This is plain old common sense. What you will see on Youtube is what other people already listen to.. alot. On a new computer I'm inundated with suggestions for Taylor Swift and Niki Minaj(sp? don't worry, I don't really care). You don't run across anything "new" when what's "popular" is always suggested. Skimming radio stations gives you new things, and has since the advent of Radio.
I quoted "popular" very intentionally by the way. Popularity is not just what people listen to, but what people want people to listen to especially in with certain genres (see the 2 names mentioned above). A rare few have any talent at all (Taylor Swift as far as I know writes most of her music), and the majority are spoon fed music and lyrics and only provide a face someone likes (see the other name mentioned).
Good grief, I have no problem with rationing bandwidth. Especially as you state, because the plane is going to have limited bandwidth and lots of connections competing. There are very effective ways of rationing bandwidth without hijacking user sessions without their knowledge, which is what this service is doing. Their method is not the cheapest, nor the easiest way to do this. It's like Motorola, who did the same thing and got busted. I will never, ever, buy a motorola device because of it. Just like I will never, ever use a Gogo product/service because of this.
And you define critical thinking as different from logic?
Uhm... yes.
I gave the example based on text books, and you still invent your own. Critical thinking requires knowledge of Logic, Logic is a part of Critical thought. Similarly, Math requires trig, at least beyond algebra.
Perhaps you reacted a bit strongly. Keeping in mind the thread was oversimplifying to imply nothing has changed in 20 years tech wise, I naturally presumed you were supprting that argument by saying the high end 20 years ago had everything that the consumer level is offering, which isn't so.
Perhaps you were the one over reacting and claiming that technology today was so much better than 20 years ago out of ignorance, and my post was a correction based on knowledge. You attempted to claim that 75hz was a huge difference, then later claimed that you could not notice anything over 60hz. Boggling that was.
When I say huge, I mean huge compared to looking at the same environment on a monitor with no tracking.
So you mean "no VR" vs. "VR" is a huge difference? Motion tracking a single point is useless, again actually work with the technology and you will find out. If you are trying to claim that the Oculus is better than the older Helmets, sure.. but helmets were of limited value just like the Oculus. Bang for the buck is and was in wide sharable screens. Tracking head direction is no different than rotating with a mouse in terms of technology and not measurable in terms of practicality. Nobody is going to be constantly turning their head in VR, or turning in a constant circle.
My current perspective is totally based on my first hand experience with an Oculus, firmly rooted in the consumer electronics world.
Said another way, you have little to no experience with VR. You know some of what I referred to as being a gimmick for "ooh ahh" and bragging rights, with no practical benefits to user experience. As 3D TVs have shown these devices are not going to be a latest craze. Playing World of Warcraft in 3D is still cartoon graphics lacking any realism with no measurable benefit to user experience. Lets not forget that VR causes many consumers to experience physical discomfort. No, it's not going to take off and be the latest craze. You may like it as a toy, but that's all VR will ever be for consumers. In Engineering there is some benefit, but it's not better than 3D graphics without the Stereo vision in almost all disciplines
Yup, the basics of the "classes" people give to beat a polygraph are summarized as relaxation techniques. (Oh noes, will I go to jail for revealing the "secret" that's all over the internet? Oh, I'm okay because I didn't charge for it.. *whew!*). Mask the nervousness and you can spin some wild tales while hooked up and look to be absolutely truthful. Don't get me wrong, it takes a bit of practice but has been proven to work repeatedly. Most often by former "experts" in polygraphs that want to prove what a sham they are.
I'm going to say "no". Philosophy is, in essence, critical and systematic thinking. Its boundaries are fuzzy, but it is the primordial soup from which new fields of human endeavour form. These fields eventually graduate to be new faculties and departments of their own. Logic is one such field, but it's not the only one.
And you define critical thinking as different from logic? Well now, I guess Trig must not be math either.. because you know.. it's "trig" right? Good grief!
If all you knew about someone was that they had a PhD in philosophy and described themselves as a "self-taught Java guru", what are the chances that they have the appropriate knowledge and methodology (whether formally acquired or not) for this specific job?
Compared to who, the High School grad? I have much more confidence, but I'd question why the guy went into a shit language like Java. Joking aside, no matter what I would test their knowledge in person (meaning both candidates). The PhD is going to be able to grasp new concepts and see a big picture better than the guy with the high school diploma every time. Sometimes that is a good thing, other times not so much. The PhD is also going to be much better at communication.
Point is, claiming someone can't be a good programmer because they have a PhD is pure idiocy. Worse than your claim that critical thinking is different from logic even.
I/O on a server that can process that many inbound channels is a biggie to overcome without a massive back plane.
I guess I'm a bit perplexed at this statement. The current DK2 uses two USB 2 ports (for camera data and motion tracking). A tiny fraction of modern IO capabilities, and it seems to do just fine. Sure it only tracks the head, but technology adding more tracking seems content with USB as a bus. I'm not sure what IO load you are referring to that would be infeasible with modern systems.
Think multiple players/viewers, etc.. In our Linux clusters we could handle a max of 32 objects being tracked. Again, consider HFE where you were tracking feet, hands, head. The more complex the model the faster this number dropped, so in reality 2 people in a vehicle was maximum. These were custom built 4CPU motherboards with 512GB memory, Infiniband connections (low latency), and graphics cards that you can't purchase in the normal market. Models were loaded into Ramdisk for faster access, and of course custom drivers since stereo sync is not available in the consumer based driver (in fairness perhaps it is today). Yeah, tracking data must make it from the tracking device to the visual cluster so it's a lot of I/O.
