ISTM the russians would be in a much stronger bargaining position to make the journey up free. Then, once the americans are up there, to open the bidding on the price to bring them back down. After all, with no viable alternative means of getting people there, it's now basically their space station.
'cept that the hackers (like other forms of terrorist) are just as likely to be "your own" people as from other countries.
Even if they were from another country, there's nothing to stop them getting into the target country and then attacking from there. If you nuke'd your own cities I guess they'd win twice:-)
I suppose this counts as a firewall gap, or a software gap.
In fact it's probably just a load of sabre-rattling and FUD put about by the interseted parties to get a little more pork from an easy target, rather than having to go out there and sell products that normal people want, in the real world.
Though this one, looks far too complicated, with it's solar tracker 'n' all. Too much to go wrong for what has generally been considered a simple solution due to it's low-tech approach at getting light into a space.
However they all suffer from the same drawbacks. You want lighting when it's dark - not (just) during the day, so you still have to install conventional lighting too. Plus they aren't so good when it's cloudy. They also pump in all the solar heat as well as the light so you use more energy than you save cooling the place down.
You had me until the "or takes the hit themselves"
What I meant was to be charged with the crime, themselves if no-one else comes forward (or is discovered). There is a precedent for this in vehicle crime (at least in this country, can't say about yours) where the keeper of a vehicle which has been recorded doing something naughty - but not stopped at the time (e.g. going through a speed camera or red-light camera), where the keeper gets a summons to either identify the driver or be charged[1] themself: there's no third option. Just do the same with "anonymous" corporate crime, with the CEO in the place of the vehicle's "keeper". It may sound like rough justice, but it does tend to get results.
[1] note: charged, they still get a day in court if they don't admit it, but they are there to prove their innocence with the proof of guilt being the original evidence of the offence.
and then just find some moron among your employees to use as a scapegoat
Well, it depends how high up the organisation you start looking for that "moron". I'd suggest starting at the very top and charging that individual. If they are cleared (in court) go down to the next layer... keep on going until some "moron" can't afford a good enough lawyer to get them off, or you find the guy who was actually the most senior person responsible and nail them.
Maybe if you can make it legal to suspend bonus payments and share dealings of all those under investigation (until someone goes to jail) the major financial impact will incentivise the people at the top to "magically" bring forward those responsible.
While an organisation may be too big to prosecute, the people in it never are. Crimes are commited by individuals and it's them who should be identified and prosecuted, not the companies they work for. The easiest way to do this is for the police to send a note (summons?) to the CEO listing the charges and stating that either he/she turns over the individuals responsible, or takes the hit themselves.
Should clarify the mind and make directors / VPs realise that they must take responsibility for the organisations they run id they want to keep earning the big bucks.
Looking at all the reviews, you can find studies that show pretty much any AV is the "best". they all have reviews (or tame reviewers) where they come out ahead of the pack. What that tells us in real life is the no single product is significantly better that any other. Under those circumstances, there are three approaches:
- pick the most expensive, on the basis that it will have made the biggest investment in "getting it right"
- pick any one at random, then select the reviews which show you've made the best choice
- pick the cheapest
If you're a doctor, you'd probably go for the first approach, if you're of the religious persuasion I'd expect you to plumb for the second and if you just want to get on with your wor, the third.
Most TV programmes just aren't that engaging. As a consequence people find other, more interesting, things to do while the TV provides a background. The same cannot be said of video games, which generally don't leave any hands free for stuffing garbage down your neck (and would result in "death" or points-loss for losing concentration if you took time off to try it).
What would be interesting is whether it's the programmes or the advertisements that make people (and I doubt that it's limited to just children) fill up on garbage.
OK, BASIC might not be the prettiest language in the world and it has some features which make it hard to maintain IN A PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT. However, for kids playing at home wDijkstrahere the half-life of a piece of code is measured in days, it provides an easy entry with a smallish learning curve. Just like you start off playing with Meccano, you aren't expected to become a professional engineer and build bridges from it (though it has been done) but it does let people develop a love of engineering.
I have read a lot of Dijkstra's work. He's basically an academic who's writing is intended to impress other academics with it's insight, theoretical accuracy and idealism. As a practical basis for doing real-world projects, it falls a long way short.
If you're a programmer (or in any other technical job) the limiting rate to how fast you get stuff from your brain onto a disk is the speed it takes to think of it, do some sort of sanity check, syntax check and keep a running tally of what you think the code will actually do. This is MUCH slower than 90 WPM, probably more like 5 or 10 - depending on how long you make your variable names (and whether you artifically slow yourself down my shiFting ot capiTals for nO veRy gOod reaSon).
