I would say while developers love USDP, that does not mean it is actually a good thing. It draws on people's egos, dovetails with the 'my language+OS+toolchain is the one right solution for everything because I am so much smarter then people who use other languages/OSes/tools' religious wars you see so often in tech. It works for social and marketing reasons, not technological ones... and it could be argued that it has been a bad thing technologically. Just look at all the languages competing for 'one twue language applicable to all tasks' spot.. and what it has done to those languages... all the extra crap added to them till they all look like half of them is a poorly implemented clone of some other language.
Most of the worst offenses had to do with US importers trying to get produce and other goods out of South American countries, at least the ones I am familiar since they are old enough to have actually gotten out there. The US (military) was pretty brutal in getting rid of activists and governments that did not give advantagous trade deals to US companies.
While kinda douchy, it is well within their right to put restrictions on who can interface with their code. It is still a better deal then closed source authors will give you, though not as good as the more open OSS ones.
That is kinda the point, there is currently nothing solid to support a method for instantaneiously shifting your speed. The article talks about behaviors above lightspeed, but those are kinda old hat, nothing actually new there. Crow, we covered that stuff in freshman physics....
Even the best automated regression tests will struggle in general purpose enviroments. They are a useful tool, but not a replacement for human Q/A since tests inhrently depend on a programmer's guess on what might go wrong. Though as with all things it depends heavily on exactly what kind of software you are writing. Some types lend themselves to automated testing more then others. Still, putting too much faith in automated testing with no live user in the mix is risky, even if it has not gone wrong 'yet'.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts. While there is always value in cutting away unnesseary beucracy, once that is gone you get into the tradeoff between flexibility and stability. Plenty of web-centric companies follow waterfall or other risk adverse patterns and do just fine.
So it really comes down to examining how important rapid changes vs stability/validity are. Many of those 'web2.0' companies that can adjust rapidly are pretty flakey and have no paper trail to be able to show auditors (or underwriters/insurance carriers) that they have done due dillagence.. nor can they generally cope with mutliple stakeholders. Ever wonder why so many of those companies have a 'my way or the highway' attitude twoards feature sets? It isn't just arrogence, it is their development process. This works really well for some companies and can burry others.
So at the end of the day, you need to sit and figure out what is the best balance for one's particular company.. not look at young sexy rising stars in tangental industries and try to emulate them.
Looking at the histories of US, Chinese, and Russian military and intellgence agencies, I would not call the 'west' and easy target in the last. There might be some differences in how the US treats its own citizens, they have a history of doing some pretty cold stuff to forign nationals, esp when there is a buisness interest involved.
Well, not quite the same... the sound barrier was an engineering problem.. plenty of math saying people could break it but building a plane that didn't shake itself to pieces was non-trivial.... in this case the math doesn't work out and we don't have any known paths for getting past this.
I have not read the piece, but I am confused how this is 'new'. The behavior of the equations for values larger then C were things we went over in undergrad physics. You can not go the speed of light, but higher or lower works.
To be fair, this topic had a rather dark history and, even when researchers were well intentioned, stuff like this has been used as the basis for eugenics multiple times already, including within the US. So their concern is rooted in some pretty solid history..... not hypothetical misuse.
I doubt there was ever a time in the last century that 'finding aliens' would have ever thrown us into chaos. It is little more then a 'but I am differnt and better then the sheep because I can handle it' myth that doubles as a convient exuse for why the government would be hiding things.
Not as outlandish as it initially sounds, there is at least one model for oil/natural gas that could explain its creation based of geological processes rather then biological material breaking down, so both Mars and Venus would have their own deposits.
Except historically (i.e. actual concervative economics, not this new fangled concervatative fantasy flavored economics we have today), deficit spending during a recession is the classic and effective method for decreasing the impact of an economic downturn and reversing it. So it is not a case of 'everyone knows it is a bad idea', it is a case of 'some people think it is a bad idea based off untested economic theories wrapped in concervative language'... but we should call those ideas what they are, progressive. Deregulation and tax cuts do not have a track record of reversing a downturn, in fact they have a historical pattern of increasing instability, producing a short term bump followed by a deeper dive.