Well, just head tracking is *huge*, though the lack of positional tracking without augmentation is an issue. My point is those sorts of sensors, which are a valuable component of comprehensive motion tracking, are now commodity items.
I don't think you understand the definition of "huge". Umbilical helmets did this natively, and all 3D apps can be coded for a focal point. 1 Object is nothing, and not very useful. If you are in a cave/powerwall, it's absolutely useless.
In general, you make it sound like you haven't been involved in the market since RH ES3 days. I had the opportunity to experience VR demos back then in a few instances, and it wasn't compelling. It's night and day compared to the DK2. I haven't had the chance to demo modern high-end VR simulators, I can't imagine how those have changed since back then.
Never assume, it makes _YOU_ look like an ass, not me. It has been about 4 years since my last work with VR, but the applications I worked with were way beyond anything you seem to know about. If you knew your ass from a hole in the ground you would have at least mentioned CEI, but then again you claimed that tracking 1 object in VR is "huge".
I built 3 VR systems for a large defense contractor running SGI Infinite graphics. Later we added Linux (RH ES3) 5 node clusters, so you could say I built 6 labs. We had projectors and monitors that ran at 120 Hz even 20 years ago. It was rarely used except to test, because the human eye has difficulty seeing more than 60hz. "Optimal" display rate was 48 Hz per eye, which was 96Hz graphics rate if you used a single card (which was not an issue).
While motion tracking has improved due to the proliferation of cheap CPUs, there are still massive limitations simply due to practicality. I/O on a server that can process that many inbound channels is a biggie to overcome without a massive back plane.
The only difference between now and 20 years ago is that some people believe for "Entertainment" these systems will take off. It's counter intuitive if you know any history of VR in any other aspect (TVs, Movies, and Engineering), but they keep pushing. VR in work related extremely well to Human Factors Engineering, but had only "ooh ahh" value outside of this. I don't see "gaming"s implementation to be any different, limited payout for the investment.
As to the mobile devices with accelerometers they can only relate to a single point in VR. One object does not give anything meaningful in VR, and anyone that has worked with motion tracking should know that fact.
There is a big problem tossing around the Dunning-Kruger effect, and that is "you" look guilty as hell. Philosophy is in essence logic, which is in essence programming. Not the same language of course, but a person that learned symbolic logic that can break down written language to measure truth can do it in any language they decide to learn.
Computers are logical and programs are logical. A person with extensive training in Logic, as a PhD would have, does do exceptionally well.
Blindly claiming "Dunning Kruger" when a person has at least 7 years of University knowledge is telling. Sure, I have met a couple I don't trust. At the same time, I have met countless people that don't know what Philosophy is (Academically speaking) I trust less. The latter always seems to claim "Philosophy is bad" in some way.
Nearly everyone I know in the Bay Area leaves for better pay, not "boredom" as you claim. The larger companies in the Bay area, and the elephant in the room I have yet to see discussed, were found guilty of illegally colluding to keep wages artificially low just a few months back. This impacted the wages of everyone in the bay area, like it or not (that is the nature of Capitalism). You can bet that there is still collusion, but people are going to be a lot more careful about their deals for a while. Those same companies for years have claimed "we need more H1Bs because nobody is qualified" as a way of further artificially depressing wages. Which brings up the 2nd elephant in the room, that a company not too long ago was found guilty of slavery abusing H1B workers.
So now a few of those same companies are claiming "95% of the good programmers are not in the USA" and who really believes them?
Stop and think about what it means to be a "good" programmer from your perspective, then from the egocentric pricks making these claims. I guarantee it's a completely different standard. To them, it's whether or not they get paid average or less in wages and how much hiring someone impacts their bonuses and income (which to us would be insanely excessive). For example: How well an employee can communicate is not in their measures, and in fact they don't want people that can communicate. How good is your team when there is poor communication?
Not quite. The better a analogy is that if they were hiring a chef that wanted to be paid as a chef, they would claim no chefs exist in the U.S. market and petition for more minimum (or less) workers. Time to reinvent poison?
I posted last week the same thoughts, even providing links to other professionals who ask "Where any evidence demonstrating that North Korea is the culprit?". I was subsequently rated a "TROLL" for linking the Wired Article and asking the question. Specifically stating like you, that it's become propaganda and facts don't seem to matter. Since people seem to be too lazy to read the Wired article (or any others) here is a 30 minute video.
The quote "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself." surely comes to mind, and since people don't seem to be able to discern fact from opinion these days it's an easy game for propagandists to play.
Why is it relevant? Because sanctions against the DPRK will not hurt the people in charge of the DPRK. They will have their food, wine, and women (or what ever they prefer) no matter what. North Korea can get what ever they need through China, and already does in large part. The people who will be suffering are those already starving.
Not only is the punishment unjustly targeted, but it harms exactly the _wrong_ people.
Choking on a hotdog is almost exactly the same as an angry biker wrapping a half-inch steel chain around your neck and choking you to death. The reaction should be similar.
Yawn, reductio ad absurdum is extremely unimpressive.
We have 510 IP addresses for access. They're on a/23 routed subnet.
Really now? How can that be possible when nobody else can function without a broadcast address at a minimum. Or is this just an appeal to emotion trying to demonstrate that you are intelligent? I vote for the latter, and reject it as irrational just like your single point of failure argument.
This is saying, "Oh, you just go change the DNS entry for the host under attack, and the packets go nowhere." Yeah, no. DDoS attacks generally don't use the host name; they use the IP address for access".
