Yes, it was a pain to install Linux compared to the out-of-the-box experience with a Windows PC. But look what you got in return. I feel that Linux has received very little credit as an educational tool for computer scientists. It was the only way you could take a look into the internals of a full-fledged operating system. All those who managed to boot Linux from floppies know in detail all the issues in bootstrapping up to a fully running OS. Changing the scheduler or writing a serial driver became standard assignments in OS courses. I got used to UNIX permissions, system processes, inter-process communication. I appreciated memory management when I learned about compiling kernel drivers as modules. I can't think of how students saw all of these concepts implemented in a working system - you would just have to imagine it from the descriptions in textbooks or work with simulators.
This point should be modded up. I am ambivalent about the ethics of animal testing. When I see photographs of animals, especially ones that are quite similar to us such as monkeys, drugged, confined, with probes all over its body, I do shudder. On the other hand, scientists seem to have a good idea of the amount of pain these procedures cause (as remarked by one of the posters) and can minimize it to a small level.
It is clear that we are going to see increasing amounts of research into brain-machine interfaces. Hence it best that the issue of animal testing ethics is brought up during such news reports. We could all learn more about animal testing practices. We could then form an informed opinion about what is acceptable and not feel guilty every time we benefit from such research.
Hear, hear. For many organizations, pretty much all work is done using MS Office: analyze and exchange data using Excel, present it using PowerPoint and Word. In fact, Office documents are often the final products of the whole business. So, it is understandable that we have gotten used to every quirk in Office and we are not going to accept a new tool unless we can be sure that it works at least as good as the current one. I really am happy with OO. But I use it only if I am sure that I will not have to share my documents with anybody else.
Finally, the usual advantages of open source/free software such as cost and privacy don't really matter to employees. So OO has a higher mountain to climb than Firefox had to.
Reminds me of Knuth's checks for typos and code errors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth_reward_check). You get $2.56 for finding a bug and the amount doubles every year. MS should do something interesting like this to appeal to hackers. Also, MS can offer something the black market cannot - recognition. What if in addition to the money, they acknowledge the person too. It seems that this might be quite valuable to hacker types.
Mod parent up. This is the crux of the issue. Copying a figure "pixel for pixel" requires permission unlike quoting a few sentences which just requires a citation.
The reason is because the movie making business involves a huge amount of money. Few are willing to invest that kind of money without some kind of proof that the basic premise of the movie will work. That is why a large number of screenplays are adapted (because it has been proved to some degree in another medium), and sequels are popular.
For every "quirky" success, you will also find a lot more quirky failures. I read recently that the biggest movies in the US are Norbit and Wild Hogs, while even most of the Academy Award nominated movies fared rather poorly at the box office.
"Reduce, reuse, recycle" is written in that order for a reason. Best way to help the environment is by driving less. Next comes reusing your car (assuming that the environmental cost of producing a new car + disposing the old car > (efficiency of new car - efficiency of old car). Only then comes recycling (i.e., buying a new car with the older car getting recycled).
Under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, intellectual property resulting from US federal funds is owned by the researcher. In practice, the ownership is usually shared by the individual inventor and university. However, the individual still gets to make a lot of personal cash from inventions using federal money (of course, assuming that the invention has commercial value).
I hope it never comes to that. Imagine if Homeland Security promises the "express security checkout line" at airports/border crossings/gun purchases/"free speech" zones if you agree to be continuosly monitored. This itself wouldn't be so bad, but we can also be sure that the "non-express security" will not be pleasant for those who have not signed the loyalty card (just like grocery shopping without the "free" card). I bet most people would happily sign up to escape the hassle. Thus making it easier to properly screw-tinize the few that are unpatriotic.
