Servers "in the cloud" are installed, secured, and maintained, by sysadmins like you and me. Some of those sysadmins are good at what they do, and some of them aren't.
I don't get it then, what makes the sysadmins and employees at these companies that run "the cloud" any more or less secure than my own employees and sysadmins? And what makes the government where "the cloud" resides any more respectable of my privacy than my local government? My own reaction is that there's just another layer of security risk here. At least if they're my employees or sysadmins and I find out data is being leaked, I can fire them and do an internal investigation. If some sysadmin is dumping databases at a "cloud" site, then who is ever going to know and how is that ever going to be rectified?
I'm not arguing against "the cloud" and I don't have a good example on hand of where "the cloud" has failed but to me it seems like a lot of these are virtual machines sitting on physical hardware running more software. And every layer is just another potential weak point in the chain of software. Is that not true? Isn't it possible that employees of VM farms are simply cloning and dumping memory or hard disks (or entire VMs for that matter) for their own personal use?
There was a paper a while back about encrypted computing just to address this very fear.
"The cloud" is not intrinsically secure or insecure, because "the cloud" is not a definable entity, as much as the tech press wants it to be. This is a misnomer perpetrated by the poorly-informed press, and not really something that's based in reality.
Just like the title to this Ask Slashdot encourages us to debate the security of something that cannot be intrinsically secure or insecure? If you're telling me that "the cloud" is not intrinsically secure or insecure why are we having this conversation? I mean, I think it's worthwhile to consider what a lot of "the cloud" services are that are out there (the big few that exist) and to debate their security success or potential holes. You can always deflect my arguments by saying that they're just "implementing the cloud wrong" and we won't go anywhere. But it is my opinion that sensitive, personal and secure information should not be handed off to yet another third part for computation or storage unless your trust with them is enough to risk litigation against yourself from all of your customers.
In related news, an anonymous reader notes that IDC predicts Windows 8 will be irrelevant to the traditional PC market.
Yeah but have you seen how cheap the report is from IDC? It's a mere $3,500.00 which is a steal considering I just shelled out twelve and a half large for their forecast on computing devices. My god, the forecast I bought was a piddly 27 page PDF while this Windows 8 report is a weighty tome totaling 17 pages in girth and might even result in a printed copy that that I can set on my desk and hold down with a real human skull paperweight completely encrusted with diamonds. At this price, I am buying one copy for every member of my extended family -- these things will make great stocking stuffers next to moon rocks, 1913 Liberty Nickels and the keys to each person's personalized yacht. Of course he tweeted the meat and potatoes of this report -- they're practically GIVING it away on their site already! Be sure to stock up on these before they sell out!
...most people who do it are downright bad at it. That they might take more time and care to be good at it without the perpetual axe of publish-publish-publish and grants funding hanging over their heads is another issue all together.
I agree and I can think of something to illustrate your point.
I was listening to a This American Life episode a few weeks back and there was a story done on two people -- one a music professor and the other a respected oncologist -- who were investigating a long defunct theory that certain electromagnetic wavelengths can kill cancer cells and only cancer cells leaving healthy cells completely fine. When left to run the test, the music professor failed to maintain the control correctly and many other things. But after being corrected by the respected researcher they started getting positive sets of preliminary results. The respected researcher requested that the music professor not share this with anyone and not to attach his name to it just yet.
Well, the music professor did not follow this advice because he was so excited about the preliminary results and had, I guess, sort of felt like the respected researcher had short changed him and suppressed him. What the music professor wanted to do was blow the lid off this thing with possibly flawed data and sent it to other oncologists with the original researcher's name attached to it -- possibly misrepresenting it as flawed data. Now I can see why a researcher might fly off the handle when data is released extremely early. They were having problems recreating their own findings (with sham-control) which caused the original researcher to want to keep this very much out of the public's eye. You might claim he was just trying to save himself embarrassment but there's nothing embarrassing about finding out your hypothesis is wrong in science, I just think the best researchers avoid these "failures" and the subsequent investment of resources into them.
I think that scientists figure out how to create the most data and separate the wheat from the shaft in a very lengthy (think decades) long process whereas the first sign of a breakthrough might cause more inexperienced researchers to show the world. And the reason, as you mentioned, is probably the immediate funding they can get with it. But I think it badly neuters scientific news, the reward system and even the direction that research takes. But to release and share early on and often might just make everyone look bad when the whole background of the data is unknown to someone who receives it.
It's because Chrome is the better browser. It shouldn't matter that it comes from a mega company like Google. If a better product comes out, that should be king.
In my mind, the ideal functions of a free market are where N competing products vie for marketshare. The 'one browser to rule them all' mentality is, in my opinion, an antithesis to the free market concept. And what's more bizarre is that your post ends with an acknowledgment that IE has enjoyed an abnormally long run incorrectly as the leader. Don't you fear that if Firefox died tomorrow we would be one browser closer to the old system where IE stagnated and just got crappier and crappier with no competition in sight?
Products do die in a free market, I just haven't seen Firefox deserve this and given the barrier of entry into the browser market we should really cherish what we have for options.
I agree that chrome is the better browser -- though not in all categories. As such, I wish to see Firefox remain healthy and would enjoy them to improve upon areas that Chrome has gained on them. Not to 'fragment' the market (we grow closer to actual HTML standards everyday) but instead to keep these guys on their toes, moving forward and trying to win me over. When I saw Arcade Fire's music video in HTML5 on Chrome, that won me over. That was it. I don't want Firefox to die, I want Firefox to pull a similar move.
What sensors are you employing to measure this lightning bolt? I don't know much about The Electrum Project or what sort of data it produced for lightning on demand so can you give us very technical details of the sensors in this experiment? Is this more a proof of concept or academic endeavor? Am I missing something on your balance sheet or from Electrum's site about sensors, result sets and data?
