I had been wondering if NIST was just pulling these so-called standards from their ass. I am glad you confirmed it. From now on, a kilo is the amount of coke a mexican hooker can snort in one week. Or course, that is under STP.
Lieberman is not a liberal. He may technically be a democrat, but that doesn't mean his actions reflect the views of the left.
In fact, I think Liberman does more harm than good to the left. Every time he sides with conservatives, the result gets called "bipartisan", when it is really the Republicians and Lieberman.
I'm sorry to inform you that Bayesian is no longer a techno-buzz-word. Last year, it was acceptable to apply the word Bayesian to any sort of stastical process and sound like a genius. Unfortunately, that is no longer true. Too many people now know that Bayesian actually has a technical meaning.
Until it is clear what the current techno-buzz-word is, I suggest you stick to classics like "synergy", "paradigm".
When the majority of the worlds scientists agree on something, that is "consensus science", and therefore probably wrong. But if a fiction author says something, then you'll "take his opinion on the matter?
There are a lot of dumb people on slashdot, but you might take the cake.
The Wen Ho Lee case turned out to be very similar - he was slightly sloppy with some data, as most scientists are, but he didn't do anything criminal. The moral of that story is that you can be sloppy with data, or you can be Chinese, but you can't be both at once.
Are you seriously equating the King of England, Vietnam, & political revolutions to our so-called battle with the music industry? You need some perspective.
Let me quote myself:
I am NOT suggesting that the struggle over DRM is in any way equivalent to the true struggles that those brave men led.
But the fact of the matter is that the MAJOR labels will demand DRM, unless one of them rolls (very unlikely), or a new paradigm takes over. Sure, maybe a DRMless music store will be part of that new paradigm. But at least realize that the vast majority of people won't give a shit about the vast majority of music on a DRMless service.
Every revolution has to contend with two powerful forces: those currently in power who resist it the revolution for their own gain, and, more importantly, the lazy masses who don't care about freedom or fairness, as long as they are comfortable. Usually people end up in the ignorant masses because they don't understand or care. You, on the other hand, seem to be proud to be on the side of blissful ignorance.
Do any of us like or want DRM? Hell no. But some of us realize that it's an extremely imperfect solution to a partly perceived, partly real problem.
Does anyone like being ruled by the King of England? No, but it is an imperfect solution to a partly perceived, partly real problem.
Does anyone like that we are fighting in Vietnam? No, but it is an imperfect solution to a partly perceived, partly real problem.
Either it is a good solution or a bad one. Pick a side. I have nothing but contempt for those who piously carry the banner of compromise in the name of convenience, and then declare that anyone who takes a true stand is a moron.
Perhaps some of you put your money where your mouth is, but most of you are hypocrites. And the worst among you are those who think you can steal things who don't belong to you. And yes, it is stealing.
Whether it is stealing or not (and your excerpt does nothing to prove your assertion), downloading all of your music is wrong. Downloading an occasional song, on the other hand, is not so clearly wrong. Nobody accuses people of stealing for taping songs on the radio.
I wish them luck. I really do. I'd love to have no DRM on all of my video, television, movies, music, and be able to use things I *bought* any way I see fit on any device at any time. No broadcast flag, no forced no-commercial-skip, no DRM.
But I'm also practical.
That, and not a, you know, moron.
So anybody who doesn't accept the current state as it is fed to them by those in control is a moron? Such as George Washington? Ghandi? Martin Luther King Jr? Should I go on?
I am NOT suggesting that the struggle over DRM is in any way equivalent to the true struggles that those brave men led. But I am suggesting that you have to be a moron to simply sit on your ass and make fun of anyone who tries to fight for what he believes in. And you have to be a really big fucking moron to proudly proclaim that you have no intention of fighting for what you believe in, because you "are practical".
So am I to believe then, that noone else here has seen jurassic park?
