I don't know where things like this fit into the discussion... it's really quite a mathematical hack, and hard as hell to understand, but once you realize what it's doing, you realize it's saving a lot of time in a function that's called reasonably often.
All medications have side effects, and as consumers of those medications we weigh the potential risks against the potential benefits. In this case, if you're afflicted with a condition that this could cure at the expense of increased risk of (even near-guaranteed) cancer long-term, well, you've got a choice between longevity and quality of life.
RACK vs. SSC is something of an important distinction for people who are involved in it. It lets them know what to expect from people with whom they might become involved. It's really a kind of community shorthand, moreso than anything pedantic. Another part is that not everyone's definition of "safe" is the same--e.g., breath play. It's unsafe in some cases, but people do it anyway, hence "risk-aware".
And, obviously, my legitimate question gets modded as a troll.
Look, they clearly need to eat and pay rent, but if they're so much more ethical than the bloggers (which is the natural conclusion that follows from the assertion that they're more fact-checked and more objective) then why do blogs so often end up being the ones to fact-check the national news?
This is why I bring up Fox. It's just an example, but it's illustrative: a network that is *objectively* biased in its news coverage (same applies for MSNBC). That's not to say that everyone there is unethical personally, but how unethical does your employer have to be before your personal ethics kick in and tell you to look elsewhere? If your news network is actively misinforming people, omitting or manipulating important, relevant information, what code of ethics allows an objective journalist to contribute to that, even if they themselves are doing everything right? I wouldn't much like to work somewhere that I know my objective, unbiased work will be distorted, manipulated, and used to lie.
And even if it is true that blogs are more biased on an individual basis (and it probably is) I'd argue that blogs give a more accurate assessment, all taken together, than the mainstream media does, because they fact check not only themselves but each other, and supporting information is only a click away.
Hey, as long as they're not trying to make laptops into drum sets, no harm done, right?
Now, if they made something almost, but not quite, entirely unlike what they're doing now, then it might actually have some use for (e.g.) brass instruments. For example, a system wherein a trombone player--with the wiimote representing the position of the slide when playing a trombone, and some kind of a mouthpiece to blow/vibrate into, which could output a tone accordingly, then we might be onto something. Or with said mouthpiece and three buttons to represent the valves of a trumpet, etc., or other interfaces for brass instruments... you might have a low cost multi-instrument. *That* could be useful for students.
You still haven't read the privacy page, have you? They don't correlate it with search queries or any other data they have from you:
"Google Public DNS stores two sets of logs: temporary and permanent. The temporary logs store the full IP address of the machine you're using," the company said. "We have to do this so that we can spot potentially bad things like DDoS attacks and so we can fix problems, such as particular domains not showing up for specific users. We delete these temporary logs within 24 to 48 hours.
"In the permanent logs, we don't keep personally identifiable information or IP information. We do keep some location information (at the city/metro level) so that we can conduct debugging, analyze abuse phenomena and improve the Google Public DNS prefetching feature. We don't correlate or combine your information from these logs with any other log data that Google might have about your use of other services, such as data from Web Search and data from advertising on the Google content network. After keeping this data for two weeks, we randomly sample a small subset for permanent storage."
I think that while the latency is certainly an issue, I wonder how much it's offset by their asynchronous caching w/theoretically fewer cache misses. Do you know what a typical (this is the internet, so "average" is a bad word to use) increase in the time it takes to get a page when it's hit vs. missed in the cache is? I'd be interested to see how this compares to the latency issue.
Did you read any of the comments before you posted? They have a privacy policy explicitly stating they delete personally-identifiable records after 24 hours.
Hell, who am I kidding? This is/. and not even the *submitter* noticed the privacy page. I found out about it from this article.
It seems like the frustrating lag between thinking it and being able to "type" it out with less and less mobility would be greatly reduced with something like this. I think it's a *huge* contribution on the part of this company if the scientific community, for example, can continue to make use of Stephen Hawking's brilliant mind as his motor function continues to deteriorate. Which is, of course, to put aside the obvious implications for communication by others in physically incapacitated states.
