What exactly are you implying about our president, and more importantly, how do you know? Have you been to the Oval Office and seen his "change?" Or perhaps you heard it from the First Lady?
In fact, I'd like to know how the size of his "change" is even relevant to the current discussion at hand.
Actually, the type of relationship between the U.S. (and most European countries) and Africa is quite different from the relationship between China and Africa. You can think of it this way: Pretend you're a programmer out of work who's resorted to hanging out on street corners with a sign that says "Will write code for food." I come up and wave a $20 bill in your face, and tell you that I'll give you this only if you write me a simple shell script. In fact, I tell you, if you do a good job on this first one, there'll be more to come. Not long after, my competitor comes along and tells you that he'd like to hire you for writing shell scripts. He'll pay you $20 for each one, even though he only has one in mind at the moment. Likely, you'll do both jobs and make $40, but who would you prefer to deal with? And if one of us eventually tells you that you will have to give up working for the other person, who would you rather work for?
The U.S. gives aid. It is basically a gift. The African countries and people can only receive the gift if they follow certain conditions. Usually, these include following certain humanitarian policies, having some sort of accountability, and for missionary work, believing in some diety (missionaries may not try to actively convert people, but their assistance is primarily directed towards the already-believers). The purpose of U.S. aid is meant to enact some kind of direct social change, or to encourage it.
China, on the other hand, makes investments. The African countries and people are China's business partners. They are not giving aid, they are paying for a product or service. China doesn't care how the end result happens, as long as it does. Social changes happen as the region gets richer, but the type of change is dictated by the region and the people living in the region itself.
Somebody's gotta implement it in hardware. Do you trust Intel or AMD? I don't. If I can run an OSS analyzer on it and the results come out positive, I might be convinced. But I'm not sure this feature even exists for any consumer chips.
Useless for you. But the NSA might disagree. The math is what keeps them at bay. If the math shows cracks, it'd be certain that the NSA has figured out some kind of exploit. Keep in mind that the NSA doesn't rely on just one technique, but can aggregate multiple data sources. So those interrupts that the RNG relies on can be tracked, and the number that results can be narrowed to a searchable space. Keep in mind that 2^32, which is big by any human standard, is minuscule for a GPU.
Three months is the expiration date for my PII. If I'm interested in something today, I'd probably not be in three months. If I'm interested in something for longer, I probably know everything there currently is to know about it by then, and wouldn't need advertising to tell me.
That's exactly it. The question is not, do they even know what they are doing. The question is, what are their motivations. And public service is not a motivation for anybody in the field.
Once you realize that politics is a way for charismatic but otherwise useless individuals to earn a living, then the reasoning behind their actions are clearer. They're functionally no different than used car salesmen, conmen, investment bankers, or MBA's, and serve little other purpose than to leech off society (or in the case of the MBA, the business) while making busy to justify their own existence.
Then you'll also need your own credit card processor. And you'll need your own credit card company. Oh, you'll also you'll need your own bank after that. And if you get that far without the feds auditing every move you make and threatening to shut you down for not dotting an "i", then you need to make money.
You can accept bitcoin, but the feds are attempting to regulate that as a currency, which means you're headed down the same road as above, just a little later than usual.
You can do wire transfers, or some other form of electronic cash-only, but again, the feds will be all over your ass.
Wait, isn't there a common theme to all this? Yes sir, I believe there is. If you want to deal with money, you need to go through the establishment. If you don't, you'll get shut down or severely crippled by the feds.
Um, yes, Microsoft did some shady stuff even back then. But they didn't have their monopoly in Operating Systems until Windows 95. Word was competing with WordPerfect (and Lotus Notes to a lesser extent) up until Word 6.0, which completely ate WP's lunch. Likewise, Excel was competing with Lotus 1-2-3 up until 5.0. These were programs that ran on Windows 3.0, not Windows 95. By the time they dominated the OS market, they had already cornered a good chunk of the office suite market. You can even say that in a way, it was Office that made Windows as popular as it became. In fact, Microsoft's reluctance to release Office for Mac, and refusal to release Office for any other platform even way back is indicative of what Office means to Windows.
There was significant competition back in the DOS and early Windows days, and it was tough. There's a reason why Lotus Notes and 1-2-3 and WordPerfect have specific compatibility options built into Excel and Word respectively. Microsoft did many underhanded things to kill their competitors, but they also delivered a product that ultimately proved superior to the others that were in use at the time. That's why they succeeded.
And GP's SGML comment is tongue in cheek. SGML sucks. It's a great markup language, but it is bloated and software support is terrible. It's great for formatting text for display, but horrible for storing and working with text.