That brings up a great philosophical point - If we cloned Jesus, the clone would genetically be the son of God. Would he have all of Jesus's godlike powers (water to wine, part seas, etc.)? Assuming that Jesus received his god-traits from God's DNA, I don't see why not.
Take it a step further - if we cloned Jesus and harvested his body for organs, could we make half-human half-god creatures? Or perhaps we could look at his genetic structure, and figure out what the gene for "god-like" patience is. There are so many possibilities.
I can ban some religion I don't like (say, vegetarianism) and my robot army will hunt out anyone who is practicing it and kill em.
Serves those stupid vegetarianists right. They ought to realize that their god (Cucumberus?) is a false idol. I hope they start slaughtering lambs to show that they recogonize the one true God, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Once Jesus's holy warrior, George W. Bush gets this army of robots ready, this whole democracy sham won't be necessary any more.
What exactly do you find so beautiful about Ambient? It looks just like any of the typical gnu/linux window managers: fvwm, openbox, fluxbox, etc. I don't have anything against Ambient - I am just wondering what exactly you think should be copied. I can't find anything on any of those screenshots that I havent seen many times before.
This regression is probably a result of the GNOME developers simplicity-at-all-costs attitude
I agree, but I bet that they will add the filtering back in soon. From the way I understood it, the goal was to strip everything out of the file chooser, build it correctly from the ground up, and then add the advanced features back in so that they don't intefere with the simple behavior. As you say, it is possible to add the filter ability in without it confusing the noobs at all.
KDE & Gnome for people who like windows and uhh, maybe windowmaker for those who want something a bit different.
Thats funny - I use windowmaker on my work computer, and Gnome on my home computer. I use them both essentially the same (one app per desktop, ctrl-alt-right/left to switch desktops (and hence apps)). I use gnome at home since I am usually not worried about conserving processor power there, and it is nice to have some added functionality, like the ability to drag applications from one desktop to another in the pager.
Sometimes I use windows too - and I use it almost the same way. I keep all apps maximized, and use alt-tab to switch between them. For all practical purposes, all three desktop environments work the same way for me. Yet windowmaker is supposedly the "different" one.
In windowmaker, I use gnome-volume-control as my volume mixer. It behaves in an intintive way. I don't want anything different. Just because windows did something, doesn't mean that it should be forbidden for any other DE to also use it.
The submitter assumed you had heard of Del.icio.us and Flickr
Based on most of the responses to the article, this was a very bad assumption.
and whated to learn more about "folksonomies" defined in the article as : bottom-up taxonomies that people create on their own.
This definition just shifts the confusion to somewhere else. How about defining "folksonomies" as "using the meta-data that users apply to their own data to organize a general system of classification"? At least that gives a hint of what is actually being done. Telling me that it is a bottom up taxonomy is next to useless.
It was also assuned you had a better than grade 10 level of reading and/or education, and could figure things out.
Once again, this is a pretty bad assumption, considering that it was submitted to slashdot, where the average intelligence is about 3rd grade. Ignoring that bad assumption, the point of an article submission should be to explain in laymans terms what the article is talking about, so that readers can decide whether or not they want to read the article.
Physicists don't submit slashdot articles that read "Contrary to GJNM-3 predictions, the free space corrector to the assumed universal fluence theory, which predicts the effect of non-dispersive media on the transport of energy, has been measured by almat 5 to be over 1.2 times greater than analytic theory." Why do made-up fields, such as folksonomie get to do it?
Me: these meta-abstract pseudo-intellectual discussions
You:"big words I don't understand and can't be bothered to click on"
Response: I didn't say that I couldn't understand them (although that is also an issue), I said that there were:
(1) "meta-abstract", meaning that they are discussions about discussions and seperated from actual implementation, and
(2) "pseudo-intellectual", meaning that are carried out with a intellectual attitude (big words, big principles) but they are lacking the actual academic rigour that would make them truly intellectual.
In response, you basically called me stupid and lazy.
