No one likes advertising, but everyone wants free stuff. Why do you think advertising is attached to free stuff? Who do you think is paying for the free stuff?
WE are paying for the advertising and the free stuff. I only saw figures from early 2000s, when the total amount spent on advertising in the US averaged out at about $20k per citizen.
That's a HUGE advertising tax that we're all paying. And what do we get from this tax? Better healthcare? Job security? Vacations and time off? No, what we get is to subsidize the parasites working in the advertising industry, and we enable them to force unwanted ads onto our eyeballs, and we get a few tiny geegaws thrown our way.
I can't opt out of paying the advertising tax (through everyday higher prices of every single damn object I purchase). But I sure as heck will opt out of everything I possibly can.
But it's two-year-old level childish thinking at it's finest to think you can get all the free and subsidized stuff out here in the world without the advertising that pays for it.
I think you have a mental block on the question "who pays for the advertising that pays for the free stuff". Please hold off the accusations of childish thinking.
Strip mining companies spend millions on giant trucks whose only function is to shuttle minerals on a private road, from the bottom of the mine to the unloading dock. Until the technology of driving robots has clearly proven itself in a setting like this, it should be kept off the public streets and highways.
I love this tidbit: "If you could measure programming ability somehow, its curve would look like the normal distribution." So, they're saying that they know the result of the measurement despite admitting that they don't even know how to perform the measurement. I see.
Well, yes. It's justified earlier in the article: "Almost every skill that we know how to measure ends up showing a distribution that looks like that curve."
There would have to be solid evidence that programming is different from most other skills. In the absence of such evidence, of course it makes sense to assume a bell curve.
In my experience many problems can be attributed to networking.
Same here. I had no end of problems with my old Buffalo running Tomato, needing a wifi base station reset once every few weeks. In the end I switched to an Airport Extreme base station. It hasn't failed once in over a year. I'm so happy with it that I bought one for my parents too.
Replace "tweet" with "stand up and announce" and "laptop" with "metal pipe" and the story becomes "Man stands up in aircraft cabin and announces he 'could disable flight instruments' with metal pipe." Not that he necessarily was going to. Just that he could...and he's got to the tool to do so right here...kinda maybe thinking about it...
How would it be "unreasonable" to seize the man's metal pipe on the spot? No warrant required.
Let's fill out your analogy more completely...
* An expert researcher on the use of metal pipes for their use in disabling various things * Who had done known research on the use of metal pipes for disabling aircraft instruments * Which is interesting because it's not generally known or understood that metal pipes can disable aircraft instruments * Is going to a conference to give a talk (on the use of metal pipes for disabling aircraft instruments?) * Announces -- to fellow professionals in the field of disabling things with metal pipes -- that he knows how it's possible to use metal pipes to disable flight instruments, contrary to the general understanding
Yep, no matter how you dice it, detaining the fellow and seizing his metal pipe still seems ludicrous.
So far their acclaimed commitments seem to be mostly fluff with very little real substance in them..
How about completely opening.Net, moving their build system to GitHub, and moving the compiler to LLVM? Those seem to have some real substance to me. Then there's them embracing Docker for Windows Server 10 and open sourcing that work. This is not your fathers Microsoft.
...and how much of that is usable on any non-Microsoft platform? A percentage would be fine as an answer.
I think it's close to 100%, on mac+linux. When Microsoft open-sourced their VB+C# compilers a year ago, Miguel was on stage as well to show it running on mac.
You're not vulnerable to hackers because you encrypted it before uploading it.
You're not vulnerable to the company going out of business because you still have your local machine. The only vulnerability is that the company goes unexpectedly out of business with no advance warning on the same day as your house is burned down. The great thing about two such radically different forms of storage (home + cloud) is that their failure models are uncorrelated and so vanishingly less likely to both fail at the same time.
"The holdout cities — those where the earnings of single, college-educated young women still lag men's — tended to be built around industries that are heavily male-dominated, such as software development or military-technology contracting. In other words, Silicon Valley could also be called Gender Gap Gully."
I'm pretty sure ZX Spectrum did interleaving with 8:1 ratio.
