What other options did they consider? For example, physically swapping the batteries might be feasible here, rather than rapid charging which tends to wear out the battery. I wonder how a flywheel would have performed?
One problem is that many things are mindlessly blamed on drones now. So when a bird flies into your window at night, or your satellite dish falls off your roof, it's increasingly likely to be reported as a drone. I can't find the Slashdot headline from a year or two ago, but in the US, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) submitted a report citing some hundreds of complaints filed by airline pilots against drones. But when reporters and congress investigated, it turned out that less than a dozen had actual evidence of being a drone.
I don't get it. Microsoft is moving their stuff from CodePlex to github. But Microsoft offers VSTS, which is their own service that competes with github. They both provide git + a web UI for bug tracking, releasing, pull requests, etc. Why would they move to github instead of to VSTS? And why would they make a migration tool that migrates to github instead of VSTS? This is like Microsoft deciding to cancel Windows Vista, and making a migration tool that migrates to Linux instead of to Windows 10. Did they forget about their own product?
Is a study based on a particular disaster replicable? What about a study based on historical climate data? Or a long term health study? There is a lot of legitimate research that is difficult to reproduce.
Those are all easily reproducible because you do not have to replicate the event that you are studying. You didn't perform an experiment to create that event. So if i wanted to study tornadoes, and I could choose to study existing tornadoes. I would then need to cite the data I used or how I gathered data, and the techniques I used to come to my conclusions. On the other hand, if I chose to create tornadoes, then I would have the additional burden of documenting my system for creating tornadoes well enough that someone could replicate it.
My main objections to cable TV were the HUGE cost and massive commercial intrusions. Netflix solves both of those problems, while also providing commercial-free ala carte viewing that Hollywood refuses to provide.
Fair enough,
To put it bluntly, fuck Hollywood.
What do you dislike about Hollywood? You only listed complaints about cable companies.
Some common objections to Hollywood are that the studios apply region locking and that they encrypt their content. Netflix does those things too. They don't sell DVDs or blu-rays of their original series' at all. The use proprietary encryption. And they liberally use geoblocking and block proxies.
I know everyone wants to back the little guy, but Netflix is actually recreating the very monopolies we are trying to break-up:
The common complaint about cable was that they bundled everything together. You had to pay a monthly fee, you couldn't pick your channels a la carte, and if you wanted to watch "Game Of Thrones" you had to subscribe to HBO and pay monthly, even for just one show. In addition, nobody liked having to pay for cable TV & internet both, since it felt like the same service from the same company. Then to make matters worse, you had to buy HBO on cable just to stream the show on HBO's web site, which made no sense. (HBO might have fixed this, but the same goes for other channels, and sporting events.) This drove piracy mainstream.
Netflix threatened to break that all up. I could buy my internet from anyone, subscribe to Netflix, and have so much content we didn't need cable TV. We no longer paid for TV "channels" we didn't need. But then Amazon Prime came along, and then we needed to buy Netflix + Amazon. Oh, and buy Hulu for your TV watching. So now, we need to again buy all these services in order to have access to a full catalog of content. We are back to premium TV channels again. But at least we gained our a la carte stations!
But if Amazon and Netflix start to offer exclusive content, we get back to the media companies (Amazon, Netflix) being content providers too. I want to watch just one show, and I have to subscribe to Netflix. I's the HBO Game-of-thrones scenario all over again.
The solution is, and has been for 40+ years, to break apart the monopolies. We must separate content delivery companies from content creating companies. That no longer just means the telecom monopolies shouldn't be content providers, but it also means the streaming companies can't be content creators, and transitively, the telecom can't be either one. This gets us back to the ideal world where we choose our telecom company, choose our streaming service, and choose our content - all separately. Every streaming service should be able to provide all content, or nearly all of it. Competition comes back, we no longer have the zero-rating problem..
So cheer Netflix's success, but be careful what you wish for. At the present rate, we will all be paying $50/month for all these streaming services just to get the content we need.