Me: self appointed experts
You:"people actually learning about things and explaining them"
Response: I have no problem with people learning and explaining things. Still, I am correct to refer to those who are inventing this folksonomie thing as "self appointed experts".
Me: It seems every week, there is some new Paradigm That Will Change The Way We Process Information.
You: This one's been around for months. Tens of thousands of people are using it already. That's worth commenting on, isn't it?
Months? Wow. That's almost as long as the dot-com boom lasted. Sarcasm aside, I agree that it is worth commenting on. My objection is to the scientific veneer placed over a fairly interesting, but simply problem: how to make classification of information simple and straightforward.
"I would take practical advice any day"... and I use this kind of tagging every day. People are building it into new applications as we speak. It's not abstract, it's working and useful right now.
The implementation is not abstract - I use audioscrabbler, so I know it is useful. Again, I am objecting to the meta-levels that bloggers apply to a simple discussion. Instead of all of this bullshit about taxonomies and synonym control, how about we see some code, or even pseudo-code?
Or are you all waiting for a post that everyone sane can understand, like how to modify your Gentoo PPC install to use both OSS and ALSA without frying your SBLive?
*sighs wearily*
I would take practical advice any day over these meta-abstract pseudo-intellectual discussions that self appointed experts like to get into. It seems every week, there is some new Paradigm That Will Change The Way We Process Information. This one looks just as stupid as all the rest.
There is no possible way anyone who was not familiar with this concept could have understood the article summary. It was a big collection of invented words and technical mumbo-jumbo. The submitter should learn to write.
once i bothered to go to wikipedia... i kinda had a feeling it wouldn't work...
The fact that they're forking makes them even more useless...
You're a real optimist, huh?
Re:Discarding too many people
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Wow, this might be the single dumbest comment I have ever read on slashdot. Considering that I sometimes read at -1, that is pretty impressive.
It's a lot easier to teach real time problem solving than to teach good programming methods... The first requires a certain base talent, but from that point you can learn "the tools of the trade"... On the other hand, teaching someone to write robust, well designed, well documented, efficient, correct code -- I'm not aware of any success stories. Just look at the schools (or any program) and see whether their graduates are in fact writing better code than graduates of other programs... In your work place, look around for the really good coders, and see if they come from the same schools -- my experience is that they do not.
Or, maybe it is really easy to teach good coding, and all schools do it? If all schools produce students with equal coding ability, the logical conclusion is that it is straightforward to teach coding. On the problem solving side, Hungarians are smarter. They also have better training, of course.
In other words, although Google may have very clever people, and they may come up with cool stuff, but as a corporation they don't have good judgement. In fact, they have horrible judgement. A good company is supposed to hire a small group of creative and erratic people to be "idea factories" and then an army of seasoned enginneers to turn the good ideas into profits. The seasoned engineers don't need to be clever -- they need good judgement and practical wisdom. Instead, Google is doing the opposite. They hired an army of tinkerers and imported a single CEO, Eric Schmidt, to have *someone* in the company with business sense. Schmidt provided Google with the revenue stream that they are currently enjoying, without solving a single brain teaser in the process. But instead of learning from this, they're squandering the revenue on building a trophy case of more tinkerers, while actual companies have already caught up to them in search engine quality -- Google is running on reputation now and they aren't going to be around much longer.
So because google doesn't follow standard business models, they have horrible judgement? Considering that they are doing pretty well in the market right now, wouldnt the obvious conclusion be that all those smart people saw a better business model?
So, lets see:
Slavish devotion to Standard Business Practices - check
Consistently flawed logic - check
Resistance to change - check
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, at STHAAK (Standard Temperature, High As a Kite) then.
As far as what the NIST says, that is baloney
I had been wondering if NIST was just pulling these so-called standards from their ass. I am glad you confirmed it. From now on, a kilo is the amount of coke a mexican hooker can snort in one week. Or course, that is under STP.
Lieberman is not a liberal. He may technically be a democrat, but that doesn't mean his actions reflect the views of the left.