When a game loaded off cassette tape and displayed its loading screen (took about 10-20 seconds I think), you'd see pixel row 0, 8, 16,... Then pixel row 1, 9, 17,...
well considering their 'mit license' is invalidated because of the wording saying you can't use without their engine or code... it kind of is a trap. Just a bad one.
There is NO wording which says what you claim.
There's an ABSENCE of wording that says the inverse, however.
Currently, I use one of the many Linux Desktop Environments that lets me configure the look and feel of the desktop the way I want, not the way somebody else wants.
Yeah, you were able to configure Windows8.1 to look and feel pretty much like XP. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Did you require the configuration to be in-the-box with no manual tweaking? or something else?
And from what I gather even their new.NET licensing terms are designed to leave you on the hook.
Chinese whispers...
(1) Microsoft adopts MIT license for.NET, a perfectly standard OSS license. Many people leave it at this, but MS additionally makes a "patent promise".
(2) Blog site reads the patent promise, notes that for most use of the.NET OSS you're covered by the patent promise, but there's apparently one particular case (where you write your own alternative.NET runtime/fx that's incomplete) that doesn't appear to be covered by the patent promise.
(3) Slashdot summary makes the leap to say that MS is "undecided about suing" users of its OSS.
(4) Burz makes the leap to say that this is actually "designed to leave you on the hook".
There are quite a few unjustified leaps in there. Burz, I wonder if you'd say the same about all OSS software that's licensed under MIT or BSD but which lacks a patent promise? Because such software would be in an even weaker state from your perspective than Microsoft's OSS.NET.
(disclaimer: I do work for Microsoft, and I did generate some patents for them, and I'm an engineer not a lawyer).
I see not one thing that says this is an x86. If it's not x86 it's still ARM and still windows RT even if they don't call it RT anymore. The result being you can only run software from the windows store, no legacy apps.
I got the impression that the article was written after interviewing someone from the company in person. Like you, I don't have anything concrete to go on, but that seems the likeliest explanation for the "go to market" date.And I'm sure the rep from the company had earlier been involved in fundraising and as part of that would have had to tell investors his expectations of energy efficiency.
BBC news articles about scientific papers, by contrast, invariably have the words "scientists say" and usually mention the paper's publication...
Often people taking placebo, homeopathy, etc. will *report* feeling better - but this does not mean they are better in any meaningful sense of the word.
Curiously, I'd say that's the only meaningful sense of "feel better".
If I took treatment which genuinely cured me of some physical ailment but didn't make me feel better, I honestly wouldn't care for it and wouldn't do it again. If I took a placebo which didn't cure the physical ailment but made me feel better, I'd be all over it. I guess I'd just assumed that this was obvious and everyone would have the same reaction. Apparently you don't.
Maybe I'm influenced by endurance sports (e.g. I've done many 10+ mile swims) where I think many people can physically accomplish it, but their state of mind is the only thing allowing them or preventing them from achieving it.
It happened at Digg. It has happened in certain churches. It has happened in Korea. It happened in Russia and China. "It's okay to ban this kind of speech" is never. Never true.
The article shows a picture of Breakout, and tends to focus on the wrong things entirely... especially the title, trumping that "computers can beat humans". It's fairly impressive that computers can learn the rules of a simple videogame on their own and perform well, but beating humans is not exactly an apples to apples comparison, because while we can formulate strategies to maximize points, we're also prone to making simple mistakes due to our much poorer reflexes and coordination.
Exactly. The article talks about the "advanced strategy" of tunneling a hole through to bounce the ball of the back wall. But that's only a useful strategy to make up for someone who doesn't have the reflexes to bounce the ball with their paddle, or can't be bothered. If the program had good reflexes and didn't get bored, then tunneling in breakout isn't any advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
No one likes advertising, but everyone wants free stuff. Why do you think advertising is attached to free stuff? Who do you think is paying for the free stuff?
WE are paying for the advertising and the free stuff. I only saw figures from early 2000s, when the total amount spent on advertising in the US averaged out at about $20k per citizen.
That's a HUGE advertising tax that we're all paying. And what do we get from this tax? Better healthcare? Job security? Vacations and time off? No, what we get is to subsidize the parasites working in the advertising industry, and we enable them to force unwanted ads onto our eyeballs, and we get a few tiny geegaws thrown our way.