Your kickstarter page lists a goal of some $348,000 to do the full experiment as per your cost breakdown. You are now at $32,000 with five days to go meaning some of these components are not going to be affordable. Could you please explain what is being cut or if you're doing the experiment at all?
Oh come on, let he who hasn't gotten a massive data rager throw the first stone. So you're telling me that when you're doing a database dump of all your employee's payroll data and you see those beautiful digits paired with a sensual home address and foxy expiration date that you don't pitch a tent right there on the spot? I'm man enough to admit that I've had to walk around cubeland holding a notebook in front of me after taking a selfish glance at a naughty excel spreadsheet filled with transaction after hawt transaction of coffee mugs and pens. As if you've never had to spend your lunch break firing off a few knuckle children in the handi stall of the men's room when you stumbled across every customer's wishlist of your office supply products! Someone actually got to see everyone's Christmas bonus details? Pass the Kleenexes!
The United States' cultural suppression of natural and healthy sexuality just makes me ill sometimes.
Is he saying that the universe can be likened to a computer program or that a computer program can be written which can simulate the universe? Or is he exploring metaphysics and stating that the universe *is* a computer program?
I am not a physicist but I would probably try to explain it this way: Information isn't free. We know that. It "costs" something. We can call its most basic unit to be a "bit" but I'm not aware of any really solid equivalences between bits and energy. But if you knew this relationship, you could rewrite a lot of physics with the "bit" as one of the fundamental units of physics and get rid of -- say -- energy. You would represent energy as some complicated set of inequalities or equivalences that are written only with references to bits.
Now let's jump WAY ahead. To the really far out there part. If (and I believe that's a BIG if) you can then express these as Turing machines and you have a complete set of rules to compute with, you're getting closer to building a very accurate (if not perfect) simulator. Gravity, relativity, everything gets bundled up into one neat little Turing Machine that quite simply predicts the future. Perhaps you could simulate atomic movement in vacuums at a fraction of the cost of our current simulator -- and superior (the hope is perfect) accuracy! The final dream, of course, is to simulate the universe perfectly from the Big Bang onward and merely predict the future. It's not hard to see the problems with all of this, however. A simple exercise is to imagine I built this machine yesterday and as the machine begins to compute yesterday and today's events, it's computing itself computing itself computing itself computing itself... now you can parade in the sci-fi authors. Oh, and Raymond Kurzweil.
Wolfram brings computational science to the table and has posited that the earth and universe can be understood as a computer program that can be significantly altered as we continue to advance in technology.
Sounds a lot like bit-string physics. You might credit John Archibald Wheeler, H. Pierre Noyes, Ted Bastin, C.W. Kilmister, and David McGoveran before Stephen Wolfram.
Wolfram is a genius, I'm just not clear what "advancements" he's brought to computational science or bit-string physics. I mean, that "universe as a computer" stuff is all still theory right now, right?
Call me cynical but I fear that this will result in more Futurism with people crossing into other fields of expertise, reading papers and then holding them up as the holy grail in undoing aging and death. Sure, it's amusing but I think at best this is going to be a lot of smart people pounding square pegs into round holes all day long. At worst it's just going to sidetrack people from doing work and daydreaming about interdisciplinary possibilities (like some of the Macy Conferences did for Cybernetics).
Welp, better settle in and prepare for the crazy Kurzweil stories to fire back up!
Where have you gone, Bill Atkinson, a nation of potential programmers turns its lonely eyes to you.
Bill Atkinson:... and that is how HyperCard works. Sir, HyperCard stands to transform most of your average users in application developers. It will be liberating and put the world at their... Steve Jobs: People don't "want" to be liberated. People don't want to think. People don't want to have the burden of imagination placed on them. They want my imagination superimposed on top of theirs. They want what I tell them to want. Bill Atkinson:... okay... Steve Jobs: Nobody knows what to do with your 'HyperCard' program, look at all those buttons. All those buttons screaming at me, all night long. Pushing me into the lockers. Stealing my lunch money. NO MORE BUTTONS. *hurls a paperweight as hard as he can several feet from his desk* Bill Atkinson: Um, we can change the UI... Steve Jobs: More than that, trim it down. Just a few options. 'Applications' is too broad -- too many branching factors. Bill Atkinson: Well, we could limit it to just database applications... Steve Jobs: No, you know what people like? Photography. Make it make photos! Hold on a second... *Jobs snorts a huge line of cocaine off his desk* Steve Jobs: Oh jesus that was good. Wait, wait I'm getting something ahhhh ahhhh la la la la la ahhh I'm getting something. Write this down: Postcard making application... ahhh that takes your photos and sends them to people... ahhh over the goddamn internet... with very few buttons. Bill Atkinson: Sir, you're throwing away such a powerful application for mere postcard func... Steve Jobs: Goddamnit Atkinson, this is exactly what HyperCard -- I mean PhotoCard -- needs to make it out there. Now go forth and do! Bill Atkinson: Yes my master...
say that Microsoft's Visual Studio still kicks ass any other IDE out there.
Okay let's keep in mind that this is the original quote. "Kicks ass" is a simple stupid absolute. Some IDEs do some things better than others. The plugins I use in Eclipse are simply not available in Visual Studio. Are you now going to tell me that I should disregard this information and just always select Visual Studio?
How about this little scenario: my boss tells me that I am to be using headless virtual machines running Linux and Ruby to do my development since that's what we deploy on. Do you really think I'm going to try to use Visual Studio?
It is wrong to say "Microsoft's Visual Studio still kicks ass any other IDE out there" unless you scope your needs! You clearly have limited development experience and do not realize that there are many tools for all jobs and some jobs require one tool over another!