In fact, I think Liberman does more harm than good to the left. Every time he sides with conservatives, the result gets called "bipartisan", when it is really the Republicians and Lieberman.
You wasted a first post on that nonsense? You might as well have trolled.
I'm sorry to inform you that Bayesian is no longer a techno-buzz-word. Last year, it was acceptable to apply the word Bayesian to any sort of stastical process and sound like a genius. Unfortunately, that is no longer true. Too many people now know that Bayesian actually has a technical meaning.
Until it is clear what the current techno-buzz-word is, I suggest you stick to classics like "synergy", "paradigm".
When the majority of the worlds scientists agree on something, that is "consensus science", and therefore probably wrong. But if a fiction author says something, then you'll "take his opinion on the matter?
There are a lot of dumb people on slashdot, but you might take the cake.
A few things about Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
They're under the direction of the Department of Energy and are managed by the University of California.
Across the street from both one finds Sandia National Laboratories, managed by Martin-Marietta.
Across the street? LANL is in Los Alamos, NM, Sandia is in Alberquerque, NM (over and hour from Los Alamos, and LLNL is in California.
The Wen Ho Lee case turned out to be very similar - he was slightly sloppy with some data, as most scientists are, but he didn't do anything criminal. The moral of that story is that you can be sloppy with data, or you can be Chinese, but you can't be both at once.
Equating != Comparing. Of course I am comparing them. I am not equating them though. Follow?
Are you seriously equating the King of England, Vietnam, & political revolutions to our so-called battle with the music industry? You need some perspective.
Let me quote myself:
I am NOT suggesting that the struggle over DRM is in any way equivalent to the true struggles that those brave men led.
howso?
But the fact of the matter is that the MAJOR labels will demand DRM, unless one of them rolls (very unlikely), or a new paradigm takes over. Sure, maybe a DRMless music store will be part of that new paradigm. But at least realize that the vast majority of people won't give a shit about the vast majority of music on a DRMless service.
Every revolution has to contend with two powerful forces: those currently in power who resist it the revolution for their own gain, and, more importantly, the lazy masses who don't care about freedom or fairness, as long as they are comfortable. Usually people end up in the ignorant masses because they don't understand or care. You, on the other hand, seem to be proud to be on the side of blissful ignorance.
Do any of us like or want DRM? Hell no. But some of us realize that it's an extremely imperfect solution to a partly perceived, partly real problem.
Does anyone like being ruled by the King of England? No, but it is an imperfect solution to a partly perceived, partly real problem.
Does anyone like that we are fighting in Vietnam? No, but it is an imperfect solution to a partly perceived, partly real problem.
Either it is a good solution or a bad one. Pick a side. I have nothing but contempt for those who piously carry the banner of compromise in the name of convenience, and then declare that anyone who takes a true stand is a moron.
Perhaps some of you put your money where your mouth is, but most of you are hypocrites. And the worst among you are those who think you can steal things who don't belong to you. And yes, it is stealing.
Whether it is stealing or not (and your excerpt does nothing to prove your assertion), downloading all of your music is wrong. Downloading an occasional song, on the other hand, is not so clearly wrong. Nobody accuses people of stealing for taping songs on the radio.
I wish them luck. I really do. I'd love to have no DRM on all of my video, television, movies, music, and be able to use things I *bought* any way I see fit on any device at any time. No broadcast flag, no forced no-commercial-skip, no DRM.
But I'm also practical.
That, and not a, you know, moron.
So anybody who doesn't accept the current state as it is fed to them by those in control is a moron? Such as George Washington? Ghandi? Martin Luther King Jr? Should I go on?
I am NOT suggesting that the struggle over DRM is in any way equivalent to the true struggles that those brave men led. But I am suggesting that you have to be a moron to simply sit on your ass and make fun of anyone who tries to fight for what he believes in. And you have to be a really big fucking moron to proudly proclaim that you have no intention of fighting for what you believe in, because you "are practical".