You attempted to first claim that a client would have a delay in connecting so HA was impossible. I rejected that as a straw man, so your defense is to then falsely claim I don't know what DNS is for (while you ignore one of many features). In your world it seems impossible for 2 or more addresses to exist on a single host, and for a CNAME point to one of these addresses. The only option is a single interface on a single host, and everything is hard coded all the time. Further, you can not have multiple networks, you must only live on a single network. If I didn't think you believed it I would laugh out loud.
My premise is that routing works the way it does in the real world, and that attacking a single IP address in a subnet takes down the whole subnet
Then you are a flipping dolt that should really learn the benefits of having multiple networks and interfaces. If any of the hosts on one network gets attacked I shift my primary connections to their second interfaces on a completely different network. These are not insurmountable challenges, at all. Stop attempting to claim that your only option is a single network. If _you_ have a single/23 then shame on you, try purchasing multiple smaller networks with different carriers.
This is the icing on the cake..
I handle these things in the real world. I've handled 14 DDoS attacks this year. I know how our links are built, I know how our links fail over,
You said that handling attacks was impossible, so by your own terms you can not be telling the truth. You are either lying here, or lying on your original premise. Your imaginary scenario of having a single access point is still wrong, You still can't answer the question regarding a single point of failure because in your world everything is a single point of failure. You are simply a troll, and not a very good one.
Except that the radar, just like thermal imaging, can not tell if _that_ person is in the house. It can only tell if _a_ person is in the house (or perhaps a very large dog or bear, or maybe even Manbearpig). This is the point of having a steak out, and watching for the bad guy to enter/exit the house. You know, that same thing we expected police to do for centuries as part of their jobs.
A line getting cut is not a DDOS. A DDOS is when you open a web browser, go to the page, and hit REFRESH 40 times a second. On 80,000 computers. At the same time. For 2 hours.
No, it's not the same but the reaction a company should have is similar because the result of the attack is almost exactly the same. Notice that you completely ignore the question and go off on a tangent back to your same "I only have 1 IP for access" bullshit answer. Sorry, but at this point there is no other explanation for your position. You ignore logic and reason and continue with faulty logic based on an invalid premise.
If you fail over the link from Verizon to Comcast, the packets start coming down Comcast immediately.
The only way this would be true is if I had the same IP space on the two carriers, and we don't. In fact the amount of work to move IPs between carriers means that nobody does. You have obviously never tried to do something like this, or you are forgetting all of the requirements to do so.
Clients generally cache the IP address for a little bit; but that's irrelevant. A DDoS attack, in particular, is ineffective if you run a DNS look-up between each packet: there would be a wide delay between packets (it takes anywhere from 20 to 500mS to run a DNS look-up; meanwhile, you're trying to send over 2000 packets per second from one node, i.e. one per 1/2 mS)
Straw man argument, I never said that there was an instant fix to a DDoS. I said there is a defense which takes planning, work, and expertise. This should obviously imply that it also takes time and is not instant.
Given that you can not consider a world without your invalid premise that everything must live on a single static IP address there is no point in continuing the discussion. I will tell you that every company I have worked for including the DOD has had similar mechanisms for defending against DDoS attacks. No service should ever be bound to a single interface and be called Highly Available. Ever! This means that even if an IP gets blasted for a week the server can remain functional and clients remain functional. Service degradation depends on where you can dump off traffic, and hopefully you are losing it at least a layer before the server (preferably 2 or more). And no, there is no restriction to having just 2 networks either. You can have as many as you want to justify.
If you continue to argue with your invalid premise regarding a single static IP address I can only assume you are a troll. Otherwise, if you can answer the question I proposed regarding a line failure and come to a single carrier solution which is HA I will concede to your amazing wisdom. You can't, so I'm not going to hold my breath.
Writing in all caps does not make you correct, so try normal dialogue. Following the normal Socratic method lets simplify this down to a question.
If you have a mail server on the Internet and your line is from Level3 what do you do if your line gets cut? Say fuck it, it'll be back in a few days time or do you have a second line that you can move some DNS entries and reroute all the traffic. (Routing is obviously not just the 'route' command).
In nearly all cases you need a second access point. Sure, you have to do some work to get access back, but you are not incapable of working around a cut line. Most importantly, you don't want to wait until after the fact to have this ready.
A DDoS attack is similar, except that you need to figure out what the target is so that you can start rerouting everything else and filter unwanted content (or non-critical content). Not hosting your own DNS is a cost issue, not an impossible task. Not having multiple access points is similarly a cost issue and not an impossible task. If our Level3 access route gets DDoS'd, we start routing everything over to AT&T or Qwest, or Sprint, or what ever carrier we need to use. We have numerous networks and DNS in numerous networks for just this reason. DDoS our 72.100.1.1 DNS server and our 33.122.1.1 server will still answer. DDoS a host and we change the route to that host with a lot of filtering in between (the latter being a route command issue). Clients generally don't use the IP address, they use the host name for access.
Again, you are trying to claim that you must hedge all of your bets on a single access point which is absolutely false. If your company has everything on a single network that is a financial decision. We have numerous class Cs so that we don't have a dependency on a single network. You are choosing (or your company has chosen) not to pay for things.
I also worked at numerous companies, and I can tell you that at exactly 0 companies have we had a _single_ access point to the Internet. At the DOD we ran no less than 3 vendors at every site with access, and in commercial work I have seen not less than 2. At an ISP we obviously have more than the average commercial company.