I agree with some of your post, but seriously, don't drop your own opinion in the middle of a comment about how things get modded down because they are "wrong" not because they are "unpopular". It mostly just makes you look stupid and like a dick.
Hey thanks for calling me a "stupid dick" I love you too!
Let's face it, the slashdot moderation system has been broken for a long time. That's where the term slashthink/slashdot group think comes from. If you post a comment that general user base of slashdot likes, it will be modded up. If you post a comment, even a really insightful and interesting one that the general user base doesn't like, it will be modded down. Comments that rank up? Promote free speech, removing copyrights, getting rids of patents, point out how "suits" just don't get us geeks and so on. Comments that go immediately down? Tell informative, but bad points about the current state of Linux, dislike Google, try to be reasonable about copyrights and DRM or say that Microsoft's Visual Studio still kicks ass any other IDE out there.
There's a difference between being "unpopular" and "wrong." I disagree with you and find that well written -- though unpopular -- posts will be moderated highly. I, myself, have participated in receiving such moderation. You can make valid points about the current state of Linux (without having to be apologetic) as long as you know what you are talking about. Here's one of my own posts where I rip on Google's tax evasion and it's moderated +4. That's just a quick one, if you need more, I'd be happy to spend some time to provide you counter examples do your claims. As a developer, however, I must say that your Visual Studio statement is completely without merit and will always be modded down. I come to Slashdot not because I'm afraid of debate but because I thirst for it. The most valuable comments are those that put me in my place.
I can't find the old post now because it was long time ago, but it went something like this. Every user are given some amount of moderation points, that affect the moderation as a whole. In addition to that, it affects the moderation you see favorable to the likes of you. If they are on your friend lists, their moderation carries more value. If they have moderated similarly to you, their moderation weights more to you. Of course, this should be balanced so that you don't get fully one viewed comments - if some comment is generally modded very high (and forget the -1-5 scale now), it would be displayed to you anyway. If you add to that that comments where you, or similar persons to you have commented, will be fully displayed regardless of their moderation (or some adjustation of that), it would work out really well. Of course, it needs a lot more computation power on the server side.
That sounds like a really sheltered solution. All I can think about as a comparison is people who live in -- and I'm not picking on them specifically -- a Mormon community only holding their immediate relatives as valid sources of comments. This can be said for any number of things, however, but this proposed "lensing" of Slashdot would just allow people to turtle into their sheltered bubbles. Eventually any contradictory points that I might have been exposed to are safely locked away and I am never challenged. What a horrible, repressed, unenlightened, biased, polarized existence! The website will be a therapist -- telling you only what you want to hear. Disagree with something? Delete the offending friend.
For me, personally? I like Reddit's comment system. It has it's faults, but it's better than Slashdot. Interesting posts are on top, and you can just scroll down for more.
Then go back to Reddit. Why are you here? Go back there where you can delete or modify what you just said when someone wants to engage in a debate with you! Never have I been so exasperated as with my brief foray on Reddit. Valid counterpoint? Deletes his post. Now what?
No moderating system can ever beat your own judgement (even if it's wrong one).
I think you're hung up on wrong/right versus unpopular/popular opinion. It's not so black and white and there is a blur there but I feel that Slashdot 1) presents a decent mix of stories and 2) the subsequent moderation gives you a good idea of what is popular and generally correct/informed.
Allow trusted evaluators to transfer a 'quantity of authority' to like-minded 'contributing authorities', who in turn designate and delegate authority to additional like-minded contributing authorities.
Maybe that comes from the fact that Asians are not as lazy and against "stupid jobs" (when they are in fact the most useful ones) as Americans?
So many citations needed here. Okay so you say "the fact" and I'm asking you where you get your "facts."
You say that Asians have this awesome work ethic and will do all the dirty work? How do you prove that? If you go by GDP per capita, I think the US is doing alright comparatively.
Could you please prove that Americans are against "stupid jobs?" I used to pick rock, bail hay, bus tables, work at a parking booth, etc. Now I code computers. There's my pitiful sample set of "one" please send me your numbers that prove it is applicable to all Americans. I think a lot of Americans working in the middle of nowhere get overlooked by people like you.
When you say "(when they are in fact the most useful ones)" I question how objective the superlative "most useful" is here. The factory worker, the quality control worker, the designer, the investors, etc. They all have a use. Which is "most useful" is totally a matter of opinion. The question I have for you is, do you think that Apple would just stop making iPhones if they were suddenly not allowed to import them from China? I highly doubt it.
I challenge you to grow up and to stop relying on tired stereotypes.
It applies to work, woman and everything. Everyone is selfish and looking for their own good, in a way or another.
So what you're saying is that you've learned that there is no place for love or satisfaction of a job well done? Just money? I'm really really sad you find yourself in that position... keep manipulating your wife based on her greed. You know what else Americans are good at? Divorce.
As opposed to what? Automatically manipulated? Do you think that baseball stats just magically turn from huge sets of numbers into RBIs and Hall of Fame records?
Trust politicians whose only concerns are money and power, and whose only "solutions" involve shifting money and power, and not reducing consumption or pollution, or building things that are actually green, like nuclear and hydroelectric power plants.
Actually I'm just asking you to trust scientists and admit that it's happening... I don't think any of these peer reviewed journals conclude with "Now let's talk solution and my stock portfolio!" They're just telling you what's happening, man.
Believe that man is the cause of the current trend, and that man can do something to stop it.
I'm confused, are you acknowledging that there's a current trend upward? Downward? You just totally ripped all that data to shreds, what exactly are you saying when you say "current trend."
Believe that the Earth will be doomed if temperatures rise closer to points in Earth's past, despite the fact that throughout all of Earth's history, higher temperatures are when life flourished.