If you'll look at the big chart at the link, you'll notice that the people who bought in at the height of the stock market in the 1920's didn't make their money back until 1960. And then actually went back into the red during the most recent crash.
You can argue if the DJIA is an accurate representation of market as a whole, or of the specific stocks in your portfolio. But you can't argue that even without factoring the capital gains tax, you're probably going to lose. With the capital gains tax, you can't win.
That's just rhetoric, to get the masses to follow. In reality, Bin Laden wanted the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia. He was combining Muslim malcontent with the U.S., and especially religious zeal, to his own ends. And while merely being malcontent would make people wish to act, zeal causes people to act without thinking. The zealous will kill themselves for their cause if they believe their actions will gain them entry into paradise for their afterlife.
The line I like to trot out is that we as a civilization have been building structures for well over twenty-five thousand years, ever since we developed agriculture. We've been working with software for less than 200 years, and the maths behind programming for around 200 years more. The first 200 years of building houses by humans probably would have amounted no more than lean-to's and shacks. Our C and Fortran would be as basic as mallets, dowels, and ramps (assembly would be a rock). Java would be a hammer and nail. Haskell might be a screwdriver and screw. On the other hand, physical engineers have spent many thousands of years refining, testing, and understanding their systems (the screw has been around for close to 3000 years now). Software engineering has only with in the past 10-15 years gained recognition as an actual discipline, as opposed to some subset of computer science or computer programming. The book on software engineering is still being written--just started in fact--whereas the books on mechanical, materials, structural engineering are more or less complete (yes, new things are coming out, but that's the science part, not the engineering part).
There is a second reason, which is not mine, but I forget the original source now. Programmers are not engineers. The function of programmers is analogous to that of architects. They design. The act of writing code is analogous to drawing up blueprints. Given this, the actual act of creation is during compile. And that makes software cheap to build. One button click, and a complex product appears within an hour. Real structures, on the other hand, are not cheap to build. Architects can't go around experimenting with designs until they get it right, which is what programmers do. Real structures are expensive to build. This is why need an engineer, to make sure the design works as intended. This is why engineers of real structures go above and beyond their specs, as an engineering failure would be costly in both time and materials. In software, materials are virtual, and build time is negligible. Thus the value of an engineer for software is significantly diminished, and the engineering discipline itself takes a back seat to everything else.
To concur with your point, professional storytellers have no unintentional messages and content. Most of their education revolves around making up bullshit about past works. They're well aware of the B.S. that'd their own work would become the subject of, and plan accordingly. And the longer they've been at it, the better they're able to manipulate their audience into thinking what they want the audience to think.
This is what happens when the school system fails. People get their truths from entertainment. That's exactly what how an effective Ministry of Truth works. Deleting the past would cause an uproar. Burying it, and replacing it with a different, better version is far more effective.
Ah, that one has actually come true for the most part, after WWII. There is a certain amount of unity, especially as the expanse of Federal power continues to increase with every administration and every "war".
The answer is simple: It's not ready. I mean, it's probably ready for release as production software, but as a phone OS, it doesn't appear to be ready to be exposed to the majority of the world. For example, 1.1 just got MMS capabilities. Based on just this alone, 1.0 would have just been laughed out of the market.
Their current target, I suspect, are enthusiasts and very, very early adopters. It's the people who don't really care that their phone is missing half of the basic features found on other phones. It's people who are more interested in developing applications (add-ons?) for the OS than for people who want to use the phone.
I expect you'll see them ramp up their marketing efforts as the software becomes more feature-complete. Until then, it's just not ready for end users.
If it was the NSA, it'd be hard to trace now. Especially as this is going back to 2003, prior to all this excitement. It doesn't matter. It didn't work, and the NSA is suspected of perpetrating more recent attacks at a different level in the chain.
But this example brings up a good point, which is how vulnurable C and C++ code is in general to obfuscation. It is a known security risk and attack vector, but programmers tend to gloss over it, mainly when they can't accept that they are just as capable of making mistakes as the next guy.
Slashdot Mirror
Big change, not Obama-sized "change".
What exactly are you implying about our president, and more importantly, how do you know? Have you been to the Oval Office and seen his "change?" Or perhaps you heard it from the First Lady?
In fact, I'd like to know how the size of his "change" is even relevant to the current discussion at hand.
From GP:
as my economics professors (Reagan advisers)
They were probably the ones that got us into this mess in the first place.
