You and the GP are both incorrect. TFA did not mean "a minor market crash due to autotrading algorithms," which the GP would know if they had RTFA.
And the larger financial crisis was not about circular loans. It was about 5 banks that were wildly overleveraged* when the housing bubble popped and their losses were magnified between 30:1 and 40:1 instead of the industry standard 12:1. This disaster devalued their housing holdings, which devalued everyone else's housing holdings, which fucked everything else, everywhere else, all at once.
And I don't see what this has to do with the financial crisis at all.
FTFA
New cloud services may arise that essentially "resell, trade, or speculate on complex cocktails or 'derivatives' of more basic cloud resources and services, much like the modern financial and energy trading industries operate," he wrote.
Each of these various cloud components are often maintained and deployed "by a single company that, for reasons of competition, shares as few details as possible about the internal operation of its services," Ford added.
As a result, the cloud industry could find itself "yielding speculative bubbles and occasional large-scale failures, due to 'overly leveraged' composite cloud services" with weaknesses that don't become known "until the bubble bursts," Ford wrote.
The metaphor more ore less fits, except for the part that ignores how a lot of what happened during the financial crisis was outright fraud perpatrated by lenders.
The potential mess with the cloud is not about fraud, just about excessive dependancies.
The drone campaign is sold to Americans as accurate and targeted, when it can never be any such thing. I'd much rather the USA carpet bombed from 20,000 feet and had a public discussion about the consequences of its actions.
Well known, and has been for quite a long time. The use of overwhelming force may satisfy some primitive emotional desires, but it basically never leads to a win in any conflict. I am surprised that people are still surprised at this.
A. I don't see what this has to do with the subject you picked. B. Overwhelming force is a great way to win a conflict, unless you run into asymmetric tactics (see Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan)
Car analogy time: Cyberweapons are like hot rods. You can build one in your garage or get one made if you know the right shop to do it for you. There's no way to regulate that the same way we regulate bioweapons.
that is a prevalent form of modern thinking. at least in the consumer age (20's 30's).
If you really think that kind of idiocy is limited to the 20s and 30s age group, you need to hang out with an older crowd. Experience does not equal intelligence.
It's technically true that many people are vulnerable because they don't know how important it is to protect themselves, but directly blaming them for it is counter-productive.
Your whole argument fails because LinkedIn isn't "many people". LinkedIn is a multi-million user networking site for professionals.
Education of users is a very, very good goal, especially when so many users don't fully understand the risks out there, but the first step in educating them is having empathy for their plight.
LinkedIn has a goddamn team of coders and server monkeys. Salting your hashes is really really basic stuff. It's at the level of "look both ways before crossing the street." If you don't look both ways before crossing the street, it's your own damn fault for stepping in front of a car. And yes, I'm comparing malicious hackers to cars. They will run you over if you give them a chance.
This new era lets anyone, anywhere, pick off any target.
And that right there is the problem. In the past, when war was purely about bombs and boots on the ground, you could rely on your physical defenses and alliances to protect you from retaliation. The USA and Germany don't have to worry about Jihadist drones dropping bombs on New York or Dusseldorf,
But they certainly have to worry about malicious hackers with a grudge. Today, the internet is such a soft target that it's tragic.
The developed world may be starting a war where they can't project numerical or tactical superiority. LulzSec and Anonymous show that you don't need the resources of the NSA to go after big targets. http://cryptome.org/2012/06/lulzsec-sneak-preview.htm
To put things in perspective, the law mandates that video rental records be private.
That's because someone walked into a record store and pulled up the rental history of a sitting Supreme Court Justice. Many legislators have zero problem with privacy invading laws because they always assume it won't be used on them. The second that changed, they shit their pants and passed a law that protected everyone within the year.
If you want real reform, we need the cops to start treating judges and legislators like they treat young black men in NY City.
I really hope they can bring Fear Factory back to do the soundtrack. They just put out a new album and it wouldn't be a stretch for them to massage some of the tracks for the game.
When you say, "Students scored higher on the ABC test this year than the year before!" you can't necessarily assume that students have been educated better. It may be a reflection of changes made to the test.
Almost all standardized tests include a section (or two) that isn't graded. It's there so that the test writers can experiment with new questions and normalize them against the existing question bank.
The increase may not be statistically significant. It may be that the teachers started "teaching to the test" at the expense of other lessons. It may be that the school system pulled some other shenanigans to manipulate the test scores. It may be that the test was simply poorly formed in the first place, and is not actually a good reflection of the educational level of the students.
