That's an enligthened view of us. I always saw us as more like a virus, as Agent Smith put it. We go around consuming resources and transforming the world to our needs. Once the host is dead, on to another one!
I asked the same question to a former manager of mine and his reply was that managing a business or people is a lot like managing complexity in software design. Of course you can't treat people like objects(pun intended) but principles of modularization, etc. still applies. Just as you don't put all your logic in one method, function, or object, you shouldn't do everything yourself. Delegate stuff out and have some people concentrate on certain things. The old *nix philosophy of doing one thing and doing it really well still applies. Trust your employees to do the right thing without you micro-managing it. In the end, you become the thing that brings all these pieces together.
Good programming practices/philosophy goes beyond CS. It's all managing complexity after all.
In a move sure to be applauded by DDoS botnet owners everywhere, news.com.com is reporting that Comcast is raising the speed of its cable Internet offerings
It's one thing to be cynical but another thing to just be biased. Do we always have to be so negative. Extra bandwidth in general is good for the customers. I see way more benefits than harm in this case.
Their.Net XML components are pretty damn nice. It makes parsing XML really easy. The ability to save Office documents as XML is really nice as well. So far, Microsoft has only helped spread the usage of XML.
Obviously it was put in there to appease the Creationists. Do we put stickers like that for relativity? There are so many things in science that are just "theories", yet they had to single out evolution. Why? If they put a sticker on those books for every scientific theory taught then fine, go ahead. But when you single out one theory that is obviously going against what some religion believes, then you have to question the motivation for that.
The author is obviously arguing from a non technical standpoint and doesn't understand the physical limitations. Yes, in principle, a totally free air wave might cause a boom similar to the Internet. However, the problem is that there still needs to be regulations and oversight. Even thought 802.11, Bluetooth, and cordless phones share the same frequency and do so relatively successfully, there are still limits placed on their output if I'm not mistaken. No matter what kind of media access technology you're using, if someone totally overpowers the airwaves with his transmitter, you won't get your signal. For fairness sake, there has to be a limit to each user's "sphere of influence". The airwave is a shared medium and regulations ensure that everyone gets his fair share of it. Government regulations on such resources are there to ensure that the limited resource benefits the most people. While our current regulations are outdated and inefficient, it doesn't mean we should throw away the idea of regulations entirely. We should instead improve them. The FCC can assign narrower bands because current digital technology is more precise and require less bandwidth for the same amount of info. Perhaps they should allow the free trading of bands. But at some level, there has be some authority to ensure that it's not chaos out there. We've seen unregulated air waves before. Before the FCC, radio stations would hop frequencies whenever they wanted to. Listener couldn't be sure the station they had yesterday will be there again tomorrow. Let's not return to that.
You can't get something for nothing. Code division is nice and all but as the number of users increases so must the code. Eventually the overhead(the code) will be bigger than the data. Code division and other media access technology can better utilize available frequency but we still need frequency allocation. What we need is tighter allocation because our current technology need a lot less buffer room between bands and can send more using less bandwidth.
While I agree with the sentiment of your post, I want to correct something. We got burned by 9/11, not because we were in a Cold War mentality. The Cold War has been long over by then. What burned us was that we thought that terrorism has to be state sponsored like it was in the past. Al Qaeda was a "grass root" movement. It's goal is to facilitate terrorist activities without being directly involved in all of them. Think of them as a terrorist enterpenuer[sp?]. The 9/11 plan wasn't even Bin Laden or Al Qaeda's idea. It was proposed by an outsider. Once bin Laden approved it, Al Qaeda gave it the support it needed. They took over the role of the state sponsor. The problem for the US was that our military dealt with terrorism in the past by punishing the state sponsors. Bombing Libya and cruise missiles into Iraq were some examples of this. When that changed, we didn't know how to react. There was no state sponsor to punish anymore (although the Taliban could come pretty close, except we didn't recognize them as a legit government so they were not a "state". We were tied down considerably by legal and diplomatic considerations prior to 9/11.)
I'm not sure if scrapping equipment is such a bad idea. Al Qaeda has been fighting us with relatiavely low tech means and our tech gadgetry haven't done us all that much good. 9/11 happened despite our satellites. A good infiltrator into Al Qaeda would probably have done more than 10 satellites in the sky. I mean, how can you detect the motivation and inspiration Al Qaeda gives to potential terrorists from the sky? Al Qaeda is a loose network.
