!
Oops... In advertantly turned on the flame thrower. Must be monday.
Beyond all that was mentioned in the review, one thing was omitted. At points this book is inceredibly funny. Its been some time since I've read a book that has had me laughing out loud (terry pratchet's diskworld excluded). Though I'm sure that the members of the ECC wouldn't find it quite so.
There's a big difference between coders and engineers. Anyone can code. An engineer must by definition be certified (or at least thats the way it works up here in Canada). To be allowed to use the title of engineer you must have come out of an accredited (university) engineering program and have passed an ethics exam, or have passed comprehensive tests of your knowledge and have passed the ethics exam. In any case your are required to have several years of experience 'apprenticed' to a certified engineer. You are then legally respnsible for all that you build and rubber stamp.
You can be prosecuted for using the title without the proper certification.
All this said, this still doesn't prevent crappy design. Poor coding habits, etc. What is need for that is a decent software engineering process, design and code reviews. People must learn to employ good design habits even in the absence of such a process. The IEEE's tutorial on software engineering management is a good place to start if you want to learn.
While I'd like to Thieme kept for a bit to find out how good/poor his material is, he (and Katz) should not have the ability to post at will. They should be read and edited by Rob (or someone). This way someone other than the readers, proofs and fact checks the article before its posted. Further one article is not enough on which to base a decission. Let me see three or four and I'll make one. As illustration: I initially voted to keep Katz (not to kick a dead one:), but have gotten to the point where only absolute boredom is the only reason I go near his work.
According to everything I've read on the NANOG list InterNIC (NSI) was spamming everyone who had a domain name registered with them, then complaining about the load on its servers.
That having been said. The DNS database is a public databse. The governement should have torn up thier contract.
Slashdot Mirror
The metric that I given in my university computer architecture class was that a compiler can generate better code than 90% of assembly programmers. Which, when I examine higher level code written by a variety of programmers, some good, some bad, makes sense. Some people know all the details of a language and some don't. Some pay attention and some don't. I'm pretty sure it was backed up by a reference to an IEEE paper somewhere.
If large numbers humans could reliably write large volumes of high quality, optimized code, at high speed, we'd still be using assembly everywhere. But they can't. I certainly don't have the time or the inclination to learn all the ins and outs of every instruction set architecture I operate on to squeze every last bit of juice out of the machine. And I certainly am unwilling to give up the expresiveness of a highlevel compiled language.
But ultimately, the fraction of people that need to write things like texture mapping loops is very small, and the fact of the matter is that the loop is probably embeded in some higher level piece of code. So relax, compilers reliably produce better code than the majority of assembly programmers (maybe not on /.). Or more precisely, better machine code, than the majority of programmers, if they were asked to write assembly. --locust
[snip] This isn't about free speach, stuff like this isn't protected. It's about keeping the same standards that already apply to libraries to the new medium of the internet. It's not censorship if it's censoring things that aren't protected under the 1st amendment.
No, this is about who decides what is obscene. Deciding that something is or is not obsecene is a matter of freedom of thought (speech). And, that is protected.
If a society is to function, then it must be able to justify why somethings are not done, not seen, or not written. Simply erasing these, will not stamp them out. Otherwise someone else will think of them, try them, etc. Usually precisely because they are not spoken of (etc.). The individuals in the society must agree to a law if it is to function. They must find it reasonable. In order to do this they must reason about it. And they can't if the idea has already been restricted by somebody.
But, blocking 'obscene' sites is just the cheap fix for parenting. Rather than explaining to children why a parent thinks that porn is wrong (if a parent thinks that) and in the process (maybe) figuring out if the postion is justified. Porn or whatever is just blocked. Now along with it, whatever else is blocked, things that the parents would otherwise think is ok can be blocked. (Does the library throw away National Geographic because they show stone age cultures in thier natural state?) The free exchange of ideas is controlled and blocked. And another generation of cattle (much like thier parents) are produced.
--locust
So what goes into the machine? And what comes out? And does the machine come with some internal state?
When you were born had you already begun to process inputs? Are you an extension of your mothers original state?