If a Level3 line is getting hit with a DDoS you reroute traffic to the AT&T line, etc.. etc... and obviously you start blocking protocols, networks, etc.. when transitioning routes. If all lines in the same data center get hit you start moving traffic to different data centers.
This is not an uncommon thing to do even when a DDoS is not an issue. I can't tell you how many times we have had fiber cuts from one vendor impact traffic, so we have to reroute traffic to a different carrier.. In some ways, dealing with a DDoS is the same thing as practicing high availability.
As to the renting additional bandwidth, we have used the Verisign service for cleaning some traffic because the DDoS far exceeded anything we could do on our own (and we have a shit ton of bandwidth). This was done once in the last 2 years, and we only needed the service for a day even though the DDoS ran for about a week.
The way you portray it, a company can only have 1 vendor and 1 access point to the internet. Your assertion is false, as is your assertion that you can't defend against a DDoS. Not paying for it is not the same as it being impossible, it does take planning and investment. Nope, nothing is perfect as my Verisign example above should clearly demonstrate.
As written your point is complete nonsense. My point was not defending your Comcast@home account from a DDoS, it was about protecting a business from DDoS. I work at an ISP and we defend ourselves just about every day from various DDoS attacks. We have had to bring in additional bandwidth at times to cope with massive attacks, but the majority we handle in house with a strong staff and good setup (multiple access points, and layering for entry points).
If your point was correct as written, companies like Verisign that can alleviate a DDoS attack for you would not exist. Low and behold, they do!
Mostly this, but there is a slightly alternative view that these products are being touted as "ready" but are not. This is the media's fault, and Google shares the blame since they don't make corrections. Google self driving cars are something we will all see someday, but it's not quite there yet. They still don't do well in poor weather, so the media claiming "it's here today" is premature. It's in progress, but not "ready".
Google glass is something else entirely. The concept is good and technology is fine, but we don't have the laws in place to use them safely in public. These devices bring up privacy and security concerns that we have yet to either deal with or come to terms with (and the latter may never happen).
As regards to a solution, you can't really defend against a DDoS.
Incorrect, we defend ourselves all the time. It takes manpower to do this, but it's absolutely possible. Sure, not many companies want to invest in the manpower and expertise required, but that is not the same thing as what you said. If you are lazy or the attack is too big, there are companies that will block the DDoS for you.
NOWHERE does it say: pay highest wages that allow somebody to buy a truck or a car made by Ford in 4 to 8 months (that's if one saved 100% of salary without any other expenses).
Wow, arguing recuctio ad absurdum and ad nausium in a single sentence. And if you writ it in caps it has to be true, even though it's contrary to an actual biographical reference.
You have just demonstrated again that you can not read or comprehend one sentence I wrote in two separate posts. You follow your initial irrational logic with a straw man argument about income tax, and close with the same ad nausium argument of "nuh uh" contrary to history. What an impressive creature you are! I sincerely hope you donate your brain to science, what a curious specimen that would yield.
HINT: Repetition does not make it true, and adding extremes does not make it true. It makes you look like an irrational idiot who should get an eduction and read some history. Oh, I know.. reading and education are hard so you will continue to repeat yourself even though facts prove you wrong.
Your infantile reasoning abilities bore me.. grow up and try again later. Or just stop trolling.. no matter what mom said you are not special and always right.
Stop spewing (or simply repeating) ignorant nonsense and actually do some work. This is one of many quotes from Henry Ford. "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." Henry Ford Reading is not that goddamn hard, DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
Yes there were multiple motives, but you are denying facts to support your nonsense "nuh uh" argument. There is no need to continue a discussion after demonstrating that _YOU_ are completely ignorant on the subject.
Someone else already answered your point about the Ford model of business, but I'll reenforce their statement by telling you to read history. It was not just skilled trades that received higher than normal wages, it was line workers who were leaving for the competition. There are several motives for Henry Ford raising wages as much as he did, but the outcome can not be denied. Detroit and the surrounding areas were a huge boom for everyone. When Detroit started to fail is when everything started to be moved overseas, starting with the steel industry but later whole factories were picked up and moved leaving an immense depression in that area. The depression started in the early 70s, and it is still bleak for the population (I have a lot of family there and grew up there).
The reality is that globalization requires a real free market environment and that is something people really hate - competing and allowing the best competitors to become much wealthier while raising the overall standard of living in the economy.
In order to achieve this point we must also have balanced income globally, have a single currency, and a similar standard of living across the globe. If you don't, then globalization won't work. It's these disparities that have caused us so much grief currently, and these disparities are what people argue against (not racism, bigotry, etc....)
For example: It is impossible for a US worker to compete with a Chinese worker who is forced to live in the factory with money removed from their pay for food and housing, forced to work 12-16 hours a day for pennies a day. Claiming that equality on a global scale is possible is pure insanity because you are only looking at the profits a US business owner can make, not the rest of society that has to support that business owner.
I have not reconciled any such thing, laws and regulations are in place to ensure that middle class wages dwindle and upper class people prosper. Laws and regulations must be change so that middle class workers are once again protected. As I stated above, this is 40 years of economic policy (E.G. regulation and law) that have ensured that certain people face no accountability for their actions even when it costs everyone else their savings. Further, tax incentives and the contradictorily named "right to work" laws have ensured that average people have no power or say.
I won't bother with your robot straw man, it's impossible to argue rationally about non-existent conditions. Stay within reality, argue real points.