Yes, we must plan for the future and stay steadfast to our goals. However, we should be flexible in our methods. Al Qaeda is flexible in their methods as well. They wait for other groups to come up with new ideas and then give them the resources to grow. We need to match and exceed their flexibility. I'm not sure if more of the old is the answer. Perhaps the money is better spent else where. (I am not a historian. I simply read the 9/11 commission report -- highly recommended)
I doubt it, not on the basis on their morals or anything like that, but how much processing power do you really need to compile this:
public int main(int argc, char** argv) {
exposeWindowsAPI = Microsoft;
showPrettyGUI();
defaultSecurity = exploitableConsumerHorde;// Internet Explorer Kernel Integration
if (packet->evilBit == true){
runAsAdmin = true;
IERun(packet->exploit)
}// End Internet Explorer Kernel Integration
exposeWindowsAPI = nonMicrosoft;
while(){
executePrograms();
if (program == nonMicrosoftMade && random == 1){
windowsCrash();
}
} }
I would imagine that it would route traffics to roads until there's a faster one, ie. the first one has enough cars so that another road is actually faster. Repeat the process.
At some point, a virus writer or malicious hacker will redirect traffic to spread virus. Or they'll employ the same method and spread virus via P2P networks. Since most P2P users are accustomed to thinking fake music files come from MPAA, they will blame the MPAA for the damaged computers. Then lawsuits will come up. Whatever the outcome, this will focus media attention on the Draconian tactics of the MPAA and MS's DRM security weakness. Perhaps this will turn even more public opinion against them and put pressure on our lawmakers to do something. Wishful thinking? Probably but there's also a chance...
Can we think of something to stop those waves? I know that have tremendous amounts of energy. However, even a warning system won't do a lot of good if those waves slam into DC, NYC, and Boston. I wonder what the US Navy thinks of all this. A single disaster wiping out most of our Atlantic fleet would be disasterous.
IANAP (I am not a physicists) but cutting edge physics is getting more and more surreal. Some of these new theories are just wild, though not necessarily incorrect. Sometimes it seems that we're coming up with new theories to explain something but have no good way of verifying them. Isn't physics suppose to boil everything down to the fundamental levels where everything is simple and elegant? It seems to be getting more complicated everytime someone comes up with a new theory and observation. As someone interested in physics, I can keep up with and buy into these theories up to the quarks, etc. Hopefully, someday it will all boil down to something elegant and credible.
People have been predicting the demise or decline of PCs forever. First it was the console, then PDAs, etc. But their argument usually starts out like this: 1. People generally use the PC for A, B, and C. 2. New devices are coming out that can do A, B, and C better. 3. So PC will decline or die out.
But they always forget why PCs became popular in the first place. PCs are GENERAL computing machines. With new software or upgrades they can take virutally any role. Their functions are virtually limitless. As a result they are often the nexus of different devices. They help bridge the conntection between other devices or give rise to new ones. How are you going to use your iPod without a PCs? The PC bridges the connection between Internet and iPod. The trend has been towards a convergence rather than a divergence of information and computing. A general computing device is what's going to make it happen, not individual devices that stay one way and operate apart from everything else.
I think BitTorrent, not the websites, would be closer to telephones. Those sites are made explicitly to facilitate privacy using BitTorrent. Both BitTorrent and the telephone have uses other than crime.
I've been trying to get my company to take advantage of Open Source solutions but it's not easy. Sometimes it seems that they think if it's free, there must be something wrong with it. I suppose they like the support of paid-for software. My strategy right now is to replace all the non-supported software with open-source ones. Once they feel they can trust open-source software, that when I can seriously push open-source software as an option for our bigger problems and needs.
So for this entire scheme to work, we must first solve the fusion reactor problem. But once that problem is solved, why do we need to go all the way to the moon when we have the oceans? Is Helium-3 that much easier to fuse and create energy?
pooint and clickRobin "Roblimo" Miller is well-known in the open-source world for advocating cheap, user-friendly Linux computing and demonstrating that it's not only possible but available, right now. (He's also a writer and editor at NewsForge, and the editor in chief of OSTG, of which Slashdot is a part, and
therefore one of my bosses; take that for what it's worth.) Roblimo's new book Point and Click Linuxreally consists of three things: the book itself, an included copy on CD of the Debian-based SimplyMepis Linux distribution, and a DVD featuring Roblimo's 6-part narrated video guide for getting started with Linux, Mepis and KDE. "Getting started" is key; this book is for the interested beginner, not the power user. Read on for the rest of my review.