You answered your own question. The point of this work is to enable "revolutionary advancements in search or data mining technology". These researchers realize that the hardware (memory, sensors) will keep advancing at a steady pace. (I attended one of his talks about 5 years ago and at that time reaching the 1TB figure seemed like a big step). We will soon live in a world where data will be continuously generated by sensors on your body (we already are used to carrying cellphones everywhere) and the surrounding environment (RFID, cameras). Of course the bulk of this data will not be interesting. No one expects a human to tag all of this data. The research challenge is to come up with ways of automatically analyzing all this data. I am sure that the sales records from a large supermarket chain would look meaningless if a human should try to analyze it, but we have algorithms that do spit out useful information.
Deploying such systems does raise ethical and quality-of-life issues but these will have to be addressed by the larger society (not the computer scientists).
When the scope of the encyclopedia is as large as that of Wikipedia, there are bound to be lots of controversial topics and poorly written articles. Verifying that every article is perfect, is just asking for too much.
For now at least, it is best to leave the judging of an article to the user. Libraries and schools have always had classes on how to research a subject, and critically evaluate an article (eg., reference to verifiable facts, sound reasoning). Since Wikipedia is now quite well known to the general public, it might be a good idea to inform/remind users about how to judge articles. Of course, Wikipedia should continue exploring ways to limit obviously destructive acts like vandalism, but it should also stick to its fundamentals that have made it a success.
Yes, I don't see what they are trying to accomplish with $10K. It is certainly insignificant for doing any research. Do they expect a scientist who has a string of papers showing climate change to suddenly reverse that conclusion for $10K? And that no one would notice this sudden change? No person, not just a scientist, would put an end to their career for $10k.
My guess is that this money is just some extra incentive to get scientists who *already* do not believe in climate change to publish their work.
One of the reasons that "gaudy" computer cases are popular could be that these are now mainly targeted towards teenagers. It seems that fewer and fewer "older" people are assembling their own computers because the cost difference between a DIY computer and a Dell/HP are just not worth the hassle these days. The only people who stand to save a lot of money assembling their own computer (vs buying) are hardcore gamers - and their whole aesthetic has always leaned towards the gaudy.
Almost every post here is just anti-outsourcing. How about fixing the source of the problem: a few numbers (social security, credit card) are required to get anything done, and these same numbers can be used to destroy your identity. This is what makes the data so valuable in the first place. I can't believe that all the money saved by outsourcing is not enough to provide a more secure platform for online commerce. Changing laws in one country is not a solution by itself in a global economy. This will just make it more expensive to do business in that country and US/UK companies will find a call center in a place with more lax laws. A quicker and more effective solution is to hold companies liable for identity loss, so that some of their profits from outsourcing can be channeled to building more secure infrastructure.
We have to realize that this is an inevitable cost of globalization. If we believe that globalization is a good thing overall, then the first world has to adapt too. A country like India has "information services" to offer to the global market and is competing on price. How is this different from any other commodity being traded globally?
A lot of people have criticized the story submitter's take on the story. Now, how about some discussion on the actual story? It seems to me that what occurred was unforeseen. But that does not mean there should not be a review of what actually went wrong, what steps should be taken in the future, and if any compensation should be paid. The article claims that there quite a few irregularities in the drug test (dosing everyone together, approving the trial in 17 days, no insurance for the subjects, not responding quickly when they knew something went horribly wrong). A lot of the readers have said that people who volunteer for drug testing should be considered as "heroes". If this is so, then surely we can do better than just shrug our shoulders and expect these "fallen" to hobble through the rest of their lives. After all, when people volunteer for such tests, they expect that if something should go wrong, everything possible would be done to treat them.
I am surprised why no one has brought up the reality of career ladder climbing and how taking time off for childbearing and rearing affects the ability of women to compete. You will notice that all jobs were women dominate are not top-rung positions. There are more women teachers, but less of a skew when you look at senior school administrators; lots of women nurses, but lots of male doctors; lots of women undergraduates, few in grad school, and even fewer women professors. The fact is that most top-level jobs demand candidates to have a long and unbroken career or education record. Any programmer who leaves the field for five years will have a lot of explaining to do when reapplying for a job. OTOH, a nurse can quit for many years and rejoin the workforce with maybe only retaking a licensure examination.