The fear isn't that the temperature is going to get 'hotter than anything in history of the Earth.' The fear is that the rate of change accelerates to a point where a lot of the food chain starts to falter and entire species go extinct that we depend on for functions known or unknown. If you think I'm worried about life, I'm not. I'm worried about humans. You and me. And how much unnecessary death will result from this. This Earth has seen some hard times and life's still around. I just want to be sure that in thousands of years man is still around because the dinosaurs are completely gone. I'm not worried that we're going to magically ruin Earth so that no life can exist on it. I am a little worried that we knock evolution back down to something stupid like prokaryotes and cockroaches, though.
First off, there are a spectrum of people who want to do anything from curb climate change to save every last goddamn tree on the planet at the expense of human lives. To lump them all into some category labeling them all equally as 'greens' is detrimental to this conversation. Would it help things if I used you as an example and said "Why you can't talk to denialists"?
This is what your climate skeptic had to say
I don't understand, that's not my climate skeptic, you linked to an article from 2004 written by Richard Muller. I merely provided you the results of his research, I didn't even indicate whether or not I sided with him!
So lets just ignore the part that the greens were pushing about the climate skeptic who had a come to god moment.
What the fuck are you talking about? You brought Richard Muller into this conversation -- are you "the greens"? Furthermore, you used an article he wrote seven years ago to summarily discredit everything apparently even somehow validating "the emails demonstrating knowledge of the fraud that was ongoing." What the hell, man?
Lets look at what one his team members had to say about his come to god paper.
"But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.
Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.
When you identify me as a "green" that you "can't talk to" I don't know why I continue to help you but here's another article you might find informative that follows your Daily Mail article by a matter of hours. It's a little more valuable because instead of it being some news organization (WSJ, Daily Mail, whoever) hell bent on making a story and cherry picking comments to make them sound the most inflammatory, it's actually Judith Curry actually telling you how she actually feels. She has reservations and that's good but she opens with:
I had a 90 minute meeting with Richard Muller this evening.
I have to say that there isn’t much that we disagree on.
As the hockey stick was, as the emails demonstrating knowledge of the fraud that was ongoing did you just get the greens closing ranks and hoping if they keep a united front up, the ludites hatred of all things tech, and the political class's willingness to profit from crisis will carry their position forward.
That's a nice article you linked there. Richard Muller? Maybe you bothered to follow up with what he actually found? The rest of Slashdot did and I think you might be interested in it.
Following some bullet-pointed quotes such as "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day" and, "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels," the message states:
"Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline. This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets. The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning to publicly release the passphrase. We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics."
Listen, I'm all for the publication of the data and methods these scientists are using. But what exactly is releasing internal e-mails supposed to accomplish? Acting all righteous about "hiding the decline" and then you turn around and censor what you release?! That's pretty funny to me. Who do you think climate change is going to hurt the most anyway? My fat American ass shoving honey coated whole wheat pretzels into my gaping maw while surfing the internet? Or the truly poor people? You know that subsistence farmer in Africa or China where a drought, famine or conflict could wipe him out at the drop of a hat? When times get tough, I'll have to give up my XBox Live Gold Account... what the hell is someone living on less than $2 a day going to do?
It'll probably turn out like the UN anyway where the US pays $362 million and China pays $29 million so that's some pretty flimsy motivation there when the wealthiest nations will most likely be footing the bill.
It is massively unfortunate that antibiotics have fallen due to misuse. By all means the *should* be viable for decades to come...
Decades? When you look at the power of evolution over time -- and I mean time as in evolutionary time -- it is simply amazing and a "solution" like antibiotics is no more than a very brief band-aid. I'm not in the medical fields but as the population of humans on this planet skyrockets, we become more and more vulnerable to just being massive petri-dishes waiting for that one antibacterial resistant strain. From the definition of antibiotics:
The term antibiotic was coined by Selman Waksman in 1942 to describe any substance produced by a microorganism that is antagonistic to the growth of other microorganisms in high dilution.
In the evolutionary sense, these antibiotics are merely one more constraint on the freedom to populate of these bacteria. It's not a fix, it's an antagonist of growth. I'm not advocating us to stop using antibiotics -- use whatever we got, the bacteria will evolve one way or another. I'm just saying that "a couple of decades" of use is really quite laughable and planckian in the grand scheme of things.
You're correct to be upset at people who make themselves petri dishes full of a weak dilution of antibiotics as those bacteria will probably have a higher branching factor but the purpose of DARPA's proposal is not to fix what they are doing wrong (go forth with your PSA). It's to permanently fix the threat of bacteria -- or perhaps mastering our control over eukaryotes altogether.
Apple reportedly sent five employees to meet with five different Chinese environmental groups on Nov. 15, only to learn about several troubling environmental issues at as many as 22 different product parts suppliers.
Anyone with decent recommendations, aside from R's own website, where to do a quickstart when you're a SAS geek?
This blog explains some of the stuff you do in R and as he does it, he compares it to SAS.
Example:
Unlike SAS, which has DATA and PROC steps, R has data structures (vectors, matrices, arrays, dataframes) that you can operate on through functions that perform statistical analyses and create graphs. In this way, R is similar to PROC IML.
Slashdot Mirror
Servers "in the cloud" are installed, secured, and maintained, by sysadmins like you and me. Some of those sysadmins are good at what they do, and some of them aren't.
I don't get it then, what makes the sysadmins and employees at these companies that run "the cloud" any more or less secure than my own employees and sysadmins? And what makes the government where "the cloud" resides any more respectable of my privacy than my local government? My own reaction is that there's just another layer of security risk here. At least if they're my employees or sysadmins and I find out data is being leaked, I can fire them and do an internal investigation. If some sysadmin is dumping databases at a "cloud" site, then who is ever going to know and how is that ever going to be rectified?