These are all valid criticisms and there have been a few scandals that have burned school districts for systematic changing of test answers. But average score changes are rarely a result of changes to the test.
Second, the number of students in each class is drawn from a population which is about 300,000,000 citizens...
So, the best one percent still boil down to 3,000,000 people. That is a lot of bright people.
This kind of logic is why America is failing. The standardized tests are taken from grades 3 to 12 (8 to 18 years old), I found some census numbers, which are 5-9 years, 10-14 years, 15-19 years. So I'll go with 10-19 years: 42,165,000 1% = 42,165
Since I'm fudging the numbers and left out a year, we can adjust it upwards by 10%, but that still doesn't do much to bring you closer to your 1% = 3 million figure
2. Amateur astronomers like to make a game out of "spot the spy satellite" The price of technology is coming down and the processing power of computers has going up. More than enough to allow the hobbyist to spot "secret" satellites.
Give it another generation and the words "secret satellite" will no longer be used together.
I know I've personally met creationists for whom learning about the incorrectness of that picture was the turning point in their abandonment of textbook paleobiology.
I can't wait to hear stories about how people have abandoned physics when they discovered the model of the atom they learned in middle school was wildly simplified and only nominally correct. "What do you mean "it's a field of probabilities." Fuck that!"
A man, a horse, and a mouse walk into a bar... "Barkeep," the man says "I need 3 pints of beer and access to your roof." "Here you are," the barkeep says as he gives him the beer and keys to to roof.
Then he looks at the horse and asks "Why the long face?" The horse pondered for a moment and then replied
"Well, basic physics gives the first line of the following. Constant density and the definition of velocity gives the second, and the formula for the volume of a sphere gives the third. (energy gained from gravity) = (gravity constant) * (mass of object) * (distance it fell in a given time) = (different constants) * (volume of sphere) * (velocity of sphere) = (different constants) * (cube of radius) * (velocity of sphere)
The other half is more approximate. The first line is pretty much trivial from the setup. The second line is from the formula for the surface area of a sphere and from the basic physics fact that the energy of an object is proportional to the square of its velocity. The rest is algebra. (energy lost to moving air out of the way) = (constants) * (amount of air moved per unit time) * (energy imparted to each molecule of air) = (constants) * [(surface area exposed) * (distance it fell in a given time)] * (velocity of sphere squared) = (constants) * [(radius squared) * (velocity)] * (velocity squared) = (constants) * (radius squared) * (velocity cubed)
At terminal velocity, these two are equal. Simple algebra gives the answer from here. (constants) * (cube of radius) * (terminal velocity) = (constants) * (square of radius) * (cube of terminal velocity) (constants) * (radius) = (square of terminal velocity) (terminal velocity) = (constants) * sqrt(radius)
The large sphere has large radius, so large terminal velocity. Incidentally this is the formula from the Wikipedia page I linked, though my assumptions were very, very approximate and are probably different from the ones used to derive it.
In summary, this asshole is going to shove me off a roof just to prove a point, physics says they'll both survive, but I'm fucked."
2) The winners decide how it gets written in history. They're in charge. They are the feel good side, and they dictate how the losers pay for what they did.
This used to be true when video cameras were uncommon and media distribution channels were limited and controlled by the government during times of war.
Today, every civilian has a digital video camera and access to the youtube/facebook/twitter/blogoversesphere. Today, the soldiers document their own war crimes.
I believe kittens are known to cause cancer in the State of California. Thank God I'm not in California!/I manufacture and distribute kittens for the purpose of huffing
It may have been broken, but at least it was understandable. Between url shorteners and (now) vanity domains, who the fuck will really know where a link is taking them?
60 square miles = 21 MB 1 GB / 21 MB = 48.76 2,925.6 square miles = 1 GB on Android
I hope the other Apps the GP referred to aren't as wasteful with storage space. For references: 3,794,083 square miles (the USA w/water) ~= 1GB on my GPS
There are a lot of valid ways to describe and define science. I don't subscribe to any that use the word "truth," as it is commonly used in religious contexts.
Slashdot Mirror
You and the GP are both incorrect.
TFA did not mean "a minor market crash due to autotrading algorithms," which the GP would know if they had RTFA.
And the larger financial crisis was not about circular loans. It was about 5 banks that were wildly overleveraged*
when the housing bubble popped and their losses were magnified between 30:1 and 40:1 instead of the industry standard 12:1.