In all seriousness though, I'm a Goddamn Atheist, and *still* this whole thing reminds me of the scene in Bruce Almighty where he's asking God "please send me a sign" as he follows a construction truck full of "STOP" "BRIDGE OUT AHEAD" signs, and winds up crashing.
You're right about the PE proper, but there is an equivalent SE cert from IEEE. I mentioned somewhere else in this thread that IEEE Computer Society does indeed offer the CSDA/CSDP certification, which works much the same way as an Engineering Intern/PE cert (with the exception of the "you have to be licensed to do work or use the title" clause), though I object to them being "Software Development" titles as opposed to Software Engineering, since the test is mostly on SE best practices.
There is actually a series of exams one can take to become a CSDA/CSDP (Certified Software Development Associate/Professional) which are issued by the IEEE Computer Society, however I object to the titles they issue, though they do mostly test on software engineering. Oh, and yes, you can become a licensed software engineer. Texas and Florida actually require it before you can use the title, as well as some places in Canada. So we're getting there.
I posted this below, but it's relevant here and I'm not sure if you'll get the email reply for a great-great-grandchild:
I have two undergrad degrees; one of them is in software engineering and one of them is in computer engineering. I've got an Engineering Intern cert (meaning I passed the FE exam, having just graduated, and can work under a PE until I can test for my own).
I can tell you that as a computer engineer, the software engineering curriculum at my alma mater takes a much more thorough approach to the actual *engineering* of a product--that is, its conception, definition, design, and implementation--than does the computer engineering curriculum, even though the "transistor x does thing y under conditions a, b, and c" stuff is what enabled me to pass the FE. Software engineering *is* engineering. And it's not just software development.
Hi there, nice to meet you. I have two undergrad degrees; one of them is in software engineering and one of them is in computer engineering. I've got an Engineering Intern cert (meaning I passed the FE exam, having just graduated, and can work under a PE until I can test for my own).
I can tell you that as a computer engineer, the software engineering curriculum at my alma mater takes a much more thorough approach to the actual *engineering* of a product--that is, its conception, definition, design, and implementation--than does the computer engineering curriculum, even though the "transistor x does thing y under conditions a, b, and c" stuff is what enabled me to pass the FE. Software engineering *is* engineering. And it's not just software development.
The government, given that it doesn't have to make a profit, will use more resources with the incentive to provide the best care for the cost, and ideally maximize the benefit across the population. The administrative costs are significantly lower and they have the power to say "we won't pay any more than $x for this procedure". That immediately lowers the cost, because the US population, as represented by the government, gets quite the volume discount, as it turns out. And yes, it has limited resources, and yes, it will deny--but not as often as the corporations do.
Another point about cancer rates that's just re-entered my mind--you are more likely to die of cancer as you get older, y/n? And empirically we have longer survival rates (taking into account what 'survival rates' means: they are not mortality rates) for certain cancers. Do you know who provides healthcare for people in the demographic that gets the most cancer? Yes, that's right, the government. Medicare.
As to a seizure of liberty--this isn't unprecedented at all. We say you must pay taxes, social security, and Medicare, in much the same way. And if the government is making you buy something, and you don't want to buy it from a corporation, you can buy it from the government and it becomes a tax for a service, just like any other. Ideally Medicare would be expanded to cover everyone, but unfortunately, there's no way that would pass; we've been trying for half a decade. But that aside, universal healthcare *must* be, by its nature, universal. Once we get the universal part figured out, whether by employer mandate or individual mandate, we can refine the system.
And you're making exactly the same point as I am: that a completely free market--a system that isn't politically viable--would operate more efficiently than what we currently have.
I'm making the additional point that the health legislation in congress, where insurers can't opt out of taking certain patients, and we can't opt out of being covered (like the police, or the fire department) would work better than what we have now, too.
...how do you explain away statistics like the the 5 yr cancer survival rate? Hint: It's higher in the United States than in most European countries
Cancer survival rates != people cured of cancer. It may mean that they live a couple months longer. See here.
Socialism just works better for some things, health care being provably one of them.
Bullshit. Medical procedures that aren't covered by insurance (plastic surgery, lasik surgery, etc.) have consistently come down in price since being introduced to the market. Medical procedures that are covered by insurance have consistently gone up in price even though the technology behind them (MRIs are a great example) has gone down in price since being invented.