I'm not arguing against "the cloud" and I don't have a good example on hand of where "the cloud" has failed but to me it seems like a lot of these are virtual machines sitting on physical hardware running more software. And every layer is just another potential weak point in the chain of software. Is that not true? Isn't it possible that employees of VM farms are simply cloning and dumping memory or hard disks (or entire VMs for that matter) for their own personal use?
There was a paper a while back about encrypted computing just to address this very fear.
"The cloud" is not intrinsically secure or insecure, because "the cloud" is not a definable entity, as much as the tech press wants it to be. This is a misnomer perpetrated by the poorly-informed press, and not really something that's based in reality.
Just like the title to this Ask Slashdot encourages us to debate the security of something that cannot be intrinsically secure or insecure? If you're telling me that "the cloud" is not intrinsically secure or insecure why are we having this conversation? I mean, I think it's worthwhile to consider what a lot of "the cloud" services are that are out there (the big few that exist) and to debate their security success or potential holes. You can always deflect my arguments by saying that they're just "implementing the cloud wrong" and we won't go anywhere. But it is my opinion that sensitive, personal and secure information should not be handed off to yet another third part for computation or storage unless your trust with them is enough to risk litigation against yourself from all of your customers.
In related news, an anonymous reader notes that IDC predicts Windows 8 will be irrelevant to the traditional PC market.
Yeah but have you seen how cheap the report is from IDC? It's a mere $3,500.00 which is a steal considering I just shelled out twelve and a half large for their forecast on computing devices. My god, the forecast I bought was a piddly 27 page PDF while this Windows 8 report is a weighty tome totaling 17 pages in girth and might even result in a printed copy that that I can set on my desk and hold down with a real human skull paperweight completely encrusted with diamonds. At this price, I am buying one copy for every member of my extended family -- these things will make great stocking stuffers next to moon rocks, 1913 Liberty Nickels and the keys to each person's personalized yacht. Of course he tweeted the meat and potatoes of this report -- they're practically GIVING it away on their site already! Be sure to stock up on these before they sell out!
...most people who do it are downright bad at it. That they might take more time and care to be good at it without the perpetual axe of publish-publish-publish and grants funding hanging over their heads is another issue all together.
I agree and I can think of something to illustrate your point.
I was listening to a This American Life episode a few weeks back and there was a story done on two people -- one a music professor and the other a respected oncologist -- who were investigating a long defunct theory that certain electromagnetic wavelengths can kill cancer cells and only cancer cells leaving healthy cells completely fine. When left to run the test, the music professor failed to maintain the control correctly and many other things. But after being corrected by the respected researcher they started getting positive sets of preliminary results. The respected researcher requested that the music professor not share this with anyone and not to attach his name to it just yet.
Well, the music professor did not follow this advice because he was so excited about the preliminary results and had, I guess, sort of felt like the respected researcher had short changed him and suppressed him. What the music professor wanted to do was blow the lid off this thing with possibly flawed data and sent it to other oncologists with the original researcher's name attached to it -- possibly misrepresenting it as flawed data. Now I can see why a researcher might fly off the handle when data is released extremely early. They were having problems recreating their own findings (with sham-control) which caused the original researcher to want to keep this very much out of the public's eye. You might claim he was just trying to save himself embarrassment but there's nothing embarrassing about finding out your hypothesis is wrong in science, I just think the best researchers avoid these "failures" and the subsequent investment of resources into them.
I think that scientists figure out how to create the most data and separate the wheat from the shaft in a very lengthy (think decades) long process whereas the first sign of a breakthrough might cause more inexperienced researchers to show the world. And the reason, as you mentioned, is probably the immediate funding they can get with it. But I think it badly neuters scientific news, the reward system and even the direction that research takes. But to release and share early on and often might just make everyone look bad when the whole background of the data is unknown to someone who receives it.
Free market for the win
And text a little bit contradictory.
It's because Chrome is the better browser. It shouldn't matter that it comes from a mega company like Google. If a better product comes out, that should be king.
In my mind, the ideal functions of a free market are where N competing products vie for marketshare. The 'one browser to rule them all' mentality is, in my opinion, an antithesis to the free market concept. And what's more bizarre is that your post ends with an acknowledgment that IE has enjoyed an abnormally long run incorrectly as the leader. Don't you fear that if Firefox died tomorrow we would be one browser closer to the old system where IE stagnated and just got crappier and crappier with no competition in sight?
Products do die in a free market, I just haven't seen Firefox deserve this and given the barrier of entry into the browser market we should really cherish what we have for options.
I agree that chrome is the better browser -- though not in all categories. As such, I wish to see Firefox remain healthy and would enjoy them to improve upon areas that Chrome has gained on them. Not to 'fragment' the market (we grow closer to actual HTML standards everyday) but instead to keep these guys on their toes, moving forward and trying to win me over. When I saw Arcade Fire's music video in HTML5 on Chrome, that won me over. That was it. I don't want Firefox to die, I want Firefox to pull a similar move.
Who would you rather meet for a day and why?
What sensors are you employing to measure this lightning bolt? I don't know much about The Electrum Project or what sort of data it produced for lightning on demand so can you give us very technical details of the sensors in this experiment? Is this more a proof of concept or academic endeavor? Am I missing something on your balance sheet or from Electrum's site about sensors, result sets and data?
Your kickstarter page lists a goal of some $348,000 to do the full experiment as per your cost breakdown. You are now at $32,000 with five days to go meaning some of these components are not going to be affordable. Could you please explain what is being cut or if you're doing the experiment at all?
50% Informative
30% Overrated
20% Funny
Where a joke post about masturbating to scads of personal data results in your peers moderating you "informative."