Well, yes, europeans often have coalition governments because their voting system works differntly then ours. It is because we have a plurality voting system that we end up with two parties.. not rigging, not some conspiracy, just math. If you look at other countries with similiar sytems they end up with too parties too. No amount of funding or air time or other things that 3rd parties keep complaining that they are not getting will change this.
Pretty similar. It is a natural artifact of our patent system. Companies that do not play this game find themselves hurting more then the ones that are trying to mutually annihilate each other... either from patent suits or from investors that pressure them to start suing. Old problem....
That is something I have been trying to figure out... the version of the standard I was originally able to track down (from 2011) did not have such a requirement... which leads me to think the advertizes are playing a PR game with their amendment to the spec, making it sound like Microsoft was given a spec and they intentionally ignored it.
*shrug* the internet did just fine before advertizes started using it for their own purposes. I suspect that if ad revenue went down things would be fine.
Besides, we are talking about one additional (and kinda creepy) metric, not stopping advertizing. They can still place ads, they can still place community specific ads on community specific sites (kinda like how, I don't know, most targeted advertizing is done).. it would simply make it so they could not target ads based off other sites you have previously visited. I doubt ad revenue would actually go down, though they might have to do a little more *gasp* work....
Since tracking tends to be embedded hidden places spread out among many 3rd party sights, it would be pretty difficult for most users to even know if they are being tracked in the first place, much less avoid those sites.
But that would *gasp* be asking marketers to buy add space on sites that are relevant to the interests of their target market! The humanity! The extra work!
I disagree that Microsoft is 'undermining' DnT. They might be providing an excuse for advertizes to ignore it, but they would have done that anyway if significant numbers of people started using it.
Make no mistake, advertizes are the scummy party here. They are the ones who are intentionally ignoring a flag requesting that people not be tracked. Bashing Microsoft is almost victim blaming here.. someone else decided to be a dick because Microsoft did something that would be pro-consumer, and yet they are being blamed for someone else's actions.
Slashdot Mirror
I would say while developers love USDP, that does not mean it is actually a good thing. It draws on people's egos, dovetails with the 'my language+OS+toolchain is the one right solution for everything because I am so much smarter then people who use other languages/OSes/tools' religious wars you see so often in tech. It works for social and marketing reasons, not technological ones... and it could be argued that it has been a bad thing technologically. Just look at all the languages competing for 'one twue language applicable to all tasks' spot.. and what it has done to those languages... all the extra crap added to them till they all look like half of them is a poorly implemented clone of some other language.
Classic problem with a lot of tech blogging.... people often look at the particular niche they are interested in and expand that to 'technology'
Most of the worst offenses had to do with US importers trying to get produce and other goods out of South American countries, at least the ones I am familiar since they are old enough to have actually gotten out there. The US (military) was pretty brutal in getting rid of activists and governments that did not give advantagous trade deals to US companies.
While kinda douchy, it is well within their right to put restrictions on who can interface with their code. It is still a better deal then closed source authors will give you, though not as good as the more open OSS ones.
That is kinda the point, there is currently nothing solid to support a method for instantaneiously shifting your speed. The article talks about behaviors above lightspeed, but those are kinda old hat, nothing actually new there. Crow, we covered that stuff in freshman physics....
Even the best automated regression tests will struggle in general purpose enviroments. They are a useful tool, but not a replacement for human Q/A since tests inhrently depend on a programmer's guess on what might go wrong. Though as with all things it depends heavily on exactly what kind of software you are writing. Some types lend themselves to automated testing more then others. Still, putting too much faith in automated testing with no live user in the mix is risky, even if it has not gone wrong 'yet'.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts. While there is always value in cutting away unnesseary beucracy, once that is gone you get into the tradeoff between flexibility and stability. Plenty of web-centric companies follow waterfall or other risk adverse patterns and do just fine.
So it really comes down to examining how important rapid changes vs stability/validity are. Many of those 'web2.0' companies that can adjust rapidly are pretty flakey and have no paper trail to be able to show auditors (or underwriters/insurance carriers) that they have done due dillagence.. nor can they generally cope with mutliple stakeholders. Ever wonder why so many of those companies have a 'my way or the highway' attitude twoards feature sets? It isn't just arrogence, it is their development process. This works really well for some companies and can burry others.
So at the end of the day, you need to sit and figure out what is the best balance for one's particular company.. not look at young sexy rising stars in tangental industries and try to emulate them.
