The general public does not make a distinction, and their votes will be needed for any serious effort to address climate change. Shrill alarmism forecasting global catastrophe is counter productive, because when it is later debunked, it reduces the credibility of all climate scientists. The 2007 IPCC report did immeasurable harm to climate change efforts, and this report appears to be making similar exaggerations.
Which isn't really fair, because all the Russians did was defend themselves.
The war started when the Russians invaded Poland. Also, Poltava isn't in Russia, it is in Ukraine. It is silly to say the Russians were only defending themselves when the war both started and ended outside their territory. And the Swedes only lost that day because Charles XII wasn't feeling well. There should be a re-match.
Maybe women like to work part-time and choose the hours they want to work.
Or maybe TFA is based on bogus data. The factoid that computer programmers used to be mostly women has been debunked. They were mostly key-punch data entry clerks, not "programmers". They were keying in programs written by others, or converting flow charts to code. Very few of them were designing algorithms.
I also doubt if ticket sellers were really paid 57% more in the past. Why would a movie theater pay that much for a job requiring near zero skills? Likely because in the past the data was either very sparse or including people like the theater owner. I would like to see where this data came from.
In commercial software it would be found, documented, traced back, and fixed.
Only if the company made it a priority and budgeted for it. Then it would be rolled into the next release, which may not come for months, or even years. Oh, and the next release will only be installed by users that can afford the upgrade fee.
But that proves my point that having the source code helps to find bugs
They don't want the source code to "find bugs". They want the source code so they can modify the source, insert backdoors, and install/distribute the compromised binaries... like they did with Cisco switches and Xerox printers.
As my link indicates, the cars actually can't do these things...
No, your link indicates that Ford cars can't actually do these things. Plenty of other cars, including tens of thousands of Teslas, can and are doing them. My wife owns a Tesla, and it auto-drives just fine in rain, fog, and snow. Ford was a late starter in automated driving, so I am not surprised that they are behind others.
just like how the Mongols bypassed the great wall of China
Minor historical quibble: It was the Manchurians, not the Mongols, that breached the wall by "bribing the guards", and they didn't just bribe a few sentries. They used a combination of bribes and threats to cause entire Han armies to defect to their side. In 1644, Manchuria had about 2% of the population of Ming Dynasty China, yet they were able to conquer all of China, and much more surrounding territory, including Tibet, Xinjiang, and much of southern Siberia. China the only empire that expanded, not by conquering, but by being conquered and then demographically swamping and absorbing their conquerors.
In the USA, liberal today in the basically socialist.
Not really. When self identified "liberals" and "conservatives" are asked their views on specific issues, the issue where they differ the most is abortion. On that issue, it is the liberals who want less government interference in our lives.
It's a lot easier to find the bug when you have the source code.
1. Many security researchers have claimed that this is not true. They often find bugs just by pushing the running code past its limits: giving it more input data that it is expecting, giving it binary data when it is expecting ascii, or exploiting corner cases, like negative numbers when it is expecting only positive numbers or triggering arithmetic overflow on a pointer, etc. You don't need the source to do any of this.
2. Just because you don't have access to the source, doesn't mean the NSA/CIA/FBI/FIS/MSS doesn't have the source. Many times they simply buy access, as they did with RSA. Sometimes they demand access as a condition of doing business, as they did with Microsoft. Sometimes they hack their way in. Other times they infiltrate or bribe low level developers.
With OSS you still need to trust people, but you need to trust fewer people, you know who those people are, and you can see who else trusts them. With proprietary code, there is a chain of trust that is only as strong as its weakest link. With OSS, there is a web of trust. I can look at the git log and see who wrote a particular algorithm, and I can often see what other code they have written. I can see the changes that were made later, and who made them. For many OSS projects, I can see who reviewed/audited the code. None of this is magic, and there is never a 100% assurance, but OSS has come clear advantages.
Automated cars are GREAT at the 99%. It's the edge cases, in bad weather, with mechanical failures...that will be the true test.
Automated cars are better than humans in bad weather. They have many types of sensors, while humans rely on vision. Tesla has recommended that owners engage Autopilot during snowstorms, rather than trying to drive. The sensors can detect other cars in fog or heavy rain, avoiding fatal pileups. As for mechanical failures, those cause a very small percentage of crashes, but I see no reason to assume that humans can handle them better than a computer. At the very least, the computer would have a faster reaction time.
Duh... What?!? Reference, please??? What hardware constant built into the FPU?