This disaster devalued their housing holdings, which devalued everyone else's housing holdings, which fucked everything else, everywhere else, all at once.
*which TFA mentions
And I don't see what this has to do with the financial crisis at all.
FTFA
New cloud services may arise that essentially "resell, trade, or speculate on complex cocktails or 'derivatives' of more basic cloud resources and services, much like the modern financial and energy trading industries operate," he wrote.
Each of these various cloud components are often maintained and deployed "by a single company that, for reasons of competition, shares as few details as possible about the internal operation of its services," Ford added.
As a result, the cloud industry could find itself "yielding speculative bubbles and occasional large-scale failures, due to 'overly leveraged' composite cloud services" with weaknesses that don't become known "until the bubble bursts," Ford wrote.
The metaphor more ore less fits, except for the part that ignores how a lot of what happened during the financial crisis was outright fraud perpatrated by lenders.
The potential mess with the cloud is not about fraud, just about excessive dependancies.
The drone campaign is sold to Americans as accurate and targeted, when it can never be any such thing.
I'd much rather the USA carpet bombed from 20,000 feet and had a public discussion about the consequences of its actions.
Well known, and has been for quite a long time. The use of overwhelming force may satisfy some primitive emotional desires, but it basically never leads to a win in any conflict. I am surprised that people are still surprised at this.
A. I don't see what this has to do with the subject you picked.
B. Overwhelming force is a great way to win a conflict, unless you run into asymmetric tactics (see Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan)
Car analogy time:
Cyberweapons are like hot rods. You can build one in your garage or get one made if you know the right shop to do it for you.
There's no way to regulate that the same way we regulate bioweapons.
that is a prevalent form of modern thinking. at least in the consumer age (20's 30's).
If you really think that kind of idiocy is limited to the 20s and 30s age group, you need to hang out with an older crowd.
Experience does not equal intelligence.
It's technically true that many people are vulnerable because they don't know how important it is to protect themselves, but directly blaming them for it is counter-productive.
Your whole argument fails because LinkedIn isn't "many people".
LinkedIn is a multi-million user networking site for professionals.
Education of users is a very, very good goal, especially when so many users don't fully understand the risks out there, but the first step in educating them is having empathy for their plight.
LinkedIn has a goddamn team of coders and server monkeys.
Salting your hashes is really really basic stuff. It's at the level of "look both ways before crossing the street."
If you don't look both ways before crossing the street, it's your own damn fault for stepping in front of a car.
And yes, I'm comparing malicious hackers to cars. They will run you over if you give them a chance.
We're already hearing about "local clouds" - essentially building a small-scale cloud for your own large company.
The difference between mainframes + thin clients and "local clouds" is.... the number of servers?
This new era lets anyone, anywhere, pick off any target.
And that right there is the problem.
In the past, when war was purely about bombs and boots on the ground, you could rely on your physical defenses and alliances to protect you from retaliation.
The USA and Germany don't have to worry about Jihadist drones dropping bombs on New York or Dusseldorf,
But they certainly have to worry about malicious hackers with a grudge.
Today, the internet is such a soft target that it's tragic.
The developed world may be starting a war where they can't project numerical or tactical superiority.
LulzSec and Anonymous show that you don't need the resources of the NSA to go after big targets.
http://cryptome.org/2012/06/lulzsec-sneak-preview.htm
To put things in perspective, the law mandates that video rental records be private.
That's because someone walked into a record store and pulled up the rental history of a sitting Supreme Court Justice.
Many legislators have zero problem with privacy invading laws because they always assume it won't be used on them.
The second that changed, they shit their pants and passed a law that protected everyone within the year.
If you want real reform, we need the cops to start treating judges and legislators like they treat young black men in NY City.
I really hope they can bring Fear Factory back to do the soundtrack.
They just put out a new album and it wouldn't be a stretch for them to massage some of the tracks for the game.
If Netflix can get its hardware inside Comcast's network, does that mean Comcast won't count it against their data caps?
I regularly start with a TLD and work backwards when I'm looking for things, rather than searching Google...
And where would you start?
tickets.tickets?
search.tickets?
help.tickets?
When you say, "Students scored higher on the ABC test this year than the year before!" you can't necessarily assume that students have been educated better. It may be a reflection of changes made to the test.
Almost all standardized tests include a section (or two) that isn't graded.
It's there so that the test writers can experiment with new questions and normalize them against the existing question bank.
