Why, oh why, did you post as AC? That is a whole lot of very valid criticisms about just about any average developer under about 28 to 30. Not sure what happened, but somewhere learning about what CS is to just learning a language or two seems to have happened. I blame the Agile crowd for perpetuating this.
There's a real problem here. For much of the Cold War, the NSA did its job, and it did it well: spying on the actual enemies of the US while helping make sure that the communications of the US and its allies were secure. They helped make the world safe for democracy. Unfortunately, the work gets very little publicity
It got lots of good will prior to the 80s, the NSA was the worst kept secret ever in that they existed and what they did.
and it is also very hard to forgive them for things they've done since 9/11. Essentially,they've blown most of their hard-earned good will. It will probably take decades before it is reestablished.
It hasn't been since just 9/11. The easiest way to tell would be to see when they shunted into AT&Ts main telecom hubs.
Internet of things is not the problem. Connected things that we control directly.. i.e. punch a hole through our own firewall and access our stuff directly from our other stuff could be a great time saver and make things easier.
Exactly this, IoT is fine, it's just that I need to control what's mine. Neither my fridge nor my thermostat need to be in contact with or controlled via a third party outside my house. Get offa my cloud!
I'd rather pop in solar panels on my house than allow an energy company to cycle my load. What is 1 minute today will be 10 minutes tomorrow, and 1 hour next week, all out of my control. No thanks.
There were no firewalls. There was no DCMA and several sites had no passwords. No such thing as a computer virus. You could connect to government servers, schools and various businesses.
I can attest that there were no firewalls on some surprising networks as late as 1998, where entire organizations computers were directly connected to the internet, no firewalls, and in some cases no security at all.
However hasn't Clapper said if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't mind your data being "public"? I'd say this might be a nice reminder that "public" may not be what you want all your data be, no matter how innocent you are.
For anybody who was around before that, there simply is no distinction, and claiming it has always been so is a lie.
When I was browsing dial up BBSes back 1994, I remember the distinction being made, so this has been going on for a long time.
Out of curiousity, how far ago (like what year, minimum) does the distinction need to be to not be considered a retroactive decision to re-define hacker?
I second this, recalling around the time of the early 90s when malicious activity was stated as people cracking software, and crackers, while hackers were people that built things.
It wasn't even an indirect detection, it was a series of observations about physical results that could be explained if the theory for gravity waves holds true. LIGO will actually measure gravity waves.
I don't think we'll see it change until the model for the ownership of broadcasting changes.
I agree.
Let's face it- there are times when we want to choose what we want to listen to and times when the music is nice to have playing but we don't want to take the time to design a playlist. In those latter circumstances we are dependent on someone else's choice, and their 'fee' for the privilege is getting to pick that which makes them money.
If I can make a playlist, I own the music. I already have what I need. I am looking for new music and artists. Current broadcasting is failing these artists in every way possible. Other alternatives are little better.
That may all be true, but my point was more about breaking the cabal that currently decides almost all music that sees airplay. That is the current area that still needs to be broken for musical creativity to return. We had a few short golden eras where technology or socio-demographics caused that control to slip for a while. I haven't seen a comparable slip with the move to digital distribution, yet.
Yeah yeah yeah - where was your outrage with the Plame affair? That particular link has a whole set of assertions that if true, should have resulted in a large prison population of former government people.
But you can be grandfathered. I know people still on unlimited, they just stopped offering it to new customers, and provided incentives to old customers to get off their unlimited data plans. Verizon did the same. TBH, for me it was a no-brainer. I don't use enough data to make unlimited an issue for me, and the LTE connectivity in general is crappy enough on either provider that it doesn't substitute for a real broadband connection, not to mention that mine is reliably several times faster than any LTE connection I get around here.
My personal thoughts are that very soon what Bowie said will come to pass. Namely, that the distributors will have less and less meaning in the world, because online distribution trumps them, and anyone can pop something up. Soon, new avenues of popular choice will become mainstream, and hopefully we'll get back to services that play music for their customers, and not for the distributors. (Yes, payola is still an ongoing problem)
You have a remarkable capacity to miss the point - then you pounce on explanatory statements and try to disprove those as if that would somehow impact the validity of the argument they were meant to explain.
Not at all. I agreed with the rest of your post except for this absolute statement:
But engineers dont try to build designs that almost certainly wont work.