Pi is built in to x86s. You can load it into a register with the FLDPI instruction. It is built in to many other processors as well. Using it will give you the maximum precision, and will be faster to execute since it uses less bandwidth and cache.
The symbolic constant is easier than typing in 15 digits, and the compiler recognizes the constant and optimizes it to use the hardware constant built in to the FPU, so I get faster execution as well.
Those who refuse to compete at that level will die... like Kodak.
Kodak did NOT "refuse to compete". They tried hard to convert to digital. The problem was that they had little expertise, and no competitive advantage in digital. Basically, all they had was their brand, and that wasn't worth much. Even in hindsight, I don't see anything that Kodak could have done to save themselves. They were doomed.
It is the same for the automakers. If SDCs cause large numbers of people to forego car ownership, and most of the "shared" cars are basic models (since taxis are not status symbols), then the car manufacturers are in big trouble. If demand for cars contracts by 50% or 80%, then many of them will not survive, and there is nothing they can do to stop that.
Following the Russian Revolution, millions of Ukrainian farmers were intentionally starved to death in the Holodomor. About 98% of the 30 million people that died during the Great Leap Forward were farmers.
they will be lining up with strings in their hands right along side the rest of the lower class.
Farmers in America have an average income more than twice the median. They are not "lower class", and they are the most reliable Republican voters.
Google Peasant's Revolt for an example.
The Peasant's Revolt in 1381 was primarily a revolt against high taxes. So that is a poor example to use when advocating for higher taxes to fund redistribution.
This problem will be fixed in a few years with self driving vehicles. The biggest expense of buses is the driver. Once the driver is eliminated, the buses can be replaced with smaller self driving vans. They can drive point-to-point, rather than zig-zag routes, and they can even vary their routes depending on the destinations of the passengers. Automated vehicles will revolutionize mass transit.
you either have to drive to a light rail stop or be dropped off there by a bus.
When foreigners visit America, they are often surprised that much of our mass transit is designed with the assumption that that you will use a car to get to it. The commuter train station near my house has a four acre parking lot.
Let's face it, white collar, upper middle class and upper class people do not live an "ordinary" lifestyle by definition
We have to deal with a lot of problems that "ordinary" people do not. For instance, we can't just hop in the car and go on a trip, without first doing a web search for Tesla charging stations. For some destinations, there are no chargers enroute, and we have to take the spouse's BMW instead.
its just that they were so smug and self important about it
I am sorry to disappoint you, but I live and work in the valley, and I have seen no signs of the contraction described in TFA. My smugness has not diminished.
Financial advisors are running a scam. Their "advice" is designed to maximize their own fees and commissions, rather than the interest of their clients. There was an article in the Economist last week that reported a significant percentage of financial advisors have been disciplined for misconduct, but most kept their jobs, including many repeat offenders.
A software program should be able to give better advice, since at the very least, it has no conflict of interest. Heck, a dart board should give better advice than most human advisors.
How many online shops selling the same thing using images and advertising materials ripped off each other do we need?
The Chinese do the same thing in the off-line world. It is common to see an entire street of tiny shops, all selling the exact same merchandise. Since the shops are tiny, they can only offer a very limited selection. Since the neighboring shops are all selling the exact same selection, they can only compete on price, so they are all selling for a few cents over their cost, and making almost no profit.
Of course it would make sense for them to consolidate into a single large shop, with higher prices and much better selection, benefiting themselves as well as their customers. But they can't do that, because they don't trust each other. Chinese businesses seldom grow beyond hiring family members, and with the one-child-policy, that means they stay very small.
This is just "maintenance theater". This problem has been festering for years, and then all of the sudden they decide it is a "crisis" and they need to shutdown the entire system for a full day in the middle of a work week. This maintenance could have easily been done during regular daily shutdowns from midnight to 5am. Or it could have been done on a weekend. Or they could have done it one line at a time, so that there would be enough buses/taxies/ubers to handle the displaced commuters.
The only reason they did a full system shutdown is to draw attention to themselves, and give the public the perception that they are underfunded and need more subsidies.
It's not a free market when the government puts their thumb on the scale.
In a free market, a contract is a contract. So if the government refuses to get involved (other than enforcing contracts), then AT&T wins. No thumb is needed.
Slashdot Mirror
The general public does not make a distinction, and their votes will be needed for any serious effort to address climate change. Shrill alarmism forecasting global catastrophe is counter productive, because when it is later debunked, it reduces the credibility of all climate scientists. The 2007 IPCC report did immeasurable harm to climate change efforts, and this report appears to be making similar exaggerations.