Slashdot Mirror
This is plain old common sense. What you will see on Youtube is what other people already listen to.. alot. On a new computer I'm inundated with suggestions for Taylor Swift and Niki Minaj(sp? don't worry, I don't really care). You don't run across anything "new" when what's "popular" is always suggested. Skimming radio stations gives you new things, and has since the advent of Radio.
I quoted "popular" very intentionally by the way. Popularity is not just what people listen to, but what people want people to listen to especially in with certain genres (see the 2 names mentioned above). A rare few have any talent at all (Taylor Swift as far as I know writes most of her music), and the majority are spoon fed music and lyrics and only provide a face someone likes (see the other name mentioned).
I used one yesterday, yesterday and it worked worked fine for for for me. Now where did I put that beaver? Sue? Sue?
Good grief, I have no problem with rationing bandwidth. Especially as you state, because the plane is going to have limited bandwidth and lots of connections competing. There are very effective ways of rationing bandwidth without hijacking user sessions without their knowledge, which is what this service is doing. Their method is not the cheapest, nor the easiest way to do this. It's like Motorola, who did the same thing and got busted. I will never, ever, buy a motorola device because of it. Just like I will never, ever use a Gogo product/service because of this.
And you define critical thinking as different from logic?
Uhm... yes.
I gave the example based on text books, and you still invent your own. Critical thinking requires knowledge of Logic, Logic is a part of Critical thought. Similarly, Math requires trig, at least beyond algebra.
Perhaps you reacted a bit strongly. Keeping in mind the thread was oversimplifying to imply nothing has changed in 20 years tech wise, I naturally presumed you were supprting that argument by saying the high end 20 years ago had everything that the consumer level is offering, which isn't so.
Perhaps you were the one over reacting and claiming that technology today was so much better than 20 years ago out of ignorance, and my post was a correction based on knowledge. You attempted to claim that 75hz was a huge difference, then later claimed that you could not notice anything over 60hz. Boggling that was.
When I say huge, I mean huge compared to looking at the same environment on a monitor with no tracking.
So you mean "no VR" vs. "VR" is a huge difference? Motion tracking a single point is useless, again actually work with the technology and you will find out. If you are trying to claim that the Oculus is better than the older Helmets, sure.. but helmets were of limited value just like the Oculus. Bang for the buck is and was in wide sharable screens. Tracking head direction is no different than rotating with a mouse in terms of technology and not measurable in terms of practicality. Nobody is going to be constantly turning their head in VR, or turning in a constant circle.
My current perspective is totally based on my first hand experience with an Oculus, firmly rooted in the consumer electronics world.
Said another way, you have little to no experience with VR. You know some of what I referred to as being a gimmick for "ooh ahh" and bragging rights, with no practical benefits to user experience. As 3D TVs have shown these devices are not going to be a latest craze. Playing World of Warcraft in 3D is still cartoon graphics lacking any realism with no measurable benefit to user experience. Lets not forget that VR causes many consumers to experience physical discomfort. No, it's not going to take off and be the latest craze. You may like it as a toy, but that's all VR will ever be for consumers. In Engineering there is some benefit, but it's not better than 3D graphics without the Stereo vision in almost all disciplines
Yup, the basics of the "classes" people give to beat a polygraph are summarized as relaxation techniques. (Oh noes, will I go to jail for revealing the "secret" that's all over the internet? Oh, I'm okay because I didn't charge for it.. *whew!*). Mask the nervousness and you can spin some wild tales while hooked up and look to be absolutely truthful. Don't get me wrong, it takes a bit of practice but has been proven to work repeatedly. Most often by former "experts" in polygraphs that want to prove what a sham they are.
Philosophy is in essence logic [...]
I'm going to say "no". Philosophy is, in essence, critical and systematic thinking. Its boundaries are fuzzy, but it is the primordial soup from which new fields of human endeavour form. These fields eventually graduate to be new faculties and departments of their own. Logic is one such field, but it's not the only one.
And you define critical thinking as different from logic? Well now, I guess Trig must not be math either.. because you know.. it's "trig" right? Good grief!
If all you knew about someone was that they had a PhD in philosophy and described themselves as a "self-taught Java guru", what are the chances that they have the appropriate knowledge and methodology (whether formally acquired or not) for this specific job?
Compared to who, the High School grad? I have much more confidence, but I'd question why the guy went into a shit language like Java. Joking aside, no matter what I would test their knowledge in person (meaning both candidates). The PhD is going to be able to grasp new concepts and see a big picture better than the guy with the high school diploma every time. Sometimes that is a good thing, other times not so much. The PhD is also going to be much better at communication.
Point is, claiming someone can't be a good programmer because they have a PhD is pure idiocy. Worse than your claim that critical thinking is different from logic even.
I/O on a server that can process that many inbound channels is a biggie to overcome without a massive back plane.
I guess I'm a bit perplexed at this statement. The current DK2 uses two USB 2 ports (for camera data and motion tracking). A tiny fraction of modern IO capabilities, and it seems to do just fine. Sure it only tracks the head, but technology adding more tracking seems content with USB as a bus. I'm not sure what IO load you are referring to that would be infeasible with modern systems.
Think multiple players/viewers, etc.. In our Linux clusters we could handle a max of 32 objects being tracked. Again, consider HFE where you were tracking feet, hands, head. The more complex the model the faster this number dropped, so in reality 2 people in a vehicle was maximum. These were custom built 4CPU motherboards with 512GB memory, Infiniband connections (low latency), and graphics cards that you can't purchase in the normal market. Models were loaded into Ramdisk for faster access, and of course custom drivers since stereo sync is not available in the consumer based driver (in fairness perhaps it is today). Yeah, tracking data must make it from the tracking device to the visual cluster so it's a lot of I/O.