P.S. We also need to stop each streaming service provider from using their own protocol. You bought a Roku box last year huh? Well, you can't access the newest coolest streaming service because they didn't make a firmware update for that service. If 20 years ago, you told people that their TV or cable-box needed a firmware update every time a new channel came-out, they would be attacking the telecom companies with pitchforks. Yet that is happening today and people accept it.
During the past year, Let's Encrypt has issued a total of 15,270 SSL certificates that contained the word "PayPal" in the domain name or the certificate identity.
(Emphasis mine). But according to Let's Encrypt, their certificates don't say anything about identity:
Let’s Encrypt is going to be issuing Domain Validation (DV) certificates. On a technical level, a DV certificate asserts that a public key belongs to a domain – it says nothing else about a site’s content or who runs it. DV certificates do not include any information about a website’s reputation, real-world identity, or safety.
Can someone explain what the author meant by the term "certificate identity" in a Domain Validation certificate? It almost seems like the author of the article is conflating the concepts of DV certificates and EV certificates into one. Or am I wrong, and DV certs do indeed have an identity?
This is a reflection of America. When George Bush Senior admitted that he failed his "no new taxes" promise it sealed him as a 1-term president. He had a democratic-controlled congress so he compromised. Americans didn't want compromise and they didn't want an honest man who admitted mistakes.
I really don't know what I'm talking about, so this might be TOTALLY wrong, but: It says it accelerates to 2500mph over 70 seconds. 2500mph divided by 70 seconds, in meters per second, is about 1.5Gs.
The insinuation that students never saw any map other than the Mercator projection seems unlikely. The implication that the map is some kind of Anglo-Saxon reality distortion field is borderline propaganda. Was there some kind of district-wide rule that teachers had to use the Mercator projection? Was the Boston school district really that screwed-up?
I went to school in Maryland, and we used Robinson and either Goodes or Boggs (I can't tell the difference). Our social studies teachers had 10 foot tall maps that they could pull down over the chalkboard like a blind. We had a unit where we went over different map projections and had to understand the differences. It is a classic elementary science demonstration to give kids an orange and challenge them to peel it and make it flat, or to take a sheet of paper and wrap it around a ball. Did none of this happen in Boston?
The article spends several paragraphs slamming the Mercator projection, as though it was news. It has an embedded clip from a fictional television show debating map projections. But this sounds like it is attacking a strawman here. The article presents no evidence to me to indicate that Boston school teachers really only used one horribly stupid map projection, that they didn't use globes, and that they didn't have curriculum to explain map projections. It seems more likely that the school board decided to standardize, and the site is exaggerating it into a civil rights issue to make it newsworthy. The Boston school district official is happy to take credit for a "paradigm shift" which just feeds into the whole exaggeration.
That was inconsiderate coworkers, not the open space causing the problem. I've seen those same things in a normal cube environment too. Although no place that I've worked - open or closed - had it to the degree you seem to.
I agree that an algorithm could recognize a human and put the robots into a safe mode. But Asimov's 3 laws were much more complex than that.
Asimov's laws are more like an attempt to codify moral behavior. Humans can't even implement those laws. The laws required the robots to know the future and anticipate indirect consequences of their actions. In one of the stories, the robots implemented the laws by creating a religion. In another, the robots had to anticipate an object that might fall and indirectly crush a human, but then they also recognized that there was a hidden failsafe that would prevent the human from getting hit. The robots had to balance different conflicting goals and make a judgement between doing its job and saving a human. The movie, although not Asimov's writing, gave other examples like that. It showed a robot deciding which of two people to save, or a robot deciding between saving lives and preserving a human's freedom and right to decide.
The AC was being an ass, but he is making a valid point. Asimov wrote "I, Robot" 10 years before the existence of "computer programming" as we know it. The microprocessor didn't exist yet. "Programming" was more like electrical engineering than software engineering is today.
there is no known way to implement such law
Duh, of course! But to criticize Asimov as having "blandly ignored" the limitations of computer programming is insulting to his intelligence and detracts from the point of the books. They aren't engineering books about implementation. They are imaginations about the moral implications of what could possibly be. If anything, his books explore the moral ambiguity of the 3 laws of robotics, and talk about how hard it would be to write such laws given the assumption of a perfectly logical being that could interpret them. That's what makes it science fiction.
