Just because something has an accuracy of X doesn't mean that it's a binary measurement. That would be like having a speedometer accurate to 1 MPH, and therefore you could only know whether your speed is below 1 MPH or above 1 MPH.
It probably takes more movement than just 1 cm to trigger an alarm. Or the system might need that precision in order to monitor patterns that often correlate to deficiencies.
"Value" and "cost" are separate things that we try so hard to conflate. They look similar but are quite different.
Say you have 50 wheelbarrows and I have none. If I need a wheelbarrow, and you don't need 50 wheelbarrows, then a wheelbarrow has higher value to me than it does to you. I might trade you $50 cash in exchange for the wheelbarrow. You value the $50 more than each wheelbarrow, while I value the wheelbarrow more than the $50.
This is the problem with placing monetary valuation on any object or service; value is in the eye of the beholder, and that includes the value of money itself.
The voting verification doesn't even have to be a computer system. It could be a manual process, where any interested party can verify vote counts as they come in at the precinct, and sign off on the totals when they are delivered to the state.
Computers users in the 80s and 90s were a different breed in general than today's users. For most users today, an iPad is good enough for just about anything they will ever want to do.
Then each football can remain in custody of the officiating crew until needed, and then immediately after use. Neither team has to actually touch the game balls before or after they are put into play.
The NFL should provide all game balls, selected randomly prior to each use. Bringing your own game balls is a pretty obvious vector for manipulating the game.
Just throwing out a guess, but perhaps that was part of the test? A mechanical flaw may have been introduced into the engine in order to test that the rocket can appropriately decide when to abort, and also how to recover.
I'm not sure that the human race will forever continue under the assumption that privacy is possible. One day, I doubt that the word "private" will mean anything.
The question is, will we adapt and how will we adapt?
Except that I don't want "all my machines" patched next Tuesday - maybe my Dev boxes on Tuesday, my QA boxes on Wednesday, and if all goes well maybe my production boxes on late Friday night.
Setting this up is already possible via group policy.
The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
If they said "its curve would probably look like the normal distribution", I can go with that. It might have some merit considering what you quoted. But to make the claim that it is Gaussian, without having an acceptable amount of evidence to back up the claim, is misleading and potentially wrong.
Not true, C# has been off of Windows for a long time by way of Mono.
Microsoft is open-sourcing.NET Core, which supports ASP.NET v5 on Windows, OS X, and Linux.
Kerbal Space Program is an example of a game that was written in.NET (I believe specifically in C#) but is available on OS X and Linux. External plugins can be created in C#.
Xamarin provides a way to write native cross-platform applications using shared code and native user interfaces.
I think it's fair to say, we're well past the day where anyone can claim that C# is completely locked to Windows.
I want service and infrastructure to be separated.
I like the idea of IPTV, and AT&T's U-Verse TV service is completely IP-based. So why do I have to have U-Verse Internet service? If I can only get Comcast Internet at my home, then why am I limited to Comcast TV? Why can't I subscribe to U-Verse TV over the Comcast lines?
That is just an example. The same principle could be applied elsewhere... such getting DirecTV over cable lines or cable TV over satellite. The point is, you should be able to choose your service based on what you want, not which pipe you happen to have running to your house.
It's not just about trying to prove someone wrong. But few people want to spend their energy on proving someone else to be correct, although that is arguably the best kind of science we can do.
And suppose you do try to prove them wrong, and fail to do so. What's in it for you? Too few papers are submitted or published where the author's hypothesis is shown to be flawed.
This seems bit like Coca-Cola selling 20oz bottles for $1.50, 2 liter bottles for $0.99, and then getting mad when the customer pays for a 2 liter, drinks 20 oz, and throws the rest away.
Boo-freaking-hoo. Somebody is getting paid to set up these pricing schemes, and part of their job is to take into account the consequences of non-obvious cost structures.
Many sciences, not just the ones you listed, have at least some problem with reproducibility. Verification isn't nearly as sexy as coming up with a new idea.
During my academic days, all the focus was on new work and literature reviews, but only one professor seemed to (defeatedly) care about verifying the results of other researchers. That doesn't get the funding.
Not sure about the desktop side of things, but Microsoft is building a Windows "Nano Server" edition that is about as slim as it can get. The way I understand, their goal is to release this version with only a PowerShell remote interface and the ability to host ASP.NET, but eventually they'll allow the user to layer on additional optional components to build a system with more features.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because something has an accuracy of X doesn't mean that it's a binary measurement. That would be like having a speedometer accurate to 1 MPH, and therefore you could only know whether your speed is below 1 MPH or above 1 MPH.
It probably takes more movement than just 1 cm to trigger an alarm. Or the system might need that precision in order to monitor patterns that often correlate to deficiencies.