Oh come on, let he who hasn't gotten a massive data rager throw the first stone. So you're telling me that when you're doing a database dump of all your employee's payroll data and you see those beautiful digits paired with a sensual home address and foxy expiration date that you don't pitch a tent right there on the spot? I'm man enough to admit that I've had to walk around cubeland holding a notebook in front of me after taking a selfish glance at a naughty excel spreadsheet filled with transaction after hawt transaction of coffee mugs and pens. As if you've never had to spend your lunch break firing off a few knuckle children in the handi stall of the men's room when you stumbled across every customer's wishlist of your office supply products! Someone actually got to see everyone's Christmas bonus details? Pass the Kleenexes!
The United States' cultural suppression of natural and healthy sexuality just makes me ill sometimes.
Is he saying that the universe can be likened to a computer program or that a computer program can be written which can simulate the universe? Or is he exploring metaphysics and stating that the universe *is* a computer program?
Read up on bit-string physics and digital physics.
... now you can parade in the sci-fi authors. Oh, and Raymond Kurzweil.
I am not a physicist but I would probably try to explain it this way: Information isn't free. We know that. It "costs" something. We can call its most basic unit to be a "bit" but I'm not aware of any really solid equivalences between bits and energy. But if you knew this relationship, you could rewrite a lot of physics with the "bit" as one of the fundamental units of physics and get rid of -- say -- energy. You would represent energy as some complicated set of inequalities or equivalences that are written only with references to bits.
Now let's jump WAY ahead. To the really far out there part. If (and I believe that's a BIG if) you can then express these as Turing machines and you have a complete set of rules to compute with, you're getting closer to building a very accurate (if not perfect) simulator. Gravity, relativity, everything gets bundled up into one neat little Turing Machine that quite simply predicts the future. Perhaps you could simulate atomic movement in vacuums at a fraction of the cost of our current simulator -- and superior (the hope is perfect) accuracy! The final dream, of course, is to simulate the universe perfectly from the Big Bang onward and merely predict the future. It's not hard to see the problems with all of this, however. A simple exercise is to imagine I built this machine yesterday and as the machine begins to compute yesterday and today's events, it's computing itself computing itself computing itself computing itself
Wolfram brings computational science to the table and has posited that the earth and universe can be understood as a computer program that can be significantly altered as we continue to advance in technology.
Sounds a lot like bit-string physics. You might credit John Archibald Wheeler, H. Pierre Noyes, Ted Bastin, C.W. Kilmister, and David McGoveran before Stephen Wolfram.
Wolfram is a genius, I'm just not clear what "advancements" he's brought to computational science or bit-string physics. I mean, that "universe as a computer" stuff is all still theory right now, right?
Call me cynical but I fear that this will result in more Futurism with people crossing into other fields of expertise, reading papers and then holding them up as the holy grail in undoing aging and death. Sure, it's amusing but I think at best this is going to be a lot of smart people pounding square pegs into round holes all day long. At worst it's just going to sidetrack people from doing work and daydreaming about interdisciplinary possibilities (like some of the Macy Conferences did for Cybernetics).
Welp, better settle in and prepare for the crazy Kurzweil stories to fire back up!
Where have you gone, Bill Atkinson, a nation of potential programmers turns its lonely eyes to you.
Bill Atkinson: ... and that is how HyperCard works. Sir, HyperCard stands to transform most of your average users in application developers. It will be liberating and put the world at their ... ... okay ... ... ... ... ... ahhh that takes your photos and sends them to people ... ahhh over the goddamn internet ... with very few buttons. ... ...
Steve Jobs: People don't "want" to be liberated. People don't want to think. People don't want to have the burden of imagination placed on them. They want my imagination superimposed on top of theirs. They want what I tell them to want.
Bill Atkinson:
Steve Jobs: Nobody knows what to do with your 'HyperCard' program, look at all those buttons. All those buttons screaming at me, all night long. Pushing me into the lockers. Stealing my lunch money. NO MORE BUTTONS.
*hurls a paperweight as hard as he can several feet from his desk*
Bill Atkinson: Um, we can change the UI
Steve Jobs: More than that, trim it down. Just a few options. 'Applications' is too broad -- too many branching factors.
Bill Atkinson: Well, we could limit it to just database applications
Steve Jobs: No, you know what people like? Photography. Make it make photos! Hold on a second
*Jobs snorts a huge line of cocaine off his desk*
Steve Jobs: Oh jesus that was good. Wait, wait I'm getting something ahhhh ahhhh la la la la la ahhh I'm getting something. Write this down: Postcard making application
Bill Atkinson: Sir, you're throwing away such a powerful application for mere postcard func
Steve Jobs: Goddamnit Atkinson, this is exactly what HyperCard -- I mean PhotoCard -- needs to make it out there. Now go forth and do!
Bill Atkinson: Yes my master
And that's where Bill Atkinson has gone!
say that Microsoft's Visual Studio still kicks ass any other IDE out there.
Okay let's keep in mind that this is the original quote. "Kicks ass" is a simple stupid absolute. Some IDEs do some things better than others. The plugins I use in Eclipse are simply not available in Visual Studio. Are you now going to tell me that I should disregard this information and just always select Visual Studio?
How about this little scenario: my boss tells me that I am to be using headless virtual machines running Linux and Ruby to do my development since that's what we deploy on. Do you really think I'm going to try to use Visual Studio?
It is wrong to say "Microsoft's Visual Studio still kicks ass any other IDE out there" unless you scope your needs! You clearly have limited development experience and do not realize that there are many tools for all jobs and some jobs require one tool over another!
I agree with some of your post, but seriously, don't drop your own opinion in the middle of a comment about how things get modded down because they are "wrong" not because they are "unpopular". It mostly just makes you look stupid and like a dick.