Men and women have differences. Judging only by a narrow definition of merit is discrimination because one sex bears a large biological burden. Sincere attempts at bridging the gender gap in the workplace has to address this issue. How about mandatory paternal leave so that dads help out equally at home (and stay away from work)? How about more state support for childcare so that women do not have to stay home for purely financial reasons? More flexible tenure processes at universities? More realistic evaluations of fitness for a job - a programmer out of work for a few years can easily catch up with whatever is the latest language.
It seems clear that some excellent people moved to Silicon Valley and made it what it is today. Stanford is good because it consistently attracts the best students and faculty from all over the world. A large number of the founders and employees of the start-ups were born outside the US. So what made all these people move? First and foremost, California has always seemed welcoming to new immigrants. Compare this to most places in Europe where even being born in that country is not enough to grant you citizenship. Second, factors like a multi-cultural environment and the weather are important to new immigrants. People who leave their homelands are looking forward to nicer surroundings.
Linux may be a better operating system and all, but the reality for many users is this:
1. Windows is satisfactory most of the time. They are familiar with the Office suite, common tasks are easy to accomplish (of course at the expense of ease of less common tasks), and most hardware comes windows certified.
2. Windows usually comes preinstalled and Linux is at a disadvantage in this aspect (even though installation of new Linux distros is usually quite smooth).
Based on my experience (long time Linux user, but I am now quite comfortable using Windows too), I believe that Windows folks should switch to Linux only if they have strong reasons for doing so. These could be not wanting to pay for software, a better programming environment, security, etc. Unless there is some personal motivation, people will not want to put in the effort to learn to use a new operating system.
Sorry, but there is hard evidence for falling science and math standards in the US. You don't have to compare American high schools with other countries - just compare it with the standards from about 25 years ago. This is a matter of much discussion in journals on education, and is a concern to American universities (many now have to offer remedial pre-calculus courses to their undergraduates).
I agree. I think the simplicity aspect is underestimated by the/. community. This reminds me of what the founder of the hugely popular (in California) "99c only" stores said in an interview: he tried selling his stuff at 98c but even that was not as popular as 99c for everything!
The ipod/iTMS has become the phenomenon it is because of its simple appeal: buy an iPod and pay 99c for a song. Compare this with the other more complicated, but perhaps cheaper options. For instance, teenagers get their iPods from their parents. For parents, it is important to understand what the long-term costs are going to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it was a pain to install Linux compared to the out-of-the-box experience with a Windows PC. But look what you got in return. I feel that Linux has received very little credit as an educational tool for computer scientists. It was the only way you could take a look into the internals of a full-fledged operating system. All those who managed to boot Linux from floppies know in detail all the issues in bootstrapping up to a fully running OS. Changing the scheduler or writing a serial driver became standard assignments in OS courses. I got used to UNIX permissions, system processes, inter-process communication. I appreciated memory management when I learned about compiling kernel drivers as modules. I can't think of how students saw all of these concepts implemented in a working system - you would just have to imagine it from the descriptions in textbooks or work with simulators.
It is clear that we are going to see increasing amounts of research into brain-machine interfaces. Hence it best that the issue of animal testing ethics is brought up during such news reports. We could all learn more about animal testing practices. We could then form an informed opinion about what is acceptable and not feel guilty every time we benefit from such research.
Finally, the usual advantages of open source/free software such as cost and privacy don't really matter to employees. So OO has a higher mountain to climb than Firefox had to.
though it would be at least 6 years too late.
Reminds me of Knuth's checks for typos and code errors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth_reward_check). You get $2.56 for finding a bug and the amount doubles every year. MS should do something interesting like this to appeal to hackers. Also, MS can offer something the black market cannot - recognition. What if in addition to the money, they acknowledge the person too. It seems that this might be quite valuable to hacker types.
Mod parent up. This is the crux of the issue. Copying a figure "pixel for pixel" requires permission unlike quoting a few sentences which just requires a citation.