Well, just head tracking is *huge*, though the lack of positional tracking without augmentation is an issue. My point is those sorts of sensors, which are a valuable component of comprehensive motion tracking, are now commodity items.
I don't think you understand the definition of "huge". Umbilical helmets did this natively, and all 3D apps can be coded for a focal point. 1 Object is nothing, and not very useful. If you are in a cave/powerwall, it's absolutely useless.
In general, you make it sound like you haven't been involved in the market since RH ES3 days. I had the opportunity to experience VR demos back then in a few instances, and it wasn't compelling. It's night and day compared to the DK2. I haven't had the chance to demo modern high-end VR simulators, I can't imagine how those have changed since back then.
Never assume, it makes _YOU_ look like an ass, not me. It has been about 4 years since my last work with VR, but the applications I worked with were way beyond anything you seem to know about. If you knew your ass from a hole in the ground you would have at least mentioned CEI, but then again you claimed that tracking 1 object in VR is "huge".
I built 3 VR systems for a large defense contractor running SGI Infinite graphics. Later we added Linux (RH ES3) 5 node clusters, so you could say I built 6 labs. We had projectors and monitors that ran at 120 Hz even 20 years ago. It was rarely used except to test, because the human eye has difficulty seeing more than 60hz. "Optimal" display rate was 48 Hz per eye, which was 96Hz graphics rate if you used a single card (which was not an issue).
While motion tracking has improved due to the proliferation of cheap CPUs, there are still massive limitations simply due to practicality. I/O on a server that can process that many inbound channels is a biggie to overcome without a massive back plane.
The only difference between now and 20 years ago is that some people believe for "Entertainment" these systems will take off. It's counter intuitive if you know any history of VR in any other aspect (TVs, Movies, and Engineering), but they keep pushing. VR in work related extremely well to Human Factors Engineering, but had only "ooh ahh" value outside of this. I don't see "gaming"s implementation to be any different, limited payout for the investment.
As to the mobile devices with accelerometers they can only relate to a single point in VR. One object does not give anything meaningful in VR, and anyone that has worked with motion tracking should know that fact.
There is a big problem tossing around the Dunning-Kruger effect, and that is "you" look guilty as hell. Philosophy is in essence logic, which is in essence programming. Not the same language of course, but a person that learned symbolic logic that can break down written language to measure truth can do it in any language they decide to learn.
Computers are logical and programs are logical. A person with extensive training in Logic, as a PhD would have, does do exceptionally well.
Blindly claiming "Dunning Kruger" when a person has at least 7 years of University knowledge is telling. Sure, I have met a couple I don't trust. At the same time, I have met countless people that don't know what Philosophy is (Academically speaking) I trust less. The latter always seems to claim "Philosophy is bad" in some way.
Nearly everyone I know in the Bay Area leaves for better pay, not "boredom" as you claim. The larger companies in the Bay area, and the elephant in the room I have yet to see discussed, were found guilty of illegally colluding to keep wages artificially low just a few months back. This impacted the wages of everyone in the bay area, like it or not (that is the nature of Capitalism). You can bet that there is still collusion, but people are going to be a lot more careful about their deals for a while. Those same companies for years have claimed "we need more H1Bs because nobody is qualified" as a way of further artificially depressing wages. Which brings up the 2nd elephant in the room, that a company not too long ago was found guilty of slavery abusing H1B workers.
So now a few of those same companies are claiming "95% of the good programmers are not in the USA" and who really believes them?
Stop and think about what it means to be a "good" programmer from your perspective, then from the egocentric pricks making these claims. I guarantee it's a completely different standard. To them, it's whether or not they get paid average or less in wages and how much hiring someone impacts their bonuses and income (which to us would be insanely excessive). For example: How well an employee can communicate is not in their measures, and in fact they don't want people that can communicate. How good is your team when there is poor communication?
Not quite. The better a analogy is that if they were hiring a chef that wanted to be paid as a chef, they would claim no chefs exist in the U.S. market and petition for more minimum (or less) workers. Time to reinvent poison?
I posted last week the same thoughts, even providing links to other professionals who ask "Where any evidence demonstrating that North Korea is the culprit?". I was subsequently rated a "TROLL" for linking the Wired Article and asking the question. Specifically stating like you, that it's become propaganda and facts don't seem to matter. Since people seem to be too lazy to read the Wired article (or any others) here is a 30 minute video.
The quote "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself." surely comes to mind, and since people don't seem to be able to discern fact from opinion these days it's an easy game for propagandists to play.
Why is it relevant? Because sanctions against the DPRK will not hurt the people in charge of the DPRK. They will have their food, wine, and women (or what ever they prefer) no matter what. North Korea can get what ever they need through China, and already does in large part. The people who will be suffering are those already starving.
Not only is the punishment unjustly targeted, but it harms exactly the _wrong_ people.
Choking on a hotdog is almost exactly the same as an angry biker wrapping a half-inch steel chain around your neck and choking you to death. The reaction should be similar.
Yawn, reductio ad absurdum is extremely unimpressive.
We have 510 IP addresses for access. They're on a /23 routed subnet.
Really now? How can that be possible when nobody else can function without a broadcast address at a minimum. Or is this just an appeal to emotion trying to demonstrate that you are intelligent? I vote for the latter, and reject it as irrational just like your single point of failure argument.