The increase may not be statistically significant. It may be that the teachers started "teaching to the test" at the expense of other lessons. It may be that the school system pulled some other shenanigans to manipulate the test scores. It may be that the test was simply poorly formed in the first place, and is not actually a good reflection of the educational level of the students.
These are all valid criticisms and there have been a few scandals that have burned school districts for systematic changing of test answers.
But average score changes are rarely a result of changes to the test.
Second, the number of students in each class is drawn from a population which is about 300,000,000 citizens...
So, the best one percent still boil down to 3,000,000 people. That is a lot of bright people.
This kind of logic is why America is failing.
The standardized tests are taken from grades 3 to 12 (8 to 18 years old),
I found some census numbers, which are 5-9 years, 10-14 years, 15-19 years.
So I'll go with 10-19 years: 42,165,000
1% = 42,165
Since I'm fudging the numbers and left out a year, we can adjust it upwards by 10%,
but that still doesn't do much to bring you closer to your 1% = 3 million figure
The trick was not reading TFS.
How secret can it be if we know it happened?
1. It's really hard to hide a rocket launch.
2. Amateur astronomers like to make a game out of "spot the spy satellite"
The price of technology is coming down and the processing power of computers has going up.
More than enough to allow the hobbyist to spot "secret" satellites.
Give it another generation and the words "secret satellite" will no longer be used together.
I know I've personally met creationists for whom learning about the incorrectness of that picture was the turning point in their abandonment of textbook paleobiology.
I can't wait to hear stories about how people have abandoned physics when they discovered the model of the atom they learned in middle school was wildly simplified and only nominally correct.
"What do you mean "it's a field of probabilities." Fuck that!"
A man, a horse, and a mouse walk into a bar...
"Barkeep," the man says "I need 3 pints of beer and access to your roof."
"Here you are," the barkeep says as he gives him the beer and keys to to roof.
Then he looks at the horse and asks "Why the long face?"
The horse pondered for a moment and then replied
"Well, basic physics gives the first line of the following.
Constant density and the definition of velocity gives the second, and the formula for the volume of a sphere gives the third.
(energy gained from gravity)
= (gravity constant) * (mass of object) * (distance it fell in a given time)
= (different constants) * (volume of sphere) * (velocity of sphere)
= (different constants) * (cube of radius) * (velocity of sphere)
The other half is more approximate. The first line is pretty much trivial from the setup. The second line is from the formula for the surface area of a sphere and from the basic physics fact that the energy of an object is proportional to the square of its velocity. The rest is algebra.
(energy lost to moving air out of the way)
= (constants) * (amount of air moved per unit time) * (energy imparted to each molecule of air)
= (constants) * [(surface area exposed) * (distance it fell in a given time)] * (velocity of sphere squared)
= (constants) * [(radius squared) * (velocity)] * (velocity squared)
= (constants) * (radius squared) * (velocity cubed)
At terminal velocity, these two are equal. Simple algebra gives the answer from here.
(constants) * (cube of radius) * (terminal velocity) = (constants) * (square of radius) * (cube of terminal velocity)
(constants) * (radius) = (square of terminal velocity)
(terminal velocity) = (constants) * sqrt(radius)
The large sphere has large radius, so large terminal velocity. Incidentally this is the formula from the Wikipedia page I linked, though my assumptions were very, very approximate and are probably different from the ones used to derive it.
In summary, this asshole is going to shove me off a roof just to prove a point, physics says they'll both survive, but I'm fucked."
2) The winners decide how it gets written in history. They're in charge. They are the feel good side, and they dictate how the losers pay for what they did.
This used to be true when video cameras were uncommon and media distribution channels were limited and controlled by the government during times of war.
Today, every civilian has a digital video camera and access to the youtube/facebook/twitter/blogoversesphere.
Today, the soldiers document their own war crimes.
I believe kittens are known to cause cancer in the State of California. /I manufacture and distribute kittens for the purpose of huffing
Thank God I'm not in California!
It may have been broken, but at least it was understandable.
Between url shorteners and (now) vanity domains, who the fuck will really know where a link is taking them?
The bill does not mention children, or internet predators, other than in its title
60 square miles = 21 MB
1 GB / 21 MB = 48.76
2,925.6 square miles = 1 GB on Android
I hope the other Apps the GP referred to aren't as wasteful with storage space.
For references: 3,794,083 square miles (the USA w/water) ~= 1GB on my GPS
There are a lot of valid ways to describe and define science.
I don't subscribe to any that use the word "truth," as it is commonly used in religious contexts.
Half the fork, Half the fat!
Sporks for everyone!