Actually, the type of relationship between the U.S. (and most European countries) and Africa is quite different from the relationship between China and Africa. You can think of it this way: Pretend you're a programmer out of work who's resorted to hanging out on street corners with a sign that says "Will write code for food." I come up and wave a $20 bill in your face, and tell you that I'll give you this only if you write me a simple shell script. In fact, I tell you, if you do a good job on this first one, there'll be more to come. Not long after, my competitor comes along and tells you that he'd like to hire you for writing shell scripts. He'll pay you $20 for each one, even though he only has one in mind at the moment. Likely, you'll do both jobs and make $40, but who would you prefer to deal with? And if one of us eventually tells you that you will have to give up working for the other person, who would you rather work for?
The U.S. gives aid. It is basically a gift. The African countries and people can only receive the gift if they follow certain conditions. Usually, these include following certain humanitarian policies, having some sort of accountability, and for missionary work, believing in some diety (missionaries may not try to actively convert people, but their assistance is primarily directed towards the already-believers). The purpose of U.S. aid is meant to enact some kind of direct social change, or to encourage it.
China, on the other hand, makes investments. The African countries and people are China's business partners. They are not giving aid, they are paying for a product or service. China doesn't care how the end result happens, as long as it does. Social changes happen as the region gets richer, but the type of change is dictated by the region and the people living in the region itself.
Somebody's gotta implement it in hardware. Do you trust Intel or AMD? I don't. If I can run an OSS analyzer on it and the results come out positive, I might be convinced. But I'm not sure this feature even exists for any consumer chips.
Useless for you. But the NSA might disagree. The math is what keeps them at bay. If the math shows cracks, it'd be certain that the NSA has figured out some kind of exploit. Keep in mind that the NSA doesn't rely on just one technique, but can aggregate multiple data sources. So those interrupts that the RNG relies on can be tracked, and the number that results can be narrowed to a searchable space. Keep in mind that 2^32, which is big by any human standard, is minuscule for a GPU.
Three months is the expiration date for my PII. If I'm interested in something today, I'd probably not be in three months. If I'm interested in something for longer, I probably know everything there currently is to know about it by then, and wouldn't need advertising to tell me.
That's exactly it. The question is not, do they even know what they are doing. The question is, what are their motivations. And public service is not a motivation for anybody in the field.
Once you realize that politics is a way for charismatic but otherwise useless individuals to earn a living, then the reasoning behind their actions are clearer. They're functionally no different than used car salesmen, conmen, investment bankers, or MBA's, and serve little other purpose than to leech off society (or in the case of the MBA, the business) while making busy to justify their own existence.
We need an Ark B, and fast.
Then you'll also need your own credit card processor. And you'll need your own credit card company. Oh, you'll also you'll need your own bank after that. And if you get that far without the feds auditing every move you make and threatening to shut you down for not dotting an "i", then you need to make money.
You can accept bitcoin, but the feds are attempting to regulate that as a currency, which means you're headed down the same road as above, just a little later than usual.
You can do wire transfers, or some other form of electronic cash-only, but again, the feds will be all over your ass.
Wait, isn't there a common theme to all this? Yes sir, I believe there is. If you want to deal with money, you need to go through the establishment. If you don't, you'll get shut down or severely crippled by the feds.
Children are STDs that talk back.
Um, yes, Microsoft did some shady stuff even back then. But they didn't have their monopoly in Operating Systems until Windows 95. Word was competing with WordPerfect (and Lotus Notes to a lesser extent) up until Word 6.0, which completely ate WP's lunch. Likewise, Excel was competing with Lotus 1-2-3 up until 5.0. These were programs that ran on Windows 3.0, not Windows 95. By the time they dominated the OS market, they had already cornered a good chunk of the office suite market. You can even say that in a way, it was Office that made Windows as popular as it became. In fact, Microsoft's reluctance to release Office for Mac, and refusal to release Office for any other platform even way back is indicative of what Office means to Windows.
There was significant competition back in the DOS and early Windows days, and it was tough. There's a reason why Lotus Notes and 1-2-3 and WordPerfect have specific compatibility options built into Excel and Word respectively. Microsoft did many underhanded things to kill their competitors, but they also delivered a product that ultimately proved superior to the others that were in use at the time. That's why they succeeded.
And GP's SGML comment is tongue in cheek. SGML sucks. It's a great markup language, but it is bloated and software support is terrible. It's great for formatting text for display, but horrible for storing and working with text.
Apparently, I failed to get my point across.
No, you're just talking at a level of abstraction that eludes Microsoft Word power users.
tl;dr: TeX is not a meta document format. It's a meta-meta-language used to position text on a page.
Dow, adjusted for inflation.