Looking at the histories of US, Chinese, and Russian military and intellgence agencies, I would not call the 'west' and easy target in the last. There might be some differences in how the US treats its own citizens, they have a history of doing some pretty cold stuff to forign nationals, esp when there is a buisness interest involved.
Yeah.... Cryptome is about as edgy and 'secret revealing' as Fox News....
Well, not quite the same... the sound barrier was an engineering problem.. plenty of math saying people could break it but building a plane that didn't shake itself to pieces was non-trivial.... in this case the math doesn't work out and we don't have any known paths for getting past this.
Well, tachyons aside, basically yeah.
I have not read the piece, but I am confused how this is 'new'. The behavior of the equations for values larger then C were things we went over in undergrad physics. You can not go the speed of light, but higher or lower works.
To be fair, this topic had a rather dark history and, even when researchers were well intentioned, stuff like this has been used as the basis for eugenics multiple times already, including within the US. So their concern is rooted in some pretty solid history..... not hypothetical misuse.
I doubt there was ever a time in the last century that 'finding aliens' would have ever thrown us into chaos. It is little more then a 'but I am differnt and better then the sheep because I can handle it' myth that doubles as a convient exuse for why the government would be hiding things.
Heh. Now if they found oil......
Not as outlandish as it initially sounds, there is at least one model for oil/natural gas that could explain its creation based of geological processes rather then biological material breaking down, so both Mars and Venus would have their own deposits.
That is the general problem with 'no bid contracts', no one else was given the chance to do it and fees were set by the 'winner'.
Have you seen governments that are run like buisnesses? They are usually 3rd world hellholes.
A state is not a buisness and should not behave like one, the goals of the two domains are diometrically opposed.
Except historically (i.e. actual concervative economics, not this new fangled concervatative fantasy flavored economics we have today), deficit spending during a recession is the classic and effective method for decreasing the impact of an economic downturn and reversing it. So it is not a case of 'everyone knows it is a bad idea', it is a case of 'some people think it is a bad idea based off untested economic theories wrapped in concervative language'... but we should call those ideas what they are, progressive. Deregulation and tax cuts do not have a track record of reversing a downturn, in fact they have a historical pattern of increasing instability, producing a short term bump followed by a deeper dive.
Well, yes, europeans often have coalition governments because their voting system works differntly then ours. It is because we have a plurality voting system that we end up with two parties.. not rigging, not some conspiracy, just math. If you look at other countries with similiar sytems they end up with too parties too. No amount of funding or air time or other things that 3rd parties keep complaining that they are not getting will change this.
Pretty similar. It is a natural artifact of our patent system. Companies that do not play this game find themselves hurting more then the ones that are trying to mutually annihilate each other... either from patent suits or from investors that pressure them to start suing. Old problem....
That is something I have been trying to figure out... the version of the standard I was originally able to track down (from 2011) did not have such a requirement... which leads me to think the advertizes are playing a PR game with their amendment to the spec, making it sound like Microsoft was given a spec and they intentionally ignored it.
*shrug* the internet did just fine before advertizes started using it for their own purposes. I suspect that if ad revenue went down things would be fine.
Besides, we are talking about one additional (and kinda creepy) metric, not stopping advertizing. They can still place ads, they can still place community specific ads on community specific sites (kinda like how, I don't know, most targeted advertizing is done).. it would simply make it so they could not target ads based off other sites you have previously visited. I doubt ad revenue would actually go down, though they might have to do a little more *gasp* work....
Since tracking tends to be embedded hidden places spread out among many 3rd party sights, it would be pretty difficult for most users to even know if they are being tracked in the first place, much less avoid those sites.
But that would *gasp* be asking marketers to buy add space on sites that are relevant to the interests of their target market! The humanity! The extra work!
I wish I had mod points, because 'sheep buffer' is my new favorite term.
I disagree that Microsoft is 'undermining' DnT. They might be providing an excuse for advertizes to ignore it, but they would have done that anyway if significant numbers of people started using it.
Make no mistake, advertizes are the scummy party here. They are the ones who are intentionally ignoring a flag requesting that people not be tracked. Bashing Microsoft is almost victim blaming here.. someone else decided to be a dick because Microsoft did something that would be pro-consumer, and yet they are being blamed for someone else's actions.