[Citation needed]. I'd argue that this is because, unlike nationalized systems, our doctors make a profit from ownership stakes in hospitals. This is the reason that Mayo has better outcomes, for example, than other private hospitals: they don't profit from doing more (sometimes unnecessary) tests. They make money based off of outcome, as opposed to volume. Best explanation of why our costs are so much higher than the rest of the world is here.
Also, you miss a key point: government bureaucracy is not for profit. The government has nothing to gain by denying you care--or this girl, for that matter. Private insurance companies have incentive to deny. That's the main difference between the two bureaucracies, as you put it, and it is a big one.
And those of us who are pushing for this plan would rather be pushing for a single-payer plan. Don't mistake us for saying that this compromise is the ideal solution, because it isn't, and we know that. It's just the best we can get passed. And as for the mandate, the provision of a public option negates what could be a mandate to participate in a private system, so it's a step better as far as that's concerned.
And I see you arguing that a totally free-market solution is the *angel choirs singing* ideal solution to the problem, but I don't see you arguing that single-payer solutions are less expensive than we have now. Oh, right: that's because the data doesn't support that conclusion. Bringing in the free market is another red herring. But while we're on that topic, a totally free-market healthcare solution pits money against lives. Guess which one always wins?
And to look into the future a bit, don't try to bring up lifestyle problems in the US, because Greece is fatter than we are and citizens live longer, paying about a third what we do, with a universal healthcare plan.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, let's all regurgitate xkcd, instead.
I don't know where things like this fit into the discussion... it's really quite a mathematical hack, and hard as hell to understand, but once you realize what it's doing, you realize it's saving a lot of time in a function that's called reasonably often.
This. Exactly this.
All medications have side effects, and as consumers of those medications we weigh the potential risks against the potential benefits. In this case, if you're afflicted with a condition that this could cure at the expense of increased risk of (even near-guaranteed) cancer long-term, well, you've got a choice between longevity and quality of life.
Is it even possible for anyone to find out all the possible illegal uses of technolgies like cloud computing?
Yes. They're exactly the same as all the possible illegal uses of any other kind of computing.
C'mon now. Troll? Really? I found it to be an entirely appropriate joke. You made me laugh, AC, and I'm a very good driver.
I knew it! "Free Tibet" is just a front organization for the Association of Avian Baguette Bombers. Sent from the future.
RACK vs. SSC is something of an important distinction for people who are involved in it. It lets them know what to expect from people with whom they might become involved. It's really a kind of community shorthand, moreso than anything pedantic. Another part is that not everyone's definition of "safe" is the same--e.g., breath play. It's unsafe in some cases, but people do it anyway, hence "risk-aware".
And, obviously, my legitimate question gets modded as a troll.
Look, they clearly need to eat and pay rent, but if they're so much more ethical than the bloggers (which is the natural conclusion that follows from the assertion that they're more fact-checked and more objective) then why do blogs so often end up being the ones to fact-check the national news?
This is why I bring up Fox. It's just an example, but it's illustrative: a network that is *objectively* biased in its news coverage (same applies for MSNBC). That's not to say that everyone there is unethical personally, but how unethical does your employer have to be before your personal ethics kick in and tell you to look elsewhere? If your news network is actively misinforming people, omitting or manipulating important, relevant information, what code of ethics allows an objective journalist to contribute to that, even if they themselves are doing everything right? I wouldn't much like to work somewhere that I know my objective, unbiased work will be distorted, manipulated, and used to lie.
And even if it is true that blogs are more biased on an individual basis (and it probably is) I'd argue that blogs give a more accurate assessment, all taken together, than the mainstream media does, because they fact check not only themselves but each other, and supporting information is only a click away.
I've one simple question for you:
If any or all of that is true, what justification does any ethical journalist have for taking a job at, say, Fox News?
"On this spot in 1989, nothing happened."
Hey, as long as they're not trying to make laptops into drum sets, no harm done, right?