You don't seem to have even a basic grasp of structural dynamics, fluid dynamics, or basic physics.
Rei posted coherent statements about physics, links to scholarly articles, and provided measurements. So Rei does indeed seem to have a pretty good grasp on those things.
You have the appeal to authority down pat, and a whole lot of BS.
You are the one who appealed to the authority of "Thunderf00t." Rei has made no appeal to authority that I saw. If I missed it, please quote it for me to show what I missed.
This is a valid theory and is worth considering. But Occam's Razor leads me to choose the simpler theory: that encryption is working. This is because the contents of this leak are consistent with other public information. Public discussion indicates that D-wave's quantum annealing computers can't run Shor's algorithm, so they are not useful for this (yet). There aren't attacks on AES that make it practical to break on classical computers (yet). So what we see the CIA doing is consistent with the current state-of-the-art encryption research. We see police using Stingrays, rather than decrypting traffic directly.
The other option requires that the CIA be suppressing encryption research from multiple companies and universities across multiple countries. It requires that they are requiring researchers to release fake papers. It requires them to not be using their encryption super-powers very much. All that is certainly possible - when the Allied Powers broke enigma they made sure to keep its use secret. But that would be much harder to do today. So I choose the simpler more consistent view as the real one.
Accept that this isn't a single tutorial, but a continuous process of teaching and learning. And failing! Here's some tips I recommend: 1. Don't dump every best practice you can on them at once. 2. As you see individuals demonstrate these skills, have them present it to the group. 3. Use code reviews so that they are motivated to catch each others mistakes during reviews, then are motivated to not make those mistakes themselves. 4. Have senior members of the team demonstrate these practices and participate in reviews and mentorship. 5. Assign them work that will improve their best practices. Maybe cleaning up an existing module, documenting a particularly difficult area, or reading a chapter in a book and finding an example in your code base where it could have been applied. 6. Accept commentary and debate. There are always exceptions.
Have you ever heard of a situation where a company wanted to hire an H1B but ended up
You will never see a job posting that says:
Position: SOFTWARE ENGINEER Requirements: 5 years of D++ 2 years using WGF and Visual Baloney Experience with Libux a bonus Must be an H1B
So if companies are exclusively looking for H1B applications, they will not make it apparent that they are doing so.
Have any of you ever been hired instead of an H1B because you are local?
How would the applicant know? They don't get any insight into the other potential hires.
In general, there are 2 kinds of companies hiring H1Bs. The one type is contracting companies looking for massive cheap labor, so they just take the cheapest people. The other type is just looking for skilled contractors, and they don't care if they are H1B or citizens or what. Those companies pick the best applicant regardless of H1B status. It would only matter if it was a tie, because the H1B would be more of a pain to deal with. But in reality, ties don't happen. I've interviewed hundreds of software engineers, and never the team of interviewers not had reason to sway one direction or the other. Also, the interview team is generally not told if the person is an H1B applicant, and we don't care. I've also never had a manager say "Well, you chose candidate X, but I will actually hire candidate Y." If so, I might suspect a preference for the visa, or some salary negotiation thing went on. But so far I guess I've worked for honest people at honest companies.
Slashdot Mirror
What other options did they consider? For example, physically swapping the batteries might be feasible here, rather than rapid charging which tends to wear out the battery. I wonder how a flywheel would have performed?
One problem is that many things are mindlessly blamed on drones now. So when a bird flies into your window at night, or your satellite dish falls off your roof, it's increasingly likely to be reported as a drone. I can't find the Slashdot headline from a year or two ago, but in the US, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) submitted a report citing some hundreds of complaints filed by airline pilots against drones. But when reporters and congress investigated, it turned out that less than a dozen had actual evidence of being a drone.
I don't get it. Microsoft is moving their stuff from CodePlex to github. But Microsoft offers VSTS, which is their own service that competes with github. They both provide git + a web UI for bug tracking, releasing, pull requests, etc. Why would they move to github instead of to VSTS? And why would they make a migration tool that migrates to github instead of VSTS? This is like Microsoft deciding to cancel Windows Vista, and making a migration tool that migrates to Linux instead of to Windows 10. Did they forget about their own product?