So am I to believe then, that noone else here has seen jurassic park?
That brings up a great philosophical point - If we cloned Jesus, the clone would genetically be the son of God. Would he have all of Jesus's godlike powers (water to wine, part seas, etc.)? Assuming that Jesus received his god-traits from God's DNA, I don't see why not.
Take it a step further - if we cloned Jesus and harvested his body for organs, could we make half-human half-god creatures? Or perhaps we could look at his genetic structure, and figure out what the gene for "god-like" patience is. There are so many possibilities.
Editors, can we have a Childish Microsoft Bashing section so I can filter this crap from my frontpage?
We do. It is just called the "Microsoft" section.
I can ban some religion I don't like (say, vegetarianism) and my robot army will hunt out anyone who is practicing it and kill em.
Serves those stupid vegetarianists right. They ought to realize that their god (Cucumberus?) is a false idol. I hope they start slaughtering lambs to show that they recogonize the one true God, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Once Jesus's holy warrior, George W. Bush gets this army of robots ready, this whole democracy sham won't be necessary any more.
What exactly do you find so beautiful about Ambient? It looks just like any of the typical gnu/linux window managers: fvwm, openbox, fluxbox, etc. I don't have anything against Ambient - I am just wondering what exactly you think should be copied. I can't find anything on any of those screenshots that I havent seen many times before.
This regression is probably a result of the GNOME developers simplicity-at-all-costs attitude
I agree, but I bet that they will add the filtering back in soon. From the way I understood it, the goal was to strip everything out of the file chooser, build it correctly from the ground up, and then add the advanced features back in so that they don't intefere with the simple behavior. As you say, it is possible to add the filter ability in without it confusing the noobs at all.
KDE & Gnome for people who like windows and uhh, maybe windowmaker for those who want something a bit different.
Thats funny - I use windowmaker on my work computer, and Gnome on my home computer. I use them both essentially the same (one app per desktop, ctrl-alt-right/left to switch desktops (and hence apps)). I use gnome at home since I am usually not worried about conserving processor power there, and it is nice to have some added functionality, like the ability to drag applications from one desktop to another in the pager.
Sometimes I use windows too - and I use it almost the same way. I keep all apps maximized, and use alt-tab to switch between them. For all practical purposes, all three desktop environments work the same way for me. Yet windowmaker is supposedly the "different" one.
In windowmaker, I use gnome-volume-control as my volume mixer. It behaves in an intintive way. I don't want anything different. Just because windows did something, doesn't mean that it should be forbidden for any other DE to also use it.
By far the funniest thing I have ever read on slashdot.
The submitter assumed you had heard of Del.icio.us and Flickr
Based on most of the responses to the article, this was a very bad assumption.
and whated to learn more about "folksonomies" defined in the article as : bottom-up taxonomies that people create on their own.
This definition just shifts the confusion to somewhere else. How about defining "folksonomies" as "using the meta-data that users apply to their own data to organize a general system of classification"? At least that gives a hint of what is actually being done. Telling me that it is a bottom up taxonomy is next to useless.
It was also assuned you had a better than grade 10 level of reading and/or education, and could figure things out.
Once again, this is a pretty bad assumption, considering that it was submitted to slashdot, where the average intelligence is about 3rd grade. Ignoring that bad assumption, the point of an article submission should be to explain in laymans terms what the article is talking about, so that readers can decide whether or not they want to read the article.
Physicists don't submit slashdot articles that read "Contrary to GJNM-3 predictions, the free space corrector to the assumed universal fluence theory, which predicts the effect of non-dispersive media on the transport of energy, has been measured by almat 5 to be over 1.2 times greater than analytic theory." Why do made-up fields, such as folksonomie get to do it?
Me: these meta-abstract pseudo-intellectual discussions
... and I use this kind of tagging every day. People are building it into new applications as we speak. It's not abstract, it's working and useful right now.