"Value" and "cost" are separate things that we try so hard to conflate. They look similar but are quite different.
Say you have 50 wheelbarrows and I have none. If I need a wheelbarrow, and you don't need 50 wheelbarrows, then a wheelbarrow has higher value to me than it does to you. I might trade you $50 cash in exchange for the wheelbarrow. You value the $50 more than each wheelbarrow, while I value the wheelbarrow more than the $50.
This is the problem with placing monetary valuation on any object or service; value is in the eye of the beholder, and that includes the value of money itself.
Skepticism is denying that the subject at hand has been sufficiently verified.
The idea that all "deniers" ignore all evidence is often used to form strawman arguments.
The voting verification doesn't even have to be a computer system. It could be a manual process, where any interested party can verify vote counts as they come in at the precinct, and sign off on the totals when they are delivered to the state.
If they didn't already collect any records on you, you can be assured that they will start now.
Microsoft is doing all of those things you mentioned in Windows 10. And none of it requires running desktop applications.
Sure. But my original comment still stands, even with your definition:
Work is no longer where most computing devices are used.
Take all the computing electronics out of it, and let's see just how entertaining it is.
I wasn't talking about work. Work is no longer where most computing devices are used.
Computers users in the 80s and 90s were a different breed in general than today's users. For most users today, an iPad is good enough for just about anything they will ever want to do.
Then each football can remain in custody of the officiating crew until needed, and then immediately after use. Neither team has to actually touch the game balls before or after they are put into play.
The NFL should provide all game balls, selected randomly prior to each use. Bringing your own game balls is a pretty obvious vector for manipulating the game.
Just throwing out a guess, but perhaps that was part of the test? A mechanical flaw may have been introduced into the engine in order to test that the rocket can appropriately decide when to abort, and also how to recover.
I'm not sure that the human race will forever continue under the assumption that privacy is possible. One day, I doubt that the word "private" will mean anything.
The question is, will we adapt and how will we adapt?
I hope I live long enough to see a manned mission to Mars that finds Opportunity and creates an appropriate monument to the rover and its journey.
Except that I don't want "all my machines" patched next Tuesday - maybe my Dev boxes on Tuesday, my QA boxes on Wednesday, and if all goes well maybe my production boxes on late Friday night.
Setting this up is already possible via group policy.
The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
If they said "its curve would probably look like the normal distribution", I can go with that. It might have some merit considering what you quoted. But to make the claim that it is Gaussian, without having an acceptable amount of evidence to back up the claim, is misleading and potentially wrong.
Not true, C# has been off of Windows for a long time by way of Mono.
Microsoft is open-sourcing .NET Core, which supports ASP.NET v5 on Windows, OS X, and Linux.
Kerbal Space Program is an example of a game that was written in .NET (I believe specifically in C#) but is available on OS X and Linux. External plugins can be created in C#.
Xamarin provides a way to write native cross-platform applications using shared code and native user interfaces.
I think it's fair to say, we're well past the day where anyone can claim that C# is completely locked to Windows.
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.
I want service and infrastructure to be separated.
I like the idea of IPTV, and AT&T's U-Verse TV service is completely IP-based. So why do I have to have U-Verse Internet service? If I can only get Comcast Internet at my home, then why am I limited to Comcast TV? Why can't I subscribe to U-Verse TV over the Comcast lines?
That is just an example. The same principle could be applied elsewhere... such getting DirecTV over cable lines or cable TV over satellite. The point is, you should be able to choose your service based on what you want, not which pipe you happen to have running to your house.
It's not just about trying to prove someone wrong. But few people want to spend their energy on proving someone else to be correct, although that is arguably the best kind of science we can do.
And suppose you do try to prove them wrong, and fail to do so. What's in it for you? Too few papers are submitted or published where the author's hypothesis is shown to be flawed.
This seems bit like Coca-Cola selling 20oz bottles for $1.50, 2 liter bottles for $0.99, and then getting mad when the customer pays for a 2 liter, drinks 20 oz, and throws the rest away.
Boo-freaking-hoo. Somebody is getting paid to set up these pricing schemes, and part of their job is to take into account the consequences of non-obvious cost structures.
Many sciences, not just the ones you listed, have at least some problem with reproducibility. Verification isn't nearly as sexy as coming up with a new idea.
During my academic days, all the focus was on new work and literature reviews, but only one professor seemed to (defeatedly) care about verifying the results of other researchers. That doesn't get the funding.
Everybody has an opinion. Yours just happens to be the one that's wrong.
Not sure about the desktop side of things, but Microsoft is building a Windows "Nano Server" edition that is about as slim as it can get. The way I understand, their goal is to release this version with only a PowerShell remote interface and the ability to host ASP.NET, but eventually they'll allow the user to layer on additional optional components to build a system with more features.
I'd love if they did that for the desktop...