Was he looking over your shoulder and threatening you with unemployment when you typed that? Holy typos Batman!
Slashdot Mirror
That's an enligthened view of us. I always saw us as more like a virus, as Agent Smith put it. We go around consuming resources and transforming the world to our needs. Once the host is dead, on to another one!
Usually pacts with the devil take on greater significance as you get closer and closer to death (*cough* Sun *cough*)...
I asked the same question to a former manager of mine and his reply was that managing a business or people is a lot like managing complexity in software design. Of course you can't treat people like objects(pun intended) but principles of modularization, etc. still applies. Just as you don't put all your logic in one method, function, or object, you shouldn't do everything yourself. Delegate stuff out and have some people concentrate on certain things. The old *nix philosophy of doing one thing and doing it really well still applies. Trust your employees to do the right thing without you micro-managing it. In the end, you become the thing that brings all these pieces together.
Good programming practices/philosophy goes beyond CS. It's all managing complexity after all.
It's one thing to be cynical but another thing to just be biased. Do we always have to be so negative. Extra bandwidth in general is good for the customers. I see way more benefits than harm in this case.
Their .Net XML components are pretty damn nice. It makes parsing XML really easy. The ability to save Office documents as XML is really nice as well. So far, Microsoft has only helped spread the usage of XML.
Obviously it was put in there to appease the Creationists. Do we put stickers like that for relativity? There are so many things in science that are just "theories", yet they had to single out evolution. Why? If they put a sticker on those books for every scientific theory taught then fine, go ahead. But when you single out one theory that is obviously going against what some religion believes, then you have to question the motivation for that.
The author is obviously arguing from a non technical standpoint and doesn't understand the physical limitations. Yes, in principle, a totally free air wave might cause a boom similar to the Internet. However, the problem is that there still needs to be regulations and oversight. Even thought 802.11, Bluetooth, and cordless phones share the same frequency and do so relatively successfully, there are still limits placed on their output if I'm not mistaken. No matter what kind of media access technology you're using, if someone totally overpowers the airwaves with his transmitter, you won't get your signal. For fairness sake, there has to be a limit to each user's "sphere of influence". The airwave is a shared medium and regulations ensure that everyone gets his fair share of it. Government regulations on such resources are there to ensure that the limited resource benefits the most people. While our current regulations are outdated and inefficient, it doesn't mean we should throw away the idea of regulations entirely. We should instead improve them. The FCC can assign narrower bands because current digital technology is more precise and require less bandwidth for the same amount of info. Perhaps they should allow the free trading of bands. But at some level, there has be some authority to ensure that it's not chaos out there. We've seen unregulated air waves before. Before the FCC, radio stations would hop frequencies whenever they wanted to. Listener couldn't be sure the station they had yesterday will be there again tomorrow. Let's not return to that.
You can't get something for nothing. Code division is nice and all but as the number of users increases so must the code. Eventually the overhead(the code) will be bigger than the data. Code division and other media access technology can better utilize available frequency but we still need frequency allocation. What we need is tighter allocation because our current technology need a lot less buffer room between bands and can send more using less bandwidth.
While I agree with the sentiment of your post, I want to correct something. We got burned by 9/11, not because we were in a Cold War mentality. The Cold War has been long over by then. What burned us was that we thought that terrorism has to be state sponsored like it was in the past. Al Qaeda was a "grass root" movement. It's goal is to facilitate terrorist activities without being directly involved in all of them. Think of them as a terrorist enterpenuer[sp?]. The 9/11 plan wasn't even Bin Laden or Al Qaeda's idea. It was proposed by an outsider. Once bin Laden approved it, Al Qaeda gave it the support it needed. They took over the role of the state sponsor. The problem for the US was that our military dealt with terrorism in the past by punishing the state sponsors. Bombing Libya and cruise missiles into Iraq were some examples of this. When that changed, we didn't know how to react. There was no state sponsor to punish anymore (although the Taliban could come pretty close, except we didn't recognize them as a legit government so they were not a "state". We were tied down considerably by legal and diplomatic considerations prior to 9/11.)
I'm not sure if scrapping equipment is such a bad idea. Al Qaeda has been fighting us with relatiavely low tech means and our tech gadgetry haven't done us all that much good. 9/11 happened despite our satellites. A good infiltrator into Al Qaeda would probably have done more than 10 satellites in the sky. I mean, how can you detect the motivation and inspiration Al Qaeda gives to potential terrorists from the sky? Al Qaeda is a loose network.