The only potential quibble is as an engineer with an R&D lab are you more scientist or engineer? That would be a philosophical discussion I'd be open to but would likely be long and need to morph depending on the specific task being done (i.e., I'm stating that it is indeterminate in the general case)
Perhaps I should have prefaced it with a few mollifying terms and not just stated it baldly, as I could see how that might come across as adversarial. As I spent less than 30s on the entire session, I take the blame for not proof reading it prior to hitting the submit button.
I'd say for 99% of web sites, just bloody damn well design your web site to be readable. Get rid of all the stupid flashy shit and just provide your content which is seldom more than a couple of paragraphs of text and maybe an image or two. You could even have a "brought to you by blah" line for ads.
But engineers dont try to build designs that almost certainly wont work. Scientists do experiments they expect to fail routinely - to confirm that they fail and if they dont start figuring out why.
Engineering applies (usually very simplified) scientiffic theories while assuming those theories are correct. Science assumes tge opposite.
As an engineer I worked at an R&D "lab" that was also charged with producing actual product. To confirm our models, we absolutely created designs that we expected to fail in order to confirm the models were correct so that designs that were supposed to work had a greater degree of confidence in meeting their design goals. I guarantee you I did not work in the only such job, as I strongly suspect companies like Apple work along similar lines, albeit maybe not with quite so many intended failures, as one of our goals was to document some bleeding edge cases.
So both could be equally plausible, and at least 1 was true at one time for anyone born. So the less likely answer is 6 feet tall.
Notice I said is, not has been. Considering there is no way to know if my sibling is a brother or a sister until s/he is much longer than 1 mm, there is no way for me to have a brother who is currently 1 mm tall.
Then it's merely a matter of timing, isn't it? And there certainly is a means to know gender, even prior to insemination. Without further qualifications on the conditions of the initial statement, the more plausible answer remains 1mm.
Slashdot Mirror
Why, oh why, did you post as AC? That is a whole lot of very valid criticisms about just about any average developer under about 28 to 30. Not sure what happened, but somewhere learning about what CS is to just learning a language or two seems to have happened. I blame the Agile crowd for perpetuating this.
Unfortunately, fun does not perpetuate a functional society.
The real problem here is that society and the economy is based on infinite growth and consumption. That's about as real as a pastafarian.
There's a real problem here. For much of the Cold War, the NSA did its job, and it did it well: spying on the actual enemies of the US while helping make sure that the communications of the US and its allies were secure. They helped make the world safe for democracy. Unfortunately, the work gets very little publicity
It got lots of good will prior to the 80s, the NSA was the worst kept secret ever in that they existed and what they did.
and it is also very hard to forgive them for things they've done since 9/11. Essentially,they've blown most of their hard-earned good will. It will probably take decades before it is reestablished.
It hasn't been since just 9/11. The easiest way to tell would be to see when they shunted into AT&Ts main telecom hubs.
Internet of things is not the problem. Connected things that we control directly.. i.e. punch a hole through our own firewall and access our stuff directly from our other stuff could be a great time saver and make things easier.
Exactly this, IoT is fine, it's just that I need to control what's mine. Neither my fridge nor my thermostat need to be in contact with or controlled via a third party outside my house. Get offa my cloud!
I'd rather pop in solar panels on my house than allow an energy company to cycle my load. What is 1 minute today will be 10 minutes tomorrow, and 1 hour next week, all out of my control. No thanks.
There were no firewalls. There was no DCMA and several sites had no passwords. No such thing as a computer virus. You could connect to government servers, schools and various businesses.
I can attest that there were no firewalls on some surprising networks as late as 1998, where entire organizations computers were directly connected to the internet, no firewalls, and in some cases no security at all.
You haven't worked until you start at 9am and bill 48 hours before a nice 3 hours lunch.
Also known as a lawyer's day.
However hasn't Clapper said if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't mind your data being "public"? I'd say this might be a nice reminder that "public" may not be what you want all your data be, no matter how innocent you are.
When I was browsing dial up BBSes back 1994, I remember the distinction being made, so this has been going on for a long time.
Out of curiousity, how far ago (like what year, minimum) does the distinction need to be to not be considered a retroactive decision to re-define hacker?
I second this, recalling around the time of the early 90s when malicious activity was stated as people cracking software, and crackers, while hackers were people that built things.
It wasn't even an indirect detection, it was a series of observations about physical results that could be explained if the theory for gravity waves holds true. LIGO will actually measure gravity waves.