Hey thanks for calling me a "stupid dick" I love you too!
Let's face it, the slashdot moderation system has been broken for a long time. That's where the term slashthink/slashdot group think comes from. If you post a comment that general user base of slashdot likes, it will be modded up. If you post a comment, even a really insightful and interesting one that the general user base doesn't like, it will be modded down. Comments that rank up? Promote free speech, removing copyrights, getting rids of patents, point out how "suits" just don't get us geeks and so on. Comments that go immediately down? Tell informative, but bad points about the current state of Linux, dislike Google, try to be reasonable about copyrights and DRM or say that Microsoft's Visual Studio still kicks ass any other IDE out there.
There's a difference between being "unpopular" and "wrong." I disagree with you and find that well written -- though unpopular -- posts will be moderated highly. I, myself, have participated in receiving such moderation. You can make valid points about the current state of Linux (without having to be apologetic) as long as you know what you are talking about. Here's one of my own posts where I rip on Google's tax evasion and it's moderated +4. That's just a quick one, if you need more, I'd be happy to spend some time to provide you counter examples do your claims. As a developer, however, I must say that your Visual Studio statement is completely without merit and will always be modded down. I come to Slashdot not because I'm afraid of debate but because I thirst for it. The most valuable comments are those that put me in my place.
I can't find the old post now because it was long time ago, but it went something like this. Every user are given some amount of moderation points, that affect the moderation as a whole. In addition to that, it affects the moderation you see favorable to the likes of you. If they are on your friend lists, their moderation carries more value. If they have moderated similarly to you, their moderation weights more to you. Of course, this should be balanced so that you don't get fully one viewed comments - if some comment is generally modded very high (and forget the -1-5 scale now), it would be displayed to you anyway. If you add to that that comments where you, or similar persons to you have commented, will be fully displayed regardless of their moderation (or some adjustation of that), it would work out really well. Of course, it needs a lot more computation power on the server side.
That sounds like a really sheltered solution. All I can think about as a comparison is people who live in -- and I'm not picking on them specifically -- a Mormon community only holding their immediate relatives as valid sources of comments. This can be said for any number of things, however, but this proposed "lensing" of Slashdot would just allow people to turtle into their sheltered bubbles. Eventually any contradictory points that I might have been exposed to are safely locked away and I am never challenged. What a horrible, repressed, unenlightened, biased, polarized existence! The website will be a therapist -- telling you only what you want to hear. Disagree with something? Delete the offending friend.
For me, personally? I like Reddit's comment system. It has it's faults, but it's better than Slashdot. Interesting posts are on top, and you can just scroll down for more.
Then go back to Reddit. Why are you here? Go back there where you can delete or modify what you just said when someone wants to engage in a debate with you! Never have I been so exasperated as with my brief foray on Reddit. Valid counterpoint? Deletes his post. Now what?
No moderating system can ever beat your own judgement (even if it's wrong one).
I think you're hung up on wrong/right versus unpopular/popular opinion. It's not so black and white and there is a blur there but I feel that Slashdot 1) presents a decent mix of stories and 2) the subsequent moderation gives you a good idea of what is popular and generally correct/informed.
Allow trusted evaluators to transfer a 'quantity of authority' to like-minded 'contributing authorities', who in turn designate and delegate authority to additional like-minded contributing authorities.
Um, isn't this exactly what would promote the problem of politically active users donating time to keep adverse stories repressed?
...
Quality can be controlled to some extent but biases are much harder to determine
Maybe that comes from the fact that Asians are not as lazy and against "stupid jobs" (when they are in fact the most useful ones) as Americans?
So many citations needed here. Okay so you say "the fact" and I'm asking you where you get your "facts."
You say that Asians have this awesome work ethic and will do all the dirty work? How do you prove that? If you go by GDP per capita, I think the US is doing alright comparatively.
Could you please prove that Americans are against "stupid jobs?" I used to pick rock, bail hay, bus tables, work at a parking booth, etc. Now I code computers. There's my pitiful sample set of "one" please send me your numbers that prove it is applicable to all Americans. I think a lot of Americans working in the middle of nowhere get overlooked by people like you.
When you say "(when they are in fact the most useful ones)" I question how objective the superlative "most useful" is here. The factory worker, the quality control worker, the designer, the investors, etc. They all have a use. Which is "most useful" is totally a matter of opinion. The question I have for you is, do you think that Apple would just stop making iPhones if they were suddenly not allowed to import them from China? I highly doubt it.
I challenge you to grow up and to stop relying on tired stereotypes.
It applies to work, woman and everything. Everyone is selfish and looking for their own good, in a way or another.
So what you're saying is that you've learned that there is no place for love or satisfaction of a job well done? Just money? I'm really really sad you find yourself in that position ... keep manipulating your wife based on her greed. You know what else Americans are good at? Divorce.
Believe models that have never predicted anything correctly.
Never say never.
Trust data that is manually manipulated ...
As opposed to what? Automatically manipulated? Do you think that baseball stats just magically turn from huge sets of numbers into RBIs and Hall of Fame records?
Trust politicians whose only concerns are money and power, and whose only "solutions" involve shifting money and power, and not reducing consumption or pollution, or building things that are actually green, like nuclear and hydroelectric power plants.
Actually I'm just asking you to trust scientists and admit that it's happening ... I don't think any of these peer reviewed journals conclude with "Now let's talk solution and my stock portfolio!" They're just telling you what's happening, man.
Believe that man is the cause of the current trend, and that man can do something to stop it.
I'm confused, are you acknowledging that there's a current trend upward? Downward? You just totally ripped all that data to shreds, what exactly are you saying when you say "current trend."
Believe that the Earth will be doomed if temperatures rise closer to points in Earth's past, despite the fact that throughout all of Earth's history, higher temperatures are when life flourished.