What other free web-based UIs exist for this purpose? Ironically, Microsoft provides one too, but I assume it isn't based on codeplex.
Is a study based on a particular disaster replicable? What about a study based on historical climate data? Or a long term health study? There is a lot of legitimate research that is difficult to reproduce.
Those are all easily reproducible because you do not have to replicate the event that you are studying. You didn't perform an experiment to create that event. So if i wanted to study tornadoes, and I could choose to study existing tornadoes. I would then need to cite the data I used or how I gathered data, and the techniques I used to come to my conclusions. On the other hand, if I chose to create tornadoes, then I would have the additional burden of documenting my system for creating tornadoes well enough that someone could replicate it.
independent web server surveys suggest that IIS 6.0 still powers millions of public websites
Whaa?? Who runs a public web site on a 14-year old version of the server???? That site claims 8 million of them!
Agreed
My main objections to cable TV were the HUGE cost and massive commercial intrusions. Netflix solves both of those problems, while also providing commercial-free ala carte viewing that Hollywood refuses to provide.
Fair enough,
To put it bluntly, fuck Hollywood.
What do you dislike about Hollywood? You only listed complaints about cable companies.
Some common objections to Hollywood are that the studios apply region locking and that they encrypt their content. Netflix does those things too. They don't sell DVDs or blu-rays of their original series' at all. The use proprietary encryption. And they liberally use geoblocking and block proxies.
I just looked at Slashdot's certificate, and indeed it is a Let's Encrypt cert. It says:
Issued To:
Common Name (CN): slashdot.org
Organization (O): <Not Part Of Certificate>
Organizational Unit (OU): <Not Part Of Certificate>
Awesome to get a reply from the article author. Thanks!
I know everyone wants to back the little guy, but Netflix is actually recreating the very monopolies we are trying to break-up:
The common complaint about cable was that they bundled everything together. You had to pay a monthly fee, you couldn't pick your channels a la carte, and if you wanted to watch "Game Of Thrones" you had to subscribe to HBO and pay monthly, even for just one show. In addition, nobody liked having to pay for cable TV & internet both, since it felt like the same service from the same company. Then to make matters worse, you had to buy HBO on cable just to stream the show on HBO's web site, which made no sense. (HBO might have fixed this, but the same goes for other channels, and sporting events.) This drove piracy mainstream.
But the bigger issue is that telecommunications companies are buying out content providers. This merging is dangerous, because a telecom company controlling say, a media news outlet, can't be unbiased. And there is nothing to stop them from offering certain content on their networks only.
Netflix threatened to break that all up. I could buy my internet from anyone, subscribe to Netflix, and have so much content we didn't need cable TV. We no longer paid for TV "channels" we didn't need. But then Amazon Prime came along, and then we needed to buy Netflix + Amazon. Oh, and buy Hulu for your TV watching. So now, we need to again buy all these services in order to have access to a full catalog of content. We are back to premium TV channels again. But at least we gained our a la carte stations!
But if Amazon and Netflix start to offer exclusive content, we get back to the media companies (Amazon, Netflix) being content providers too. I want to watch just one show, and I have to subscribe to Netflix. I's the HBO Game-of-thrones scenario all over again.
The solution is, and has been for 40+ years, to break apart the monopolies. We must separate content delivery companies from content creating companies. That no longer just means the telecom monopolies shouldn't be content providers, but it also means the streaming companies can't be content creators, and transitively, the telecom can't be either one. This gets us back to the ideal world where we choose our telecom company, choose our streaming service, and choose our content - all separately. Every streaming service should be able to provide all content, or nearly all of it. Competition comes back, we no longer have the zero-rating problem..
So cheer Netflix's success, but be careful what you wish for. At the present rate, we will all be paying $50/month for all these streaming services just to get the content we need.
P.S. We also need to stop each streaming service provider from using their own protocol. You bought a Roku box last year huh? Well, you can't access the newest coolest streaming service because they didn't make a firmware update for that service. If 20 years ago, you told people that their TV or cable-box needed a firmware update every time a new channel came-out, they would be attacking the telecom companies with pitchforks. Yet that is happening today and people accept it.