Disks are cheap. There's no reason to use the full GB (or TB) capacity, especially if you want fast response. If you just use the outside 20% of a disk, the random I-O performance increases hugely. ISTM the best mix is some sort of journalling system, where the SSDs are used for read oparions and updates get written to the spinning storage (or NV RAM/cache). Then at predetermined times perform bulk updates back to the SSD.
if some storage array manu. came up with something like that, I'd expect most performance problems to siomply go away.
If this guy thinks he owns software I buy from him, then I reckon I should retain ownership of the money I pay for it.
As the article says
or a contract exists that transfers full ownership
which almost every contract will stipulate. I'd suggest this guy stops being so precious and realises he's not creating works of art (even these are owned by the client if they were commissioned - well, the copyright is anyway) he's making widgets: be they mechanical, electrical or virtual. The same set of laws and common sense applies.
The world of gadgets is full of technically superior products that failed. Tivo's just another example. Some had a good idea and bad implementation. Others had poor reliability or couldn't deliver product to the customer. From where I see it, Tivo's just another DVR (though to be fair, I've never actually seen a tivo in the flesh - maybe that says' something about their reach outside the world of geeky-dom) and has to complete with all the new products that are better / faster / cheaper / prettier.
Close your eye and shoot. Whatever you hit, call that the target.
If success simply means getting lots of hits, then yes - I suppose Wikipedia is a success. However if success means earning a living and being rewarded for your efforts, then I guess wikipedia does provide some of that, but is it in proportion to it's internet popularity? No. Now, I appreciate that it's a non-profit organisation and all, but it's hard to turn something that's free into a failure. A better example of success would be to look at something where the users have to pay for the service they get. In that case, almost every internet project is a failure: Wiki, Facebook, Google, Twitter. None of these have succeeded at directly extracting cash from their users. They all rely on either having an independently wealthy sponsor who doesn't mind losing a few $Bn or they push advertising in our faces and make their money from that.
None of them succeed in getting money from users. Just about the only internet (financial) success stories are the gaming sites.
Have a range of offerings from a budget version to a gold-plated one. Set them at different prices (duh!) and see which is / are the most popular. Hardly rocket science. I don't see why they're so hung up on talking about *the* price for *the* publication.
On that day all browsers will be HTML5 compatible or they will perish in the flames of user outrage
While youtube is nice for idling away some downtime, it's not the internet-dominating force this article makes out. If it disappeared tomorrow, than apart from instantly increasing corporate productivity and allowing children everywhere to get their homework done on time, there wouldn't be so much of a change.
There are also (sit down, this might be a bit of a shock) lots and lots of people who rarely, if ever visit youtube. For them, it's existence or change in the tech. it needs will make no difference at all - if their old browsers fail I'm sure they find other things to do on the internet.
While I'm sure youtube will keep going - for some time at least, and will change more over time there's nothing life changing about it.
doing the least amount of work to achieve the required result. In engineering circles this is an attribute (of mechanical and electrical systems) that is praiseworthy and valued. After all, who wats to waste energy?
In business it can be considered "lazy" or efficient, depending on how it's presented. If a person uses the time saved to do more work, it's called "being efficient". if they spend that time goofing around, they're called lazy. Now it might be that the really lazy people who never do y work have simply discovered that the things they are asked to do aren't that necessary - and that nothing bad happens it they therefore don't do it.
Expending the least effort to meet your goals should be recognised as an asset - setting dumb goals that are unnecessary or wasteful should be punished.
While I agree with your point from an abstract, moral standpoint never forget that in programming nothing beats speed of production. Even bug-free code is secondary to getting it out quickly. Now, a good programmer should be able to manage both (and even, possibly, make something that's not too bloated, or even properly documented - but I'm dreaming here) but given the choice between keeping a speedy coder and a low-mistake count programmer ISTM most managers will go for quantity over quality.
(Of course, they don't teach you that on CS courses)
As then all the researchers would be out of a job. In order to keep getting funding they have to present cases that say "we aren't there yet, but with just this leeetle bit more money, I'm sure we can make some significant progress". Once someone develops a viable AI the party's over, they'll have met their goal so the people looking after the purse strings will say "OK, you've done it. Thank you very much and mind the door on your way out".
After that, all further development can be done by simply feeding the AI with it's own output in a sort of positive feedback, with no need for any more AI researchers. They might only be techies, but they're at least intelligent enough to know not to spoil it for everyone.
I'm sure that in 20 years (or maybe tomorrow) computers will be intelligent enough to become AI experts - and start making predictions about when AI will become useful. After all. all you need for that job is the ability to make random guesses, far enough into the future that no-one will recall what you said, or when.