The fear isn't that the temperature is going to get 'hotter than anything in history of the Earth.' The fear is that the rate of change accelerates to a point where a lot of the food chain starts to falter and entire species go extinct that we depend on for functions known or unknown. If you think I'm worried about life, I'm not. I'm worried about humans. You and me. And how much unnecessary death will result from this. This Earth has seen some hard times and life's still around. I just want to be sure that in thousands of years man is still around because the dinosaurs are completely gone. I'm not worried that we're going to magically ruin Earth so that no life can exist on it. I am a little worried that we knock evolution back down to something stupid like prokaryotes and cockroaches, though.
This is what your climate skeptic had to say
I don't understand, that's not my climate skeptic, you linked to an article from 2004 written by Richard Muller. I merely provided you the results of his research, I didn't even indicate whether or not I sided with him!
So lets just ignore the part that the greens were pushing about the climate skeptic who had a come to god moment.
What the fuck are you talking about? You brought Richard Muller into this conversation -- are you "the greens"? Furthermore, you used an article he wrote seven years ago to summarily discredit everything apparently even somehow validating "the emails demonstrating knowledge of the fraud that was ongoing." What the hell, man?
Lets look at what one his team members had to say about his come to god paper.
"But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped. Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1eTMUgUpc"
When you identify me as a "green" that you "can't talk to" I don't know why I continue to help you but here's another article you might find informative that follows your Daily Mail article by a matter of hours. It's a little more valuable because instead of it being some news organization (WSJ, Daily Mail, whoever) hell bent on making a story and cherry picking comments to make them sound the most inflammatory, it's actually Judith Curry actually telling you how she actually feels. She has reservations and that's good but she opens with:
I had a 90 minute meeting with Richard Muller this evening. I have to say that there isn’t much that we disagree on.
My fat American ass shoving honey coated whole wheat pretzels into my gaping maw while surfing the internet?
This imagery reminds me of the humor style of the guy who does The Oatmeal.
*oh my god, a girl is trying to talk to me on Slashdot, quick, reply with something that will impress her!*
I also snort.
And every time there is evidence that it is just a political con game
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
As the hockey stick was, as the emails demonstrating knowledge of the fraud that was ongoing did you just get the greens closing ranks and hoping if they keep a united front up, the ludites hatred of all things tech, and the political class's willingness to profit from crisis will carry their position forward.
That's a nice article you linked there. Richard Muller? Maybe you bothered to follow up with what he actually found? The rest of Slashdot did and I think you might be interested in it.
Following some bullet-pointed quotes such as "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day" and, "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels," the message states:
"Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline. This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets. The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning to publicly release the passphrase. We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics."
Listen, I'm all for the publication of the data and methods these scientists are using. But what exactly is releasing internal e-mails supposed to accomplish? Acting all righteous about "hiding the decline" and then you turn around and censor what you release?! That's pretty funny to me. Who do you think climate change is going to hurt the most anyway? My fat American ass shoving honey coated whole wheat pretzels into my gaping maw while surfing the internet? Or the truly poor people? You know that subsistence farmer in Africa or China where a drought, famine or conflict could wipe him out at the drop of a hat? When times get tough, I'll have to give up my XBox Live Gold Account ... what the hell is someone living on less than $2 a day going to do?
It'll probably turn out like the UN anyway where the US pays $362 million and China pays $29 million so that's some pretty flimsy motivation there when the wealthiest nations will most likely be footing the bill.
It is massively unfortunate that antibiotics have fallen due to misuse. By all means the *should* be viable for decades to come ...
Decades? When you look at the power of evolution over time -- and I mean time as in evolutionary time -- it is simply amazing and a "solution" like antibiotics is no more than a very brief band-aid. I'm not in the medical fields but as the population of humans on this planet skyrockets, we become more and more vulnerable to just being massive petri-dishes waiting for that one antibacterial resistant strain. From the definition of antibiotics:
The term antibiotic was coined by Selman Waksman in 1942 to describe any substance produced by a microorganism that is antagonistic to the growth of other microorganisms in high dilution.
In the evolutionary sense, these antibiotics are merely one more constraint on the freedom to populate of these bacteria. It's not a fix, it's an antagonist of growth. I'm not advocating us to stop using antibiotics -- use whatever we got, the bacteria will evolve one way or another. I'm just saying that "a couple of decades" of use is really quite laughable and planckian in the grand scheme of things.
You're correct to be upset at people who make themselves petri dishes full of a weak dilution of antibiotics as those bacteria will probably have a higher branching factor but the purpose of DARPA's proposal is not to fix what they are doing wrong (go forth with your PSA). It's to permanently fix the threat of bacteria -- or perhaps mastering our control over eukaryotes altogether.
Bob,
You are the reason I submit any medical news to Slashdot. Your (Score: -1) batshit insanity brightens my day.
I will take a karma hit to say this: I love you Bob! Keep up the good work fighting the front lines with *snicker* chiropractics in Africa!
eldavojohn
Apple reportedly sent five employees to meet with five different Chinese environmental groups on Nov. 15, only to learn about several troubling environmental issues at as many as 22 different product parts suppliers.
Huh, that's odd, it was back in September when Apple outright rejected these claims. Perhaps Apple is free to conduct investigations with the passing of a certain misanthrope?
Anyone with decent recommendations, aside from R's own website, where to do a quickstart when you're a SAS geek?
This blog explains some of the stuff you do in R and as he does it, he compares it to SAS.
Example:
Unlike SAS, which has DATA and PROC steps, R has data structures (vectors, matrices, arrays, dataframes) that you can operate on through functions that perform statistical analyses and create graphs. In this way, R is similar to PROC IML.
And here's an entire book on the topic (although may be difficult to find)!