What you assert is fine in theory, but now try to nail it down, and apply it. The behaviorist tried, and failed miserably. (B.F. Skinner the behaviorist managed to screw up his kids by trying to teach them with stimulus response pairs).
Consider, in order to know all the inputs and outputs to a human being we need to know everything that is impacting them at this very moment. The new state of the human machine is a combination of its current state (lets say fedback inputs) and its current inputs. Thus we also need to know everything that has ever impacted them in the past. If you suppose that a child shares part of the mothers state, you must know all the inputs she had (and her mother, and so on). Even if you don't then the amount of data you need is monsterous. Now throw in physics theory that says we can't know the precise position or momentum of particle simultanously, or that electrons exist with certain probablilities in certain orbits, and none of this huge pool of data is certain. Now, on top of this your machine is self programming, on unknown stimuli (i.e. the same stimuli affect different human machines differently under identical external conditions)... And behaviorism appears to be a dead end until such time as we learn more about our universe.
It may be that it is through arrogance that we assume that we can know everything.
--locust
How does the credit card company know you're a gambling addict without profiling you? If you become an addict after they've given you the card do they still have some responsibliity? Or can they ask you to tell them you have a problem? Or can they demand you ask just a few 'personal' questions?
While credit card companies do already profile thier users spending habits to a certain extent to make sure that the card has not been lost or stolen (i.e. I spend $4000 one day after averaging $100/month for that last year they will tell the next merchant to call you) I would find the sort of tracking where they ask me questions periodically too intrusive. And I suspect so would a large number of other people. Thus a credit card company has no way to know if you're an addict. Even then, would you want them to know? They would probably never give you credit again, and trash your credit record.
In this vein, there was a proposed law (it may have been a bank initiative) a little while ago that would require banks to be able to predict the spending of thier customers. It drew plenty of fire from privacy advocates, with good reason -Its nobodies business what I do with my money.
By asking corporations to be responsible for the habits of thier customers, in cases like this (faulty breaks are a different matter), you are not only inviting but forcing the corporation to take a much larger interest in your private life then I suspect you would like.
-locust
Please explain/elaborate. All the legal analysis I've heard has been to the contrary. Maybe I'm hearing what I want to hear. How are the judges overall conclusions "overreaching"?
BTW-> I read your previous post on the subject, but it appears to be a proof by induction from one example. You add, "That is only one example of some of the questionable findings from a legal point of view that judge jackson made." If this is the case, can you cite some other examples of whats wrong with the decision? I'd like to know why all the lawyers (who have been following the trial) who looked at this up until now missed what appear some vital points. Finally, if as you say, "He is right about some things - MS does things that are restrictive and anticompetive and the court should require that MS change some of its practice." On what legal basis can he [Judge Jackson] or you (over?)reach such a conclusion if the FOF cannot stand -as your posts suggests?
Locust.
I know its hard, but lets just wait until Judge Jackson decides/is ready to present his finding of fact.
locust
No, They're talking about using magnetic levitation, a linear motor.
Further, given that they are talking about trying to supply power only to small portions of the track at a time, I would guess they are trying to cut down costs for a really long track. As far as I understand the technology (and some of you physics guys can help me out here, 'cause its been a while since I looked at it) all the really expenisve bits (i.e. used for cooling) can go into the vehicle, and the track can be just turned off and on in time. The track both suspends and propels the vehicle.
The reall problem is shielding any human passanger from the magnetic fields that are going to be in the area. The shielding is gona be heavy. But There was at least one human usable maglev at an airport in england, so it is doable.
locust
- any known flaws/holes in the technologies you are going to use and how you can circomvent them if necessary,
- how the new app. will interact with your existing secure infrastructre, and
- how your app may get recycled in the future to do something slightly different that could impact your site's security.
These days I figure that any app. written, thats going to go online needs to be checked for security impact before the design is finished. Otherwise it shouldn't make it to a production server. I'd rather do more work up front, and save myself the trouble later when I can't take it down to fix it -'cause its already being used.locust
God, I wish it worked that way. But managers/buyers/etc. by thier very nature (in my experience) can rarely know the technical technical ramifications of thier requests. Thier job is to paint in broad strokes. If they had to pay attention to all the details they couldn't actually do thier jobs. Like come up with new stuff for you to do.