Why don't you just set a policy of subtracting the amount of taxpayer funding from roads that receive contributions from rich people?
Because no one is going to contribute if they know their contribution isn't going to make any difference.
Which isn't really fair, because all the Russians did was defend themselves.
The war started when the Russians invaded Poland. Also, Poltava isn't in Russia, it is in Ukraine. It is silly to say the Russians were only defending themselves when the war both started and ended outside their territory. And the Swedes only lost that day because Charles XII wasn't feeling well. There should be a re-match.
Maybe women like to work part-time and choose the hours they want to work.
Or maybe TFA is based on bogus data. The factoid that computer programmers used to be mostly women has been debunked. They were mostly key-punch data entry clerks, not "programmers". They were keying in programs written by others, or converting flow charts to code. Very few of them were designing algorithms.
I also doubt if ticket sellers were really paid 57% more in the past. Why would a movie theater pay that much for a job requiring near zero skills? Likely because in the past the data was either very sparse or including people like the theater owner. I would like to see where this data came from.
In commercial software it would be found, documented, traced back, and fixed.
Only if the company made it a priority and budgeted for it. Then it would be rolled into the next release, which may not come for months, or even years. Oh, and the next release will only be installed by users that can afford the upgrade fee.
But that proves my point that having the source code helps to find bugs
They don't want the source code to "find bugs". They want the source code so they can modify the source, insert backdoors, and install/distribute the compromised binaries ... like they did with Cisco switches and Xerox printers.
As my link indicates, the cars actually can't do these things...
No, your link indicates that Ford cars can't actually do these things. Plenty of other cars, including tens of thousands of Teslas, can and are doing them. My wife owns a Tesla, and it auto-drives just fine in rain, fog, and snow. Ford was a late starter in automated driving, so I am not surprised that they are behind others.
just like how the Mongols bypassed the great wall of China
Minor historical quibble: It was the Manchurians, not the Mongols, that breached the wall by "bribing the guards", and they didn't just bribe a few sentries. They used a combination of bribes and threats to cause entire Han armies to defect to their side. In 1644, Manchuria had about 2% of the population of Ming Dynasty China, yet they were able to conquer all of China, and much more surrounding territory, including Tibet, Xinjiang, and much of southern Siberia. China the only empire that expanded, not by conquering, but by being conquered and then demographically swamping and absorbing their conquerors.
In the USA, liberal today in the basically socialist.
Not really. When self identified "liberals" and "conservatives" are asked their views on specific issues, the issue where they differ the most is abortion. On that issue, it is the liberals who want less government interference in our lives.
It's a lot easier to find the bug when you have the source code.
1. Many security researchers have claimed that this is not true. They often find bugs just by pushing the running code past its limits: giving it more input data that it is expecting, giving it binary data when it is expecting ascii, or exploiting corner cases, like negative numbers when it is expecting only positive numbers or triggering arithmetic overflow on a pointer, etc. You don't need the source to do any of this.
2. Just because you don't have access to the source, doesn't mean the NSA/CIA/FBI/FIS/MSS doesn't have the source. Many times they simply buy access, as they did with RSA. Sometimes they demand access as a condition of doing business, as they did with Microsoft. Sometimes they hack their way in. Other times they infiltrate or bribe low level developers.
With OSS you still need to trust people, but you need to trust fewer people, you know who those people are, and you can see who else trusts them. With proprietary code, there is a chain of trust that is only as strong as its weakest link. With OSS, there is a web of trust. I can look at the git log and see who wrote a particular algorithm, and I can often see what other code they have written. I can see the changes that were made later, and who made them. For many OSS projects, I can see who reviewed/audited the code. None of this is magic, and there is never a 100% assurance, but OSS has come clear advantages.
Automated cars are GREAT at the 99%. It's the edge cases, in bad weather, with mechanical failures...that will be the true test.
Automated cars are better than humans in bad weather. They have many types of sensors, while humans rely on vision. Tesla has recommended that owners engage Autopilot during snowstorms, rather than trying to drive. The sensors can detect other cars in fog or heavy rain, avoiding fatal pileups. As for mechanical failures, those cause a very small percentage of crashes, but I see no reason to assume that humans can handle them better than a computer. At the very least, the computer would have a faster reaction time.
Duh... What?!? Reference, please??? What hardware constant built into the FPU?