Now, if they made something almost, but not quite, entirely unlike what they're doing now, then it might actually have some use for (e.g.) brass instruments. For example, a system wherein a trombone player--with the wiimote representing the position of the slide when playing a trombone, and some kind of a mouthpiece to blow/vibrate into, which could output a tone accordingly, then we might be onto something. Or with said mouthpiece and three buttons to represent the valves of a trumpet, etc., or other interfaces for brass instruments... you might have a low cost multi-instrument. *That* could be useful for students.
"Google Public DNS stores two sets of logs: temporary and permanent. The temporary logs store the full IP address of the machine you're using," the company said. "We have to do this so that we can spot potentially bad things like DDoS attacks and so we can fix problems, such as particular domains not showing up for specific users. We delete these temporary logs within 24 to 48 hours.
"In the permanent logs, we don't keep personally identifiable information or IP information. We do keep some location information (at the city/metro level) so that we can conduct debugging, analyze abuse phenomena and improve the Google Public DNS prefetching feature. We don't correlate or combine your information from these logs with any other log data that Google might have about your use of other services, such as data from Web Search and data from advertising on the Google content network. After keeping this data for two weeks, we randomly sample a small subset for permanent storage."
I think that while the latency is certainly an issue, I wonder how much it's offset by their asynchronous caching w/theoretically fewer cache misses. Do you know what a typical (this is the internet, so "average" is a bad word to use) increase in the time it takes to get a page when it's hit vs. missed in the cache is? I'd be interested to see how this compares to the latency issue.
Caching is, after all, the whole idea.
Did you read any of the comments before you posted? They have a privacy policy explicitly stating they delete personally-identifiable records after 24 hours.
/. and not even the *submitter* noticed the privacy page. I found out about it from this article.
Hell, who am I kidding? This is
This article explicitly says that it can prevent amplification attacks, though it makes no mention of how.
Linux 2.6.32 introduces what is called "KSM"
WHAT!? I know Linux users are pretty militant (myself among them), but to implement terrorism in the kernel?
Please tell me it's at least built as a *module* by default!
It seems like the frustrating lag between thinking it and being able to "type" it out with less and less mobility would be greatly reduced with something like this. I think it's a *huge* contribution on the part of this company if the scientific community, for example, can continue to make use of Stephen Hawking's brilliant mind as his motor function continues to deteriorate. Which is, of course, to put aside the obvious implications for communication by others in physically incapacitated states.
Or, it's a SIGN!
</snark>
In all seriousness though, I'm a Goddamn Atheist, and *still* this whole thing reminds me of the scene in Bruce Almighty where he's asking God "please send me a sign" as he follows a construction truck full of "STOP" "BRIDGE OUT AHEAD" signs, and winds up crashing.
There's a reason it's called "alternative medicine": it doesn't work. Because if it works, you know what they call it? Medicine.
You're right about the PE proper, but there is an equivalent SE cert from IEEE. I mentioned somewhere else in this thread that IEEE Computer Society does indeed offer the CSDA/CSDP certification, which works much the same way as an Engineering Intern/PE cert (with the exception of the "you have to be licensed to do work or use the title" clause), though I object to them being "Software Development" titles as opposed to Software Engineering, since the test is mostly on SE best practices.
There is actually a series of exams one can take to become a CSDA/CSDP (Certified Software Development Associate/Professional) which are issued by the IEEE Computer Society, however I object to the titles they issue, though they do mostly test on software engineering. Oh, and yes, you can become a licensed software engineer. Texas and Florida actually require it before you can use the title, as well as some places in Canada. So we're getting there.
I posted this below, but it's relevant here and I'm not sure if you'll get the email reply for a great-great-grandchild:
I have two undergrad degrees; one of them is in software engineering and one of them is in computer engineering. I've got an Engineering Intern cert (meaning I passed the FE exam, having just graduated, and can work under a PE until I can test for my own).
I can tell you that as a computer engineer, the software engineering curriculum at my alma mater takes a much more thorough approach to the actual *engineering* of a product--that is, its conception, definition, design, and implementation--than does the computer engineering curriculum, even though the "transistor x does thing y under conditions a, b, and c" stuff is what enabled me to pass the FE. Software engineering *is* engineering. And it's not just software development.