In the meat time, the people actually working on AI research will come up with faster and bigger "AI"s. None of these will even approach the intelligence of a dog - let alone a human. The reason is that since we've never been able to define intelligence we won't know when we've created it. What these machines will tell us is that intelligence has more attributes and a subtler interplay between them than we had ever imagined. I fully expect that in 100 years, we'll still be looking for it, and still not actually know what we're looking for.
Meanwhile, I'd settle for an "AI" that's smaller than a paperback book and can perform real-time, verbal and written bidirectional language translations. Accounting for local idiom, accents, contextual meanings, inflection and body language.
Errrm, experiments produce data. It's the analysis of that data plus the insight and knowledge of the analysts and scientists that turn it into results. The problem is that if everyone uses the same software they'll never notice any systemic failures in the processing it performs.
The point about reproducible experiments is not to provide your peers with the exact same equipment you used - then they'd get (probably / hopefully) the exact same results. The idea is to provide them with enough information so that they can design their own experiements to [b]measure the same things[/b] and then to analyze their results to confirm or disprove your conclusions.
If all scientists run their results through the same analytical software, using the same code as the first researcher, they are not providing confirmation, they are merely cloning the results. That doesn't give the original results either the confidence that they've been independently validated, or that they have been refuted.
What you end up with is no-one having any confidence in the results - as they have only ever been produced in one way and arguments thatt descend into a slanging match between individuals and groups of vested interests who try to "prove" that the same results show they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
ISTM the russians would be in a much stronger bargaining position to make the journey up free. Then, once the americans are up there, to open the bidding on the price to bring them back down. After all, with no viable alternative means of getting people there, it's now basically their space station.
'cept that the hackers (like other forms of terrorist) are just as likely to be "your own" people as from other countries. Even if they were from another country, there's nothing to stop them getting into the target country and then attacking from there. If you nuke'd your own cities I guess they'd win twice :-)
Or it could just be good old fashioned xenophobia
when I hear Stallman wittering on about politics in a country he has no clue about
However they all suffer from the same drawbacks. You want lighting when it's dark - not (just) during the day, so you still have to install conventional lighting too. Plus they aren't so good when it's cloudy. They also pump in all the solar heat as well as the light so you use more energy than you save cooling the place down.
You had me until the "or takes the hit themselves"
What I meant was to be charged with the crime, themselves if no-one else comes forward (or is discovered). There is a precedent for this in vehicle crime (at least in this country, can't say about yours) where the keeper of a vehicle which has been recorded doing something naughty - but not stopped at the time (e.g. going through a speed camera or red-light camera), where the keeper gets a summons to either identify the driver or be charged[1] themself: there's no third option. Just do the same with "anonymous" corporate crime, with the CEO in the place of the vehicle's "keeper". It may sound like rough justice, but it does tend to get results.
[1] note: charged, they still get a day in court if they don't admit it, but they are there to prove their innocence with the proof of guilt being the original evidence of the offence.
and then just find some moron among your employees to use as a scapegoat
Well, it depends how high up the organisation you start looking for that "moron". I'd suggest starting at the very top and charging that individual. If they are cleared (in court) go down to the next layer ... keep on going until some "moron" can't afford a good enough lawyer to get them off, or you find the guy who was actually the most senior person responsible and nail them.
Maybe if you can make it legal to suspend bonus payments and share dealings of all those under investigation (until someone goes to jail) the major financial impact will incentivise the people at the top to "magically" bring forward those responsible.
Should clarify the mind and make directors / VPs realise that they must take responsibility for the organisations they run id they want to keep earning the big bucks.
- pick the most expensive, on the basis that it will have made the biggest investment in "getting it right"
- pick any one at random, then select the reviews which show you've made the best choice
- pick the cheapest
If you're a doctor, you'd probably go for the first approach, if you're of the religious persuasion I'd expect you to plumb for the second and if you just want to get on with your wor, the third.
What would be interesting is whether it's the programmes or the advertisements that make people (and I doubt that it's limited to just children) fill up on garbage.
OK, BASIC might not be the prettiest language in the world and it has some features which make it hard to maintain IN A PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT. However, for kids playing at home wDijkstrahere the half-life of a piece of code is measured in days, it provides an easy entry with a smallish learning curve. Just like you start off playing with Meccano, you aren't expected to become a professional engineer and build bridges from it (though it has been done) but it does let people develop a love of engineering.
I have read a lot of Dijkstra's work. He's basically an academic who's writing is intended to impress other academics with it's insight, theoretical accuracy and idealism. As a practical basis for doing real-world projects, it falls a long way short.