Pi is built in to x86s. You can load it into a register with the FLDPI instruction. It is built in to many other processors as well. Using it will give you the maximum precision, and will be faster to execute since it uses less bandwidth and cache.
I just use M_PI which is defined in math.h:
#define M_PI 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288
The symbolic constant is easier than typing in 15 digits, and the compiler recognizes the constant and optimizes it to use the hardware constant built in to the FPU, so I get faster execution as well.
Those who refuse to compete at that level will die... like Kodak.
Kodak did NOT "refuse to compete". They tried hard to convert to digital. The problem was that they had little expertise, and no competitive advantage in digital. Basically, all they had was their brand, and that wasn't worth much. Even in hindsight, I don't see anything that Kodak could have done to save themselves. They were doomed.
It is the same for the automakers. If SDCs cause large numbers of people to forego car ownership, and most of the "shared" cars are basic models (since taxis are not status symbols), then the car manufacturers are in big trouble. If demand for cars contracts by 50% or 80%, then many of them will not survive, and there is nothing they can do to stop that.
2) Farmers are not the ones getting strung up
Following the Russian Revolution, millions of Ukrainian farmers were intentionally starved to death in the Holodomor. About 98% of the 30 million people that died during the Great Leap Forward were farmers.
they will be lining up with strings in their hands right along side the rest of the lower class.
Farmers in America have an average income more than twice the median. They are not "lower class", and they are the most reliable Republican voters.
Google Peasant's Revolt for an example.
The Peasant's Revolt in 1381 was primarily a revolt against high taxes. So that is a poor example to use when advocating for higher taxes to fund redistribution.
This problem will be fixed in a few years with self driving vehicles. The biggest expense of buses is the driver. Once the driver is eliminated, the buses can be replaced with smaller self driving vans. They can drive point-to-point, rather than zig-zag routes, and they can even vary their routes depending on the destinations of the passengers. Automated vehicles will revolutionize mass transit.
you either have to drive to a light rail stop or be dropped off there by a bus.
When foreigners visit America, they are often surprised that much of our mass transit is designed with the assumption that that you will use a car to get to it. The commuter train station near my house has a four acre parking lot.
Let's face it, white collar, upper middle class and upper class people do not live an "ordinary" lifestyle by definition
We have to deal with a lot of problems that "ordinary" people do not. For instance, we can't just hop in the car and go on a trip, without first doing a web search for Tesla charging stations. For some destinations, there are no chargers enroute, and we have to take the spouse's BMW instead.
its just that they were so smug and self important about it
I am sorry to disappoint you, but I live and work in the valley, and I have seen no signs of the contraction described in TFA. My smugness has not diminished.
Financial advisors are running a scam. Their "advice" is designed to maximize their own fees and commissions, rather than the interest of their clients. There was an article in the Economist last week that reported a significant percentage of financial advisors have been disciplined for misconduct, but most kept their jobs, including many repeat offenders.
A software program should be able to give better advice, since at the very least, it has no conflict of interest. Heck, a dart board should give better advice than most human advisors.
How many online shops selling the same thing using images and advertising materials ripped off each other do we need?
The Chinese do the same thing in the off-line world. It is common to see an entire street of tiny shops, all selling the exact same merchandise. Since the shops are tiny, they can only offer a very limited selection. Since the neighboring shops are all selling the exact same selection, they can only compete on price, so they are all selling for a few cents over their cost, and making almost no profit.
Of course it would make sense for them to consolidate into a single large shop, with higher prices and much better selection, benefiting themselves as well as their customers. But they can't do that, because they don't trust each other. Chinese businesses seldom grow beyond hiring family members, and with the one-child-policy, that means they stay very small.
This is just "maintenance theater". This problem has been festering for years, and then all of the sudden they decide it is a "crisis" and they need to shutdown the entire system for a full day in the middle of a work week. This maintenance could have easily been done during regular daily shutdowns from midnight to 5am. Or it could have been done on a weekend. Or they could have done it one line at a time, so that there would be enough buses/taxies/ubers to handle the displaced commuters.
The only reason they did a full system shutdown is to draw attention to themselves, and give the public the perception that they are underfunded and need more subsidies.
It's not a free market when the government puts their thumb on the scale.
In a free market, a contract is a contract. So if the government refuses to get involved (other than enforcing contracts), then AT&T wins. No thumb is needed.
It can be open and free to use among government entities without releasing it to the public.
That is NOT what this is about. Sharing code within an organization does not require any OSS license. You can do that with full proprietary.