You:"big words I don't understand and can't be bothered to click on"
Response: I didn't say that I couldn't understand them (although that is also an issue), I said that there were:
(1) "meta-abstract", meaning that they are discussions about discussions and seperated from actual implementation, and
(2) "pseudo-intellectual", meaning that are carried out with a intellectual attitude (big words, big principles) but they are lacking the actual academic rigour that would make them truly intellectual.
In response, you basically called me stupid and lazy.
Me: self appointed experts
You:"people actually learning about things and explaining them"
Response: I have no problem with people learning and explaining things. Still, I am correct to refer to those who are inventing this folksonomie thing as "self appointed experts".
Me: It seems every week, there is some new Paradigm That Will Change The Way We Process Information.
You: This one's been around for months. Tens of thousands of people are using it already. That's worth commenting on, isn't it?
Months? Wow. That's almost as long as the dot-com boom lasted. Sarcasm aside, I agree that it is worth commenting on. My objection is to the scientific veneer placed over a fairly interesting, but simply problem: how to make classification of information simple and straightforward.
"I would take practical advice any day"
The implementation is not abstract - I use audioscrabbler, so I know it is useful. Again, I am objecting to the meta-levels that bloggers apply to a simple discussion. Instead of all of this bullshit about taxonomies and synonym control, how about we see some code, or even pseudo-code?
Or are you all waiting for a post that everyone sane can understand, like how to modify your Gentoo PPC install to use both OSS and ALSA without frying your SBLive?
*sighs wearily*
I would take practical advice any day over these meta-abstract pseudo-intellectual discussions that self appointed experts like to get into. It seems every week, there is some new Paradigm That Will Change The Way We Process Information. This one looks just as stupid as all the rest.
There is no possible way anyone who was not familiar with this concept could have understood the article summary. It was a big collection of invented words and technical mumbo-jumbo. The submitter should learn to write.
the word "wiki" has always put me off...
... i kinda had a feeling it wouldn't work...
once i bothered to go to wikipedia
The fact that they're forking makes them even more useless...
You're a real optimist, huh?
Wow, this might be the single dumbest comment I have ever read on slashdot. Considering that I sometimes read at -1, that is pretty impressive.
... The first requires a certain base talent, but from that point you can learn "the tools of the trade" ... On the other hand, teaching someone to write robust, well designed, well documented, efficient, correct code -- I'm not aware of any success stories. Just look at the schools (or any program) and see whether their graduates are in fact writing better code than graduates of other programs ... In your work place, look around for the really good coders, and see if they come from the same schools -- my experience is that they do not.
It's a lot easier to teach real time problem solving than to teach good programming methods
Or, maybe it is really easy to teach good coding, and all schools do it? If all schools produce students with equal coding ability, the logical conclusion is that it is straightforward to teach coding. On the problem solving side, Hungarians are smarter. They also have better training, of course.
In other words, although Google may have very clever people, and they may come up with cool stuff, but as a corporation they don't have good judgement. In fact, they have horrible judgement. A good company is supposed to hire a small group of creative and erratic people to be "idea factories" and then an army of seasoned enginneers to turn the good ideas into profits. The seasoned engineers don't need to be clever -- they need good judgement and practical wisdom. Instead, Google is doing the opposite. They hired an army of tinkerers and imported a single CEO, Eric Schmidt, to have *someone* in the company with business sense. Schmidt provided Google with the revenue stream that they are currently enjoying, without solving a single brain teaser in the process. But instead of learning from this, they're squandering the revenue on building a trophy case of more tinkerers, while actual companies have already caught up to them in search engine quality -- Google is running on reputation now and they aren't going to be around much longer.
So because google doesn't follow standard business models, they have horrible judgement? Considering that they are doing pretty well in the market right now, wouldnt the obvious conclusion be that all those smart people saw a better business model?
So, lets see:
Slavish devotion to Standard Business Practices - check
Consistently flawed logic - check
Resistance to change - check
Let me guess - you are a business major?