I can't opt out of paying the advertising tax (through everyday higher prices of every single damn object I purchase). But I sure as heck will opt out of everything I possibly can.
But it's two-year-old level childish thinking at it's finest to think you can get all the free and subsidized stuff out here in the world without the advertising that pays for it.
I think you have a mental block on the question "who pays for the advertising that pays for the free stuff". Please hold off the accusations of childish thinking.
Strip mining companies spend millions on giant trucks whose only function is to shuttle minerals on a private road, from the bottom of the mine to the unloading dock. Until the technology of driving robots has clearly proven itself in a setting like this, it should be kept off the public streets and highways.
The technology of driving robots has already clearly proven itself in mining. For instance:
https://medium.com/war-is-bori...
(from a google search for "robot mining truck")
I love this tidbit: "If you could measure programming ability somehow, its curve would look like the normal distribution." So, they're saying that they know the result of the measurement despite admitting that they don't even know how to perform the measurement. I see.
Well, yes. It's justified earlier in the article: "Almost every skill that we know how to measure ends up showing a distribution that looks like that curve."
There would have to be solid evidence that programming is different from most other skills. In the absence of such evidence, of course it makes sense to assume a bell curve.
In my experience many problems can be attributed to networking.
Same here. I had no end of problems with my old Buffalo running Tomato, needing a wifi base station reset once every few weeks. In the end I switched to an Airport Extreme base station. It hasn't failed once in over a year. I'm so happy with it that I bought one for my parents too.
Why would you read the law literally in a common-law system? The way the law works is by precedent.
Replace "tweet" with "stand up and announce" and "laptop" with "metal pipe" and the story becomes "Man stands up in aircraft cabin and announces he 'could disable flight instruments' with metal pipe." Not that he necessarily was going to. Just that he could...and he's got to the tool to do so right here...kinda maybe thinking about it...
How would it be "unreasonable" to seize the man's metal pipe on the spot? No warrant required.
Let's fill out your analogy more completely...
* An expert researcher on the use of metal pipes for their use in disabling various things
* Who had done known research on the use of metal pipes for disabling aircraft instruments
* Which is interesting because it's not generally known or understood that metal pipes can disable aircraft instruments
* Is going to a conference to give a talk (on the use of metal pipes for disabling aircraft instruments?)
* Announces -- to fellow professionals in the field of disabling things with metal pipes -- that he knows how it's possible to use metal pipes to disable flight instruments, contrary to the general understanding
Yep, no matter how you dice it, detaining the fellow and seizing his metal pipe still seems ludicrous.
So far their acclaimed commitments seem to be mostly fluff with very little real substance in them..
How about completely opening .Net, moving their build system to GitHub, and moving the compiler to LLVM? Those seem to have some real substance to me. Then there's them embracing Docker for Windows Server 10 and open sourcing that work. This is not your fathers Microsoft.
I think it's close to 100%, on mac+linux. When Microsoft open-sourced their VB+C# compilers a year ago, Miguel was on stage as well to show it running on mac.
From the summary: "An anonymous reader links to the study itself."
SLASHDOT - where the summary links are so bad that we only provide good links under cloak of anonymity.
The answer is still the cloud.
You're not vulnerable to hackers because you encrypted it before uploading it.
You're not vulnerable to the company going out of business because you still have your local machine. The only vulnerability is that the company goes unexpectedly out of business with no advance warning on the same day as your house is burned down. The great thing about two such radically different forms of storage (home + cloud) is that their failure models are uncorrelated and so vanishingly less likely to both fail at the same time.
From your first link:
"The holdout cities — those where the earnings of single, college-educated young women still lag men's — tended to be built around industries that are heavily male-dominated, such as software development or military-technology contracting. In other words, Silicon Valley could also be called Gender Gap Gully."
Ah, here's an article and great video that demonstrates the ZX spectrum's interlacing:
http://whatnotandgobbleaduke.b...
I'm pretty sure ZX Spectrum did interleaving with 8:1 ratio.
When a game loaded off cassette tape and displayed its loading screen (took about 10-20 seconds I think), you'd see pixel row 0, 8, 16, ... Then pixel row 1, 9, 17, ...
well considering their 'mit license' is invalidated because of the wording saying you can't use without their engine or code... it kind of is a trap. Just a bad one.