The next problem is what one of my co-workers calls suits with enough of a technical clue to be dangerous. These will try to dictate the technology you will use regardless of what is actually required/best. The problem here is that they think they know the complexity of the changes being made!
locust
This is probably not my place, but:
Bruce, don't act like a child. You have a grievence with ESR. This is not the time or the place to describe your own righteousness. If you feel you have been wronged, then telling ESR that he's not ready to forgive won't make it happen any sooner.
locust
I couldn't finish Diamond Age. About three quaters throught the book all semblance of a captivating plot disapears and the book degenerates into a bunch of frayed threads, that dangle in the air. (I'm trying not to post spoilers, but I'll be more specific if anyone likes).
Don't get me wrong, Stephenson numbers amoung my favorite authors, but even the best authors have thier off days. IMHO, Zodiac (about an eco-terrorist) is a much better read then diamond age, (its about the same length) and it actually ends pretty well.
Locust.
The world consists of domains outside of .com, .edu, .org, .net and .mil [1]. There are sites such as the BBC that don't reside on US soil (or in a US domain), and they do very well. The point here (John) is that placing any country at the center of the web, and asuming only it is important to a world wide audience, is as out moded as the 3 minutes of world news on any of the big 3 US networks (ABC/NBC/CBS) when there is no crisis (sic) anywhere.
.coms.
-locust
[1] I know, I know a bunch of companies outside the US have
Here's the Link to Forest's research group.
They have a bunch of papers online. The ones I read a while back were mostly theortical.
This is real a double edged sword. In the western world, for them most part, we go out of our way to make prisons comfortable for those being held captive. Otherwise the conditions are considered cruel and inhuman. Here we have the oportunity to say to a prisioner, not only are we going to leave you in a cell till you die but, we're also going to make sure that your body stays healthy so we can keep you there for a longer than you naturally would have been. Were I stuck in a cell for years on end, with no hope of ever seeing the outside world, I think I would yearn for the release that death would bring. This is would take that from me. Which is then more humane -to let him/her die, or to keep him/her alive. I guess this is the same sort of question people ask when dealing with euthenasia.
Further, as I consider it, this appears to put a yet greater burden upon the general population. As it is now the cost of internment of a prisoner (on average) in a Canadian Prision is $60K (cnd) per year. Here we just add more years and more cost to the general public. The public always gets screwed twice. Once when the person commits the crime, and then again when they have to pay to keep him locked up. In the end I think society in general will have to come up with a better solution to crime than internment. But I'm open to suggestions as to what that is. The death of personality seems viable -if we could do it- but it to has its scary side.
Locust
This is a just new twist on old FUD. Now not only is Linux hard to install, but its hard for technical people to install. Which technical people?! Those who consider reading too hard? Maybe I'll take a M$ Cert. Eng exam they must be written as connect-the-dot diagrams, so that they won't be too hard for technical people!
Oops... In advertantly turned on the flame thrower. Must be monday.
Locust
locust
You can be prosecuted for using the title without the proper certification.
All this said, this still doesn't prevent crappy design. Poor coding habits, etc. What is need for that is a decent software engineering process, design and code reviews. People must learn to employ good design habits even in the absence of such a process. The IEEE's tutorial on software engineering management is a good place to start if you want to learn.
While I'd like to Thieme kept for a bit to find out how good/poor his material is, he (and Katz) should not have the ability to post at will. They should be read and edited by Rob (or someone). This way someone other than the readers, proofs and fact checks the article before its posted. Further one article is not enough on which to base a decission. Let me see three or four and I'll make one. As illustration: I initially voted to keep Katz (not to kick a dead one :), but have gotten to the point where only absolute boredom is the only reason I go near his work.
complaining about the load on its servers.
That having been said. The DNS database is a public databse. The governement should have torn up thier contract.