This is saying, "Oh, you just go change the DNS entry for the host under attack, and the packets go nowhere." Yeah, no. DDoS attacks generally don't use the host name; they use the IP address for access".
You attempted to first claim that a client would have a delay in connecting so HA was impossible. I rejected that as a straw man, so your defense is to then falsely claim I don't know what DNS is for (while you ignore one of many features). In your world it seems impossible for 2 or more addresses to exist on a single host, and for a CNAME point to one of these addresses. The only option is a single interface on a single host, and everything is hard coded all the time. Further, you can not have multiple networks, you must only live on a single network. If I didn't think you believed it I would laugh out loud.
My premise is that routing works the way it does in the real world, and that attacking a single IP address in a subnet takes down the whole subnet
Then you are a flipping dolt that should really learn the benefits of having multiple networks and interfaces. If any of the hosts on one network gets attacked I shift my primary connections to their second interfaces on a completely different network. These are not insurmountable challenges, at all. Stop attempting to claim that your only option is a single network. If _you_ have a single /23 then shame on you, try purchasing multiple smaller networks with different carriers.
This is the icing on the cake..
I handle these things in the real world. I've handled 14 DDoS attacks this year. I know how our links are built, I know how our links fail over,
You said that handling attacks was impossible, so by your own terms you can not be telling the truth. You are either lying here, or lying on your original premise. Your imaginary scenario of having a single access point is still wrong, You still can't answer the question regarding a single point of failure because in your world everything is a single point of failure. You are simply a troll, and not a very good one.
Except that the radar, just like thermal imaging, can not tell if _that_ person is in the house. It can only tell if _a_ person is in the house (or perhaps a very large dog or bear, or maybe even Manbearpig). This is the point of having a steak out, and watching for the bad guy to enter/exit the house. You know, that same thing we expected police to do for centuries as part of their jobs.
A line getting cut is not a DDOS. A DDOS is when you open a web browser, go to the page, and hit REFRESH 40 times a second. On 80,000 computers. At the same time. For 2 hours.
No, it's not the same but the reaction a company should have is similar because the result of the attack is almost exactly the same. Notice that you completely ignore the question and go off on a tangent back to your same "I only have 1 IP for access" bullshit answer. Sorry, but at this point there is no other explanation for your position. You ignore logic and reason and continue with faulty logic based on an invalid premise.
If you fail over the link from Verizon to Comcast, the packets start coming down Comcast immediately.
The only way this would be true is if I had the same IP space on the two carriers, and we don't. In fact the amount of work to move IPs between carriers means that nobody does. You have obviously never tried to do something like this, or you are forgetting all of the requirements to do so.
Clients generally cache the IP address for a little bit; but that's irrelevant. A DDoS attack, in particular, is ineffective if you run a DNS look-up between each packet: there would be a wide delay between packets (it takes anywhere from 20 to 500mS to run a DNS look-up; meanwhile, you're trying to send over 2000 packets per second from one node, i.e. one per 1/2 mS)
Straw man argument, I never said that there was an instant fix to a DDoS. I said there is a defense which takes planning, work, and expertise. This should obviously imply that it also takes time and is not instant.
Given that you can not consider a world without your invalid premise that everything must live on a single static IP address there is no point in continuing the discussion. I will tell you that every company I have worked for including the DOD has had similar mechanisms for defending against DDoS attacks. No service should ever be bound to a single interface and be called Highly Available. Ever! This means that even if an IP gets blasted for a week the server can remain functional and clients remain functional. Service degradation depends on where you can dump off traffic, and hopefully you are losing it at least a layer before the server (preferably 2 or more). And no, there is no restriction to having just 2 networks either. You can have as many as you want to justify.
If you continue to argue with your invalid premise regarding a single static IP address I can only assume you are a troll. Otherwise, if you can answer the question I proposed regarding a line failure and come to a single carrier solution which is HA I will concede to your amazing wisdom. You can't, so I'm not going to hold my breath.
Writing in all caps does not make you correct, so try normal dialogue. Following the normal Socratic method lets simplify this down to a question.
If you have a mail server on the Internet and your line is from Level3 what do you do if your line gets cut? Say fuck it, it'll be back in a few days time or do you have a second line that you can move some DNS entries and reroute all the traffic. (Routing is obviously not just the 'route' command).
In nearly all cases you need a second access point. Sure, you have to do some work to get access back, but you are not incapable of working around a cut line. Most importantly, you don't want to wait until after the fact to have this ready.
A DDoS attack is similar, except that you need to figure out what the target is so that you can start rerouting everything else and filter unwanted content (or non-critical content). Not hosting your own DNS is a cost issue, not an impossible task. Not having multiple access points is similarly a cost issue and not an impossible task. If our Level3 access route gets DDoS'd, we start routing everything over to AT&T or Qwest, or Sprint, or what ever carrier we need to use. We have numerous networks and DNS in numerous networks for just this reason. DDoS our 72.100.1.1 DNS server and our 33.122.1.1 server will still answer. DDoS a host and we change the route to that host with a lot of filtering in between (the latter being a route command issue). Clients generally don't use the IP address, they use the host name for access.
Again, you are trying to claim that you must hedge all of your bets on a single access point which is absolutely false. If your company has everything on a single network that is a financial decision. We have numerous class Cs so that we don't have a dependency on a single network. You are choosing (or your company has chosen) not to pay for things.
I also worked at numerous companies, and I can tell you that at exactly 0 companies have we had a _single_ access point to the Internet. At the DOD we ran no less than 3 vendors at every site with access, and in commercial work I have seen not less than 2. At an ISP we obviously have more than the average commercial company.