There is NO wording which says what you claim.
There's an ABSENCE of wording that says the inverse, however.
Currently, I use one of the many Linux Desktop Environments that lets me configure the look and feel of the desktop the way I want, not the way somebody else wants.
Yeah, you were able to configure Windows8.1 to look and feel pretty much like XP. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Did you require the configuration to be in-the-box with no manual tweaking? or something else?
And from what I gather even their new .NET licensing terms are designed to leave you on the hook.
Chinese whispers...
(1) Microsoft adopts MIT license for .NET, a perfectly standard OSS license. Many people leave it at this, but MS additionally makes a "patent promise".
(2) Blog site reads the patent promise, notes that for most use of the .NET OSS you're covered by the patent promise, but there's apparently one particular case (where you write your own alternative .NET runtime/fx that's incomplete) that doesn't appear to be covered by the patent promise.
(3) Slashdot summary makes the leap to say that MS is "undecided about suing" users of its OSS.
(4) Burz makes the leap to say that this is actually "designed to leave you on the hook".
There are quite a few unjustified leaps in there. Burz, I wonder if you'd say the same about all OSS software that's licensed under MIT or BSD but which lacks a patent promise? Because such software would be in an even weaker state from your perspective than Microsoft's OSS .NET.
(disclaimer: I do work for Microsoft, and I did generate some patents for them, and I'm an engineer not a lawyer).
Here are (only two) benchmark results...
http://browser.primatelabs.com...
I see not one thing that says this is an x86. If it's not x86 it's still ARM and still windows RT even if they don't call it RT anymore. The result being you can only run software from the windows store, no legacy apps.
Wikipedia says the Atom x7 is an x86 chip
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...
That's pretty harsh! What are you going on?
I got the impression that the article was written after interviewing someone from the company in person. Like you, I don't have anything concrete to go on, but that seems the likeliest explanation for the "go to market" date.And I'm sure the rep from the company had earlier been involved in fundraising and as part of that would have had to tell investors his expectations of energy efficiency.
BBC news articles about scientific papers, by contrast, invariably have the words "scientists say" and usually mention the paper's publication...
Often people taking placebo, homeopathy, etc. will *report* feeling better - but this does not mean they are better in any meaningful sense of the word.
Curiously, I'd say that's the only meaningful sense of "feel better".
If I took treatment which genuinely cured me of some physical ailment but didn't make me feel better, I honestly wouldn't care for it and wouldn't do it again. If I took a placebo which didn't cure the physical ailment but made me feel better, I'd be all over it. I guess I'd just assumed that this was obvious and everyone would have the same reaction. Apparently you don't.
Maybe I'm influenced by endurance sports (e.g. I've done many 10+ mile swims) where I think many people can physically accomplish it, but their state of mind is the only thing allowing them or preventing them from achieving it.
Here in Seattle, the city comes to inspect electrical work.
It happened at Digg. It has happened in certain churches. It has happened in Korea. It happened in Russia and China. "It's okay to ban this kind of speech" is never. Never true.
[citation needed]
The article shows a picture of Breakout, and tends to focus on the wrong things entirely... especially the title, trumping that "computers can beat humans". It's fairly impressive that computers can learn the rules of a simple videogame on their own and perform well, but beating humans is not exactly an apples to apples comparison, because while we can formulate strategies to maximize points, we're also prone to making simple mistakes due to our much poorer reflexes and coordination.
Exactly. The article talks about the "advanced strategy" of tunneling a hole through to bounce the ball of the back wall. But that's only a useful strategy to make up for someone who doesn't have the reflexes to bounce the ball with their paddle, or can't be bothered. If the program had good reflexes and didn't get bored, then tunneling in breakout isn't any advantage.
SQL injection? Shouldn't the "victims" be prosecuted also, for poor IT management?
No, because poor IT management isn't a crime.
Poor software authoring isn't a crime either. Imagine if unpaid open source contributors were held liable for bugs.
Why would the US want to build a skeleton army?
Your assumption boils down to "teachers are women and therefore don't have a gender bias against girls and maths"
??? Weird. That assumption is counter to common sense and my experience (as a male teacher).