The reason is because the movie making business involves a huge amount of money. Few are willing to invest that kind of money without some kind of proof that the basic premise of the movie will work. That is why a large number of screenplays are adapted (because it has been proved to some degree in another medium), and sequels are popular. For every "quirky" success, you will also find a lot more quirky failures. I read recently that the biggest movies in the US are Norbit and Wild Hogs, while even most of the Academy Award nominated movies fared rather poorly at the box office.
"Reduce, reuse, recycle" is written in that order for a reason. Best way to help the environment is by driving less. Next comes reusing your car (assuming that the environmental cost of producing a new car + disposing the old car > (efficiency of new car - efficiency of old car). Only then comes recycling (i.e., buying a new car with the older car getting recycled).
Under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, intellectual property resulting from US federal funds is owned by the researcher. In practice, the ownership is usually shared by the individual inventor and university. However, the individual still gets to make a lot of personal cash from inventions using federal money (of course, assuming that the invention has commercial value).
I hope it never comes to that. Imagine if Homeland Security promises the "express security checkout line" at airports/border crossings/gun purchases/"free speech" zones if you agree to be continuosly monitored. This itself wouldn't be so bad, but we can also be sure that the "non-express security" will not be pleasant for those who have not signed the loyalty card (just like grocery shopping without the "free" card). I bet most people would happily sign up to escape the hassle. Thus making it easier to properly screw-tinize the few that are unpatriotic.
Not fired, "fried".
Deploying such systems does raise ethical and quality-of-life issues but these will have to be addressed by the larger society (not the computer scientists).
When the scope of the encyclopedia is as large as that of Wikipedia, there are bound to be lots of controversial topics and poorly written articles. Verifying that every article is perfect, is just asking for too much. For now at least, it is best to leave the judging of an article to the user. Libraries and schools have always had classes on how to research a subject, and critically evaluate an article (eg., reference to verifiable facts, sound reasoning). Since Wikipedia is now quite well known to the general public, it might be a good idea to inform/remind users about how to judge articles. Of course, Wikipedia should continue exploring ways to limit obviously destructive acts like vandalism, but it should also stick to its fundamentals that have made it a success.
My guess is that this money is just some extra incentive to get scientists who *already* do not believe in climate change to publish their work.
asas
Even Beavis and Butt-head had the sense to find another TV when they lost theirs ...
One of the reasons that "gaudy" computer cases are popular could be that these are now mainly targeted towards teenagers. It seems that fewer and fewer "older" people are assembling their own computers because the cost difference between a DIY computer and a Dell/HP are just not worth the hassle these days. The only people who stand to save a lot of money assembling their own computer (vs buying) are hardcore gamers - and their whole aesthetic has always leaned towards the gaudy.
No, it will just seem that way to you.
We have to realize that this is an inevitable cost of globalization. If we believe that globalization is a good thing overall, then the first world has to adapt too. A country like India has "information services" to offer to the global market and is competing on price. How is this different from any other commodity being traded globally?
A lot of people have criticized the story submitter's take on the story. Now, how about some discussion on the actual story? It seems to me that what occurred was unforeseen. But that does not mean there should not be a review of what actually went wrong, what steps should be taken in the future, and if any compensation should be paid. The article claims that there quite a few irregularities in the drug test (dosing everyone together, approving the trial in 17 days, no insurance for the subjects, not responding quickly when they knew something went horribly wrong). A lot of the readers have said that people who volunteer for drug testing should be considered as "heroes". If this is so, then surely we can do better than just shrug our shoulders and expect these "fallen" to hobble through the rest of their lives. After all, when people volunteer for such tests, they expect that if something should go wrong, everything possible would be done to treat them.
I am surprised why no one has brought up the reality of career ladder climbing and how taking time off for childbearing and rearing affects the ability of women to compete. You will notice that all jobs were women dominate are not top-rung positions. There are more women teachers, but less of a skew when you look at senior school administrators; lots of