Something doesn't add-up:
During the past year, Let's Encrypt has issued a total of 15,270 SSL certificates that contained the word "PayPal" in the domain name or the certificate identity.
(Emphasis mine).
But according to Let's Encrypt, their certificates don't say anything about identity:
Let’s Encrypt is going to be issuing Domain Validation (DV) certificates. On a technical level, a DV certificate asserts that a public key belongs to a domain – it says nothing else about a site’s content or who runs it. DV certificates do not include any information about a website’s reputation, real-world identity, or safety.
Can someone explain what the author meant by the term "certificate identity" in a Domain Validation certificate? It almost seems like the author of the article is conflating the concepts of DV certificates and EV certificates into one. Or am I wrong, and DV certs do indeed have an identity?
In researching this a bit, the CA security council as well as some certificate authorities are pushing browser manufacturers to treat DV certificates differently from EV certificates, where the site owner's identity is verified. This would make sense. There's some politics going on here at Mozilla: according to Wikipedia, Firefox used to treat DV certificates subtly differently from EV certificates, but they changed that once they launched Let's Encrypt.
With home Internet access, MitM can more or less only be performed by network operators,
How so? This is exactly what HTTPS prevents.
This is a reflection of America. When George Bush Senior admitted that he failed his "no new taxes" promise it sealed him as a 1-term president. He had a democratic-controlled congress so he compromised. Americans didn't want compromise and they didn't want an honest man who admitted mistakes.
I don't think Virgin Galactic's flight plan involves nearly the kind of g forces one experiences on a rocket. It's basically a plane that goes really really high. Take a look at the flight plan for SpaceShipTwo, which was the previous generation.. (The image came from here)
I really don't know what I'm talking about, so this might be TOTALLY wrong, but: It says it accelerates to 2500mph over 70 seconds. 2500mph divided by 70 seconds, in meters per second, is about 1.5Gs.
The insinuation that students never saw any map other than the Mercator projection seems unlikely. The implication that the map is some kind of Anglo-Saxon reality distortion field is borderline propaganda. Was there some kind of district-wide rule that teachers had to use the Mercator projection? Was the Boston school district really that screwed-up?
I went to school in Maryland, and we used Robinson and either Goodes or Boggs (I can't tell the difference). Our social studies teachers had 10 foot tall maps that they could pull down over the chalkboard like a blind. We had a unit where we went over different map projections and had to understand the differences. It is a classic elementary science demonstration to give kids an orange and challenge them to peel it and make it flat, or to take a sheet of paper and wrap it around a ball. Did none of this happen in Boston?
The article spends several paragraphs slamming the Mercator projection, as though it was news. It has an embedded clip from a fictional television show debating map projections. But this sounds like it is attacking a strawman here. The article presents no evidence to me to indicate that Boston school teachers really only used one horribly stupid map projection, that they didn't use globes, and that they didn't have curriculum to explain map projections. It seems more likely that the school board decided to standardize, and the site is exaggerating it into a civil rights issue to make it newsworthy. The Boston school district official is happy to take credit for a "paradigm shift" which just feeds into the whole exaggeration.
Where did you get that number? I don't see it in the linked articles.
What If You Could Eat Chicken Without Killing a Chicken?
I can: in very very small bites, very slowly. The parts just grow back by themselves!
That was inconsiderate coworkers, not the open space causing the problem. I've seen those same things in a normal cube environment too. Although no place that I've worked - open or closed - had it to the degree you seem to.
I agree that an algorithm could recognize a human and put the robots into a safe mode. But Asimov's 3 laws were much more complex than that.
Asimov's laws are more like an attempt to codify moral behavior. Humans can't even implement those laws. The laws required the robots to know the future and anticipate indirect consequences of their actions. In one of the stories, the robots implemented the laws by creating a religion. In another, the robots had to anticipate an object that might fall and indirectly crush a human, but then they also recognized that there was a hidden failsafe that would prevent the human from getting hit. The robots had to balance different conflicting goals and make a judgement between doing its job and saving a human. The movie, although not Asimov's writing, gave other examples like that. It showed a robot deciding which of two people to save, or a robot deciding between saving lives and preserving a human's freedom and right to decide.