Those 100Gbps ports are irrelevant if you are doing DPI. The cores can't process the rules fast enough.
100Gbps I haven't seen yet, but 40Gbps exists. Naturally, they're not cheap, but certainly in-line with everything else at that level.
So then the backdoor is required for whom exactly? Probably the police/China.
Good luck proving that.
I'd say the proof has to come the other way given the current state of trust in various entities to do the right thing.
I believe that's limited to specific testing techniques. That BRAC1 is related to increased breast cancer risk has no meaningful restriction on it.
Human genes cannot be patented.
I don't think we'll see it change until the model for the ownership of broadcasting changes.
I agree.
Let's face it- there are times when we want to choose what we want to listen to and times when the music is nice to have playing but we don't want to take the time to design a playlist. In those latter circumstances we are dependent on someone else's choice, and their 'fee' for the privilege is getting to pick that which makes them money.
If I can make a playlist, I own the music. I already have what I need. I am looking for new music and artists. Current broadcasting is failing these artists in every way possible. Other alternatives are little better.
That may all be true, but my point was more about breaking the cabal that currently decides almost all music that sees airplay. That is the current area that still needs to be broken for musical creativity to return. We had a few short golden eras where technology or socio-demographics caused that control to slip for a while. I haven't seen a comparable slip with the move to digital distribution, yet.
Yeah yeah yeah - where was your outrage with the Plame affair? That particular link has a whole set of assertions that if true, should have resulted in a large prison population of former government people.
But you can be grandfathered. I know people still on unlimited, they just stopped offering it to new customers, and provided incentives to old customers to get off their unlimited data plans. Verizon did the same. TBH, for me it was a no-brainer. I don't use enough data to make unlimited an issue for me, and the LTE connectivity in general is crappy enough on either provider that it doesn't substitute for a real broadband connection, not to mention that mine is reliably several times faster than any LTE connection I get around here.
My personal thoughts are that very soon what Bowie said will come to pass. Namely, that the distributors will have less and less meaning in the world, because online distribution trumps them, and anyone can pop something up. Soon, new avenues of popular choice will become mainstream, and hopefully we'll get back to services that play music for their customers, and not for the distributors. (Yes, payola is still an ongoing problem)
You have a remarkable capacity to miss the point - then you pounce on explanatory statements and try to disprove those as if that would somehow impact the validity of the argument they were meant to explain.
Not at all. I agreed with the rest of your post except for this absolute statement:
But engineers dont try to build designs that almost certainly wont work.
The only potential quibble is as an engineer with an R&D lab are you more scientist or engineer? That would be a philosophical discussion I'd be open to but would likely be long and need to morph depending on the specific task being done (i.e., I'm stating that it is indeterminate in the general case)
Perhaps I should have prefaced it with a few mollifying terms and not just stated it baldly, as I could see how that might come across as adversarial. As I spent less than 30s on the entire session, I take the blame for not proof reading it prior to hitting the submit button.
I'd say for 99% of web sites, just bloody damn well design your web site to be readable. Get rid of all the stupid flashy shit and just provide your content which is seldom more than a couple of paragraphs of text and maybe an image or two. You could even have a "brought to you by blah" line for ads.
Balls to the Walls
Accept your future
But engineers dont try to build designs that almost certainly wont work. Scientists do experiments they expect to fail routinely - to confirm that they fail and if they dont start figuring out why. Engineering applies (usually very simplified) scientiffic theories while assuming those theories are correct. Science assumes tge opposite.
As an engineer I worked at an R&D "lab" that was also charged with producing actual product. To confirm our models, we absolutely created designs that we expected to fail in order to confirm the models were correct so that designs that were supposed to work had a greater degree of confidence in meeting their design goals. I guarantee you I did not work in the only such job, as I strongly suspect companies like Apple work along similar lines, albeit maybe not with quite so many intended failures, as one of our goals was to document some bleeding edge cases.
So both could be equally plausible, and at least 1 was true at one time for anyone born. So the less likely answer is 6 feet tall.
Notice I said is, not has been. Considering there is no way to know if my sibling is a brother or a sister until s/he is much longer than 1 mm, there is no way for me to have a brother who is currently 1 mm tall.
Then it's merely a matter of timing, isn't it? And there certainly is a means to know gender, even prior to insemination. Without further qualifications on the conditions of the initial statement, the more plausible answer remains 1mm.
I know of honorable and good unions (and had once been a member of one - the Ironworkers).
You might want to rethink that