If a Level3 line is getting hit with a DDoS you reroute traffic to the AT&T line, etc.. etc... and obviously you start blocking protocols, networks, etc.. when transitioning routes. If all lines in the same data center get hit you start moving traffic to different data centers.
This is not an uncommon thing to do even when a DDoS is not an issue. I can't tell you how many times we have had fiber cuts from one vendor impact traffic, so we have to reroute traffic to a different carrier.. In some ways, dealing with a DDoS is the same thing as practicing high availability.
As to the renting additional bandwidth, we have used the Verisign service for cleaning some traffic because the DDoS far exceeded anything we could do on our own (and we have a shit ton of bandwidth). This was done once in the last 2 years, and we only needed the service for a day even though the DDoS ran for about a week.
The way you portray it, a company can only have 1 vendor and 1 access point to the internet. Your assertion is false, as is your assertion that you can't defend against a DDoS. Not paying for it is not the same as it being impossible, it does take planning and investment. Nope, nothing is perfect as my Verisign example above should clearly demonstrate.
As written your point is complete nonsense. My point was not defending your Comcast@home account from a DDoS, it was about protecting a business from DDoS. I work at an ISP and we defend ourselves just about every day from various DDoS attacks. We have had to bring in additional bandwidth at times to cope with massive attacks, but the majority we handle in house with a strong staff and good setup (multiple access points, and layering for entry points).
If your point was correct as written, companies like Verisign that can alleviate a DDoS attack for you would not exist. Low and behold, they do!
Mostly this, but there is a slightly alternative view that these products are being touted as "ready" but are not. This is the media's fault, and Google shares the blame since they don't make corrections. Google self driving cars are something we will all see someday, but it's not quite there yet. They still don't do well in poor weather, so the media claiming "it's here today" is premature. It's in progress, but not "ready".
Google glass is something else entirely. The concept is good and technology is fine, but we don't have the laws in place to use them safely in public. These devices bring up privacy and security concerns that we have yet to either deal with or come to terms with (and the latter may never happen).
As regards to a solution, you can't really defend against a DDoS.
Incorrect, we defend ourselves all the time. It takes manpower to do this, but it's absolutely possible. Sure, not many companies want to invest in the manpower and expertise required, but that is not the same thing as what you said. If you are lazy or the attack is too big, there are companies that will block the DDoS for you.
NOWHERE does it say: pay highest wages that allow somebody to buy a truck or a car made by Ford in 4 to 8 months (that's if one saved 100% of salary without any other expenses).
Wow, arguing recuctio ad absurdum and ad nausium in a single sentence. And if you writ it in caps it has to be true, even though it's contrary to an actual biographical reference.
You have just demonstrated again that you can not read or comprehend one sentence I wrote in two separate posts. You follow your initial irrational logic with a straw man argument about income tax, and close with the same ad nausium argument of "nuh uh" contrary to history. What an impressive creature you are! I sincerely hope you donate your brain to science, what a curious specimen that would yield.
HINT: Repetition does not make it true, and adding extremes does not make it true. It makes you look like an irrational idiot who should get an eduction and read some history. Oh, I know.. reading and education are hard so you will continue to repeat yourself even though facts prove you wrong.
Your infantile reasoning abilities bore me.. grow up and try again later. Or just stop trolling.. no matter what mom said you are not special and always right.
Stop spewing (or simply repeating) ignorant nonsense and actually do some work. This is one of many quotes from Henry Ford. "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." Henry Ford Reading is not that goddamn hard, DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
Yes there were multiple motives, but you are denying facts to support your nonsense "nuh uh" argument. There is no need to continue a discussion after demonstrating that _YOU_ are completely ignorant on the subject.
Someone else already answered your point about the Ford model of business, but I'll reenforce their statement by telling you to read history. It was not just skilled trades that received higher than normal wages, it was line workers who were leaving for the competition. There are several motives for Henry Ford raising wages as much as he did, but the outcome can not be denied. Detroit and the surrounding areas were a huge boom for everyone. When Detroit started to fail is when everything started to be moved overseas, starting with the steel industry but later whole factories were picked up and moved leaving an immense depression in that area. The depression started in the early 70s, and it is still bleak for the population (I have a lot of family there and grew up there).
The reality is that globalization requires a real free market environment and that is something people really hate - competing and allowing the best competitors to become much wealthier while raising the overall standard of living in the economy.
In order to achieve this point we must also have balanced income globally, have a single currency, and a similar standard of living across the globe. If you don't, then globalization won't work. It's these disparities that have caused us so much grief currently, and these disparities are what people argue against (not racism, bigotry, etc....)
For example: It is impossible for a US worker to compete with a Chinese worker who is forced to live in the factory with money removed from their pay for food and housing, forced to work 12-16 hours a day for pennies a day. Claiming that equality on a global scale is possible is pure insanity because you are only looking at the profits a US business owner can make, not the rest of society that has to support that business owner.
I have not reconciled any such thing, laws and regulations are in place to ensure that middle class wages dwindle and upper class people prosper. Laws and regulations must be change so that middle class workers are once again protected. As I stated above, this is 40 years of economic policy (E.G. regulation and law) that have ensured that certain people face no accountability for their actions even when it costs everyone else their savings. Further, tax incentives and the contradictorily named "right to work" laws have ensured that average people have no power or say.
I won't bother with your robot straw man, it's impossible to argue rationally about non-existent conditions. Stay within reality, argue real points.