Hi there, nice to meet you. I have two undergrad degrees; one of them is in software engineering and one of them is in computer engineering. I've got an Engineering Intern cert (meaning I passed the FE exam, having just graduated, and can work under a PE until I can test for my own).
I can tell you that as a computer engineer, the software engineering curriculum at my alma mater takes a much more thorough approach to the actual *engineering* of a product--that is, its conception, definition, design, and implementation--than does the computer engineering curriculum, even though the "transistor x does thing y under conditions a, b, and c" stuff is what enabled me to pass the FE. Software engineering *is* engineering. And it's not just software development.
The government, given that it doesn't have to make a profit, will use more resources with the incentive to provide the best care for the cost, and ideally maximize the benefit across the population. The administrative costs are significantly lower and they have the power to say "we won't pay any more than $x for this procedure". That immediately lowers the cost, because the US population, as represented by the government, gets quite the volume discount, as it turns out. And yes, it has limited resources, and yes, it will deny--but not as often as the corporations do.
Another point about cancer rates that's just re-entered my mind--you are more likely to die of cancer as you get older, y/n? And empirically we have longer survival rates (taking into account what 'survival rates' means: they are not mortality rates) for certain cancers. Do you know who provides healthcare for people in the demographic that gets the most cancer? Yes, that's right, the government. Medicare.
As to a seizure of liberty--this isn't unprecedented at all. We say you must pay taxes, social security, and Medicare, in much the same way. And if the government is making you buy something, and you don't want to buy it from a corporation, you can buy it from the government and it becomes a tax for a service, just like any other. Ideally Medicare would be expanded to cover everyone, but unfortunately, there's no way that would pass; we've been trying for half a decade. But that aside, universal healthcare *must* be, by its nature, universal. Once we get the universal part figured out, whether by employer mandate or individual mandate, we can refine the system.
And you're making exactly the same point as I am: that a completely free market--a system that isn't politically viable--would operate more efficiently than what we currently have.
I'm making the additional point that the health legislation in congress, where insurers can't opt out of taking certain patients, and we can't opt out of being covered (like the police, or the fire department) would work better than what we have now, too.
...how do you explain away statistics like the the 5 yr cancer survival rate? Hint: It's higher in the United States than in most European countries
Cancer survival rates != people cured of cancer. It may mean that they live a couple months longer. See here.
Socialism just works better for some things, health care being provably one of them.
Bullshit. Medical procedures that aren't covered by insurance (plastic surgery, lasik surgery, etc.) have consistently come down in price since being introduced to the market. Medical procedures that are covered by insurance have consistently gone up in price even though the technology behind them (MRIs are a great example) has gone down in price since being invented.
[Citation needed]. I'd argue that this is because, unlike nationalized systems, our doctors make a profit from ownership stakes in hospitals. This is the reason that Mayo has better outcomes, for example, than other private hospitals: they don't profit from doing more (sometimes unnecessary) tests. They make money based off of outcome, as opposed to volume. Best explanation of why our costs are so much higher than the rest of the world is here.
Also, you miss a key point: government bureaucracy is not for profit. The government has nothing to gain by denying you care--or this girl, for that matter. Private insurance companies have incentive to deny. That's the main difference between the two bureaucracies, as you put it, and it is a big one.
And those of us who are pushing for this plan would rather be pushing for a single-payer plan. Don't mistake us for saying that this compromise is the ideal solution, because it isn't, and we know that. It's just the best we can get passed. And as for the mandate, the provision of a public option negates what could be a mandate to participate in a private system, so it's a step better as far as that's concerned.
And I see you arguing that a totally free-market solution is the *angel choirs singing* ideal solution to the problem, but I don't see you arguing that single-payer solutions are less expensive than we have now. Oh, right: that's because the data doesn't support that conclusion. Bringing in the free market is another red herring. But while we're on that topic, a totally free-market healthcare solution pits money against lives. Guess which one always wins?
And to look into the future a bit, don't try to bring up lifestyle problems in the US, because Greece is fatter than we are and citizens live longer, paying about a third what we do, with a universal healthcare plan.
Here in Corporate America(TM), we really *did* just upgrade to IE7 in July. And we're acceptance-testing XP SP3 at the moment. /hangs head