If you're a programmer (or in any other technical job) the limiting rate to how fast you get stuff from your brain onto a disk is the speed it takes to think of it, do some sort of sanity check, syntax check and keep a running tally of what you think the code will actually do. This is MUCH slower than 90 WPM, probably more like 5 or 10 - depending on how long you make your variable names (and whether you artifically slow yourself down my shiFting ot capiTals for nO veRy gOod reaSon).
Disks are cheap. There's no reason to use the full GB (or TB) capacity, especially if you want fast response. If you just use the outside 20% of a disk, the random I-O performance increases hugely. ISTM the best mix is some sort of journalling system, where the SSDs are used for read oparions and updates get written to the spinning storage (or NV RAM/cache). Then at predetermined times perform bulk updates back to the SSD. if some storage array manu. came up with something like that, I'd expect most performance problems to siomply go away.
As the article says
or a contract exists that transfers full ownership
which almost every contract will stipulate. I'd suggest this guy stops being so precious and realises he's not creating works of art (even these are owned by the client if they were commissioned - well, the copyright is anyway) he's making widgets: be they mechanical, electrical or virtual. The same set of laws and common sense applies.
File away with 8-track, betamax and video disks
If success simply means getting lots of hits, then yes - I suppose Wikipedia is a success. However if success means earning a living and being rewarded for your efforts, then I guess wikipedia does provide some of that, but is it in proportion to it's internet popularity? No. Now, I appreciate that it's a non-profit organisation and all, but it's hard to turn something that's free into a failure. A better example of success would be to look at something where the users have to pay for the service they get. In that case, almost every internet project is a failure: Wiki, Facebook, Google, Twitter. None of these have succeeded at directly extracting cash from their users. They all rely on either having an independently wealthy sponsor who doesn't mind losing a few $Bn or they push advertising in our faces and make their money from that.
None of them succeed in getting money from users. Just about the only internet (financial) success stories are the gaming sites.
Have a range of offerings from a budget version to a gold-plated one. Set them at different prices (duh!) and see which is / are the most popular. Hardly rocket science. I don't see why they're so hung up on talking about *the* price for *the* publication.
Thank you for that link. All I wanted was "the answer", 17 pages of verbiage just to get a 1 paragraph conclusion was just too much
On that day all browsers will be HTML5 compatible or they will perish in the flames of user outrage
While youtube is nice for idling away some downtime, it's not the internet-dominating force this article makes out. If it disappeared tomorrow, than apart from instantly increasing corporate productivity and allowing children everywhere to get their homework done on time, there wouldn't be so much of a change.
There are also (sit down, this might be a bit of a shock) lots and lots of people who rarely, if ever visit youtube. For them, it's existence or change in the tech. it needs will make no difference at all - if their old browsers fail I'm sure they find other things to do on the internet.
While I'm sure youtube will keep going - for some time at least, and will change more over time there's nothing life changing about it.
In business it can be considered "lazy" or efficient, depending on how it's presented. If a person uses the time saved to do more work, it's called "being efficient". if they spend that time goofing around, they're called lazy. Now it might be that the really lazy people who never do y work have simply discovered that the things they are asked to do aren't that necessary - and that nothing bad happens it they therefore don't do it.
Expending the least effort to meet your goals should be recognised as an asset - setting dumb goals that are unnecessary or wasteful should be punished.
(Of course, they don't teach you that on CS courses)
After that, all further development can be done by simply feeding the AI with it's own output in a sort of positive feedback, with no need for any more AI researchers. They might only be techies, but they're at least intelligent enough to know not to spoil it for everyone.
In the meat time, the people actually working on AI research will come up with faster and bigger "AI"s. None of these will even approach the intelligence of a dog - let alone a human. The reason is that since we've never been able to define intelligence we won't know when we've created it. What these machines will tell us is that intelligence has more attributes and a subtler interplay between them than we had ever imagined. I fully expect that in 100 years, we'll still be looking for it, and still not actually know what we're looking for.
Meanwhile, I'd settle for an "AI" that's smaller than a paperback book and can perform real-time, verbal and written bidirectional language translations. Accounting for local idiom, accents, contextual meanings, inflection and body language.
Experiments produce results
Errrm, experiments produce data. It's the analysis of that data plus the insight and knowledge of the analysts and scientists that turn it into results. The problem is that if everyone uses the same software they'll never notice any systemic failures in the processing it performs.
If all scientists run their results through the same analytical software, using the same code as the first researcher, they are not providing confirmation, they are merely cloning the results. That doesn't give the original results either the confidence that they've been independently validated, or that they have been refuted.
What you end up with is no-one having any confidence in the results - as they have only ever been produced in one way and arguments thatt descend into a slanging match between individuals and groups of vested interests who try to "prove" that the same results show they are right and everyone else is wrong.