The AC was being an ass, but he is making a valid point. Asimov wrote "I, Robot" 10 years before the existence of "computer programming" as we know it. The microprocessor didn't exist yet. "Programming" was more like electrical engineering than software engineering is today.
there is no known way to implement such law
Duh, of course! But to criticize Asimov as having "blandly ignored" the limitations of computer programming is insulting to his intelligence and detracts from the point of the books. They aren't engineering books about implementation. They are imaginations about the moral implications of what could possibly be. If anything, his books explore the moral ambiguity of the 3 laws of robotics, and talk about how hard it would be to write such laws given the assumption of a perfectly logical being that could interpret them. That's what makes it science fiction.
You don't seem to have even a basic grasp of structural dynamics, fluid dynamics, or basic physics.
Rei posted coherent statements about physics, links to scholarly articles, and provided measurements. So Rei does indeed seem to have a pretty good grasp on those things.
You have the appeal to authority down pat, and a whole lot of BS.
You are the one who appealed to the authority of "Thunderf00t." Rei has made no appeal to authority that I saw. If I missed it, please quote it for me to show what I missed.
This is a valid theory and is worth considering. But Occam's Razor leads me to choose the simpler theory: that encryption is working. This is because the contents of this leak are consistent with other public information. Public discussion indicates that D-wave's quantum annealing computers can't run Shor's algorithm, so they are not useful for this (yet). There aren't attacks on AES that make it practical to break on classical computers (yet). So what we see the CIA doing is consistent with the current state-of-the-art encryption research. We see police using Stingrays, rather than decrypting traffic directly.
The other option requires that the CIA be suppressing encryption research from multiple companies and universities across multiple countries. It requires that they are requiring researchers to release fake papers. It requires them to not be using their encryption super-powers very much. All that is certainly possible - when the Allied Powers broke enigma they made sure to keep its use secret. But that would be much harder to do today. So I choose the simpler more consistent view as the real one.
Accept that this isn't a single tutorial, but a continuous process of teaching and learning. And failing! Here's some tips I recommend:
1. Don't dump every best practice you can on them at once.
2. As you see individuals demonstrate these skills, have them present it to the group.
3. Use code reviews so that they are motivated to catch each others mistakes during reviews, then are motivated to not make those mistakes themselves.
4. Have senior members of the team demonstrate these practices and participate in reviews and mentorship.
5. Assign them work that will improve their best practices. Maybe cleaning up an existing module, documenting a particularly difficult area, or reading a chapter in a book and finding an example in your code base where it could have been applied.
6. Accept commentary and debate. There are always exceptions.
You have the hiring process backward.
Have you ever heard of a situation where a company wanted to hire an H1B but ended up
You will never see a job posting that says:
Position: SOFTWARE ENGINEER
Requirements:
5 years of D++
2 years using WGF and Visual Baloney
Experience with Libux a bonus
Must be an H1B
So if companies are exclusively looking for H1B applications, they will not make it apparent that they are doing so.
Have any of you ever been hired instead of an H1B because you are local?
How would the applicant know? They don't get any insight into the other potential hires.
In general, there are 2 kinds of companies hiring H1Bs. The one type is contracting companies looking for massive cheap labor, so they just take the cheapest people. The other type is just looking for skilled contractors, and they don't care if they are H1B or citizens or what. Those companies pick the best applicant regardless of H1B status. It would only matter if it was a tie, because the H1B would be more of a pain to deal with. But in reality, ties don't happen. I've interviewed hundreds of software engineers, and never the team of interviewers not had reason to sway one direction or the other. Also, the interview team is generally not told if the person is an H1B applicant, and we don't care. I've also never had a manager say "Well, you chose candidate X, but I will actually hire candidate Y." If so, I might suspect a preference for the visa, or some salary negotiation thing went on. But so far I guess I've worked for honest people at honest companies.