Yes, we must plan for the future and stay steadfast to our goals. However, we should be flexible in our methods. Al Qaeda is flexible in their methods as well. They wait for other groups to come up with new ideas and then give them the resources to grow. We need to match and exceed their flexibility. I'm not sure if more of the old is the answer. Perhaps the money is better spent else where. (I am not a historian. I simply read the 9/11 commission report -- highly recommended)
Did you include the and ? Obviously you got the joke and the moderator didn't...
RIAA/MPAA contractors using spyware.
Nazism is back in vogue in Germany.
I kid, I kid.
I doubt it, not on the basis on their morals or anything like that, but how much processing power do you really need to compile this:
// Internet Explorer Kernel Integration // End Internet Explorer Kernel Integration
public int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
exposeWindowsAPI = Microsoft;
showPrettyGUI();
defaultSecurity = exploitableConsumerHorde;
if (packet->evilBit == true){
runAsAdmin = true;
IERun(packet->exploit)
}
exposeWindowsAPI = nonMicrosoft;
while(){
executePrograms();
if (program == nonMicrosoftMade && random == 1){
windowsCrash();
}
}
}
I would imagine that it would route traffics to roads until there's a faster one, ie. the first one has enough cars so that another road is actually faster. Repeat the process.
At some point, a virus writer or malicious hacker will redirect traffic to spread virus. Or they'll employ the same method and spread virus via P2P networks. Since most P2P users are accustomed to thinking fake music files come from MPAA, they will blame the MPAA for the damaged computers. Then lawsuits will come up. Whatever the outcome, this will focus media attention on the Draconian tactics of the MPAA and MS's DRM security weakness. Perhaps this will turn even more public opinion against them and put pressure on our lawmakers to do something. Wishful thinking? Probably but there's also a chance...
Can we think of something to stop those waves? I know that have tremendous amounts of energy. However, even a warning system won't do a lot of good if those waves slam into DC, NYC, and Boston. I wonder what the US Navy thinks of all this. A single disaster wiping out most of our Atlantic fleet would be disasterous.
That made a lot more sense than the article itself. The whole Quatum Darwinism thing seems a made-up marketing term and is confusing.
IANAP (I am not a physicists) but cutting edge physics is getting more and more surreal. Some of these new theories are just wild, though not necessarily incorrect. Sometimes it seems that we're coming up with new theories to explain something but have no good way of verifying them. Isn't physics suppose to boil everything down to the fundamental levels where everything is simple and elegant? It seems to be getting more complicated everytime someone comes up with a new theory and observation. As someone interested in physics, I can keep up with and buy into these theories up to the quarks, etc. Hopefully, someday it will all boil down to something elegant and credible.
People have been predicting the demise or decline of PCs forever. First it was the console, then PDAs, etc. But their argument usually starts out like this:
1. People generally use the PC for A, B, and C.
2. New devices are coming out that can do A, B, and C better.
3. So PC will decline or die out.
But they always forget why PCs became popular in the first place. PCs are GENERAL computing machines. With new software or upgrades they can take virutally any role. Their functions are virtually limitless. As a result they are often the nexus of different devices. They help bridge the conntection between other devices or give rise to new ones. How are you going to use your iPod without a PCs? The PC bridges the connection between Internet and iPod. The trend has been towards a convergence rather than a divergence of information and computing. A general computing device is what's going to make it happen, not individual devices that stay one way and operate apart from everything else.
Conspiracy to you, business strategy to IBM.
I think BitTorrent, not the websites, would be closer to telephones. Those sites are made explicitly to facilitate privacy using BitTorrent. Both BitTorrent and the telephone have uses other than crime.
But I would hate to be from that school: Tokyo Institute of Technology. A MIT like naming scheme could be problematic...
I've been trying to get my company to take advantage of Open Source solutions but it's not easy. Sometimes it seems that they think if it's free, there must be something wrong with it. I suppose they like the support of paid-for software. My strategy right now is to replace all the non-supported software with open-source ones. Once they feel they can trust open-source software, that when I can seriously push open-source software as an option for our bigger problems and needs.
So for this entire scheme to work, we must first solve the fusion reactor problem. But once that problem is solved, why do we need to go all the way to the moon when we have the oceans? Is Helium-3 that much easier to fuse and create energy?
Was he looking over your shoulder and threatening you with unemployment when you typed that? Holy typos Batman!