If you'll look at the big chart at the link, you'll notice that the people who bought in at the height of the stock market in the 1920's didn't make their money back until 1960. And then actually went back into the red during the most recent crash.
You can argue if the DJIA is an accurate representation of market as a whole, or of the specific stocks in your portfolio. But you can't argue that even without factoring the capital gains tax, you're probably going to lose. With the capital gains tax, you can't win.
That's just rhetoric, to get the masses to follow. In reality, Bin Laden wanted the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia. He was combining Muslim malcontent with the U.S., and especially religious zeal, to his own ends. And while merely being malcontent would make people wish to act, zeal causes people to act without thinking. The zealous will kill themselves for their cause if they believe their actions will gain them entry into paradise for their afterlife.
The line I like to trot out is that we as a civilization have been building structures for well over twenty-five thousand years, ever since we developed agriculture. We've been working with software for less than 200 years, and the maths behind programming for around 200 years more. The first 200 years of building houses by humans probably would have amounted no more than lean-to's and shacks. Our C and Fortran would be as basic as mallets, dowels, and ramps (assembly would be a rock). Java would be a hammer and nail. Haskell might be a screwdriver and screw. On the other hand, physical engineers have spent many thousands of years refining, testing, and understanding their systems (the screw has been around for close to 3000 years now). Software engineering has only with in the past 10-15 years gained recognition as an actual discipline, as opposed to some subset of computer science or computer programming. The book on software engineering is still being written--just started in fact--whereas the books on mechanical, materials, structural engineering are more or less complete (yes, new things are coming out, but that's the science part, not the engineering part).
There is a second reason, which is not mine, but I forget the original source now. Programmers are not engineers. The function of programmers is analogous to that of architects. They design. The act of writing code is analogous to drawing up blueprints. Given this, the actual act of creation is during compile. And that makes software cheap to build. One button click, and a complex product appears within an hour. Real structures, on the other hand, are not cheap to build. Architects can't go around experimenting with designs until they get it right, which is what programmers do. Real structures are expensive to build. This is why need an engineer, to make sure the design works as intended. This is why engineers of real structures go above and beyond their specs, as an engineering failure would be costly in both time and materials. In software, materials are virtual, and build time is negligible. Thus the value of an engineer for software is significantly diminished, and the engineering discipline itself takes a back seat to everything else.
Apple is the new Microsoft.
Just with a shinier surface.
iSurface.
Maybe they're testing one with liquid fuel.
War is peace.
Just like here. Closed is open.
Yes. And at the same time, I was wondering how they got the government and insurance companies to take them seriously as medical doctors.
In retrospect, the answer would have been blatantly obvious,
To concur with your point, professional storytellers have no unintentional messages and content. Most of their education revolves around making up bullshit about past works. They're well aware of the B.S. that'd their own work would become the subject of, and plan accordingly. And the longer they've been at it, the better they're able to manipulate their audience into thinking what they want the audience to think.
This is what happens when the school system fails. People get their truths from entertainment. That's exactly what how an effective Ministry of Truth works. Deleting the past would cause an uproar. Burying it, and replacing it with a different, better version is far more effective.
the United States of America is actually united?
Ah, that one has actually come true for the most part, after WWII. There is a certain amount of unity, especially as the expanse of Federal power continues to increase with every administration and every "war".
Hey! That image looks really familiar! It fact, it looks just like where I work!
They must have the wrong place. There's no innovation or new ideas around my office.
That it was done by a developer, I have no doubt. Absolutely an accident. Like putting an assignment in a conditional.
I'd go with more concrete things like lottery numbers, horse racing results, and even real estate.
The answer is simple: It's not ready. I mean, it's probably ready for release as production software, but as a phone OS, it doesn't appear to be ready to be exposed to the majority of the world. For example, 1.1 just got MMS capabilities. Based on just this alone, 1.0 would have just been laughed out of the market.
Their current target, I suspect, are enthusiasts and very, very early adopters. It's the people who don't really care that their phone is missing half of the basic features found on other phones. It's people who are more interested in developing applications (add-ons?) for the OS than for people who want to use the phone.
I expect you'll see them ramp up their marketing efforts as the software becomes more feature-complete. Until then, it's just not ready for end users.
If it was the NSA, it'd be hard to trace now. Especially as this is going back to 2003, prior to all this excitement. It doesn't matter. It didn't work, and the NSA is suspected of perpetrating more recent attacks at a different level in the chain.
But this example brings up a good point, which is how vulnurable C and C++ code is in general to obfuscation. It is a known security risk and attack vector, but programmers tend to gloss over it, mainly when they can't accept that they are just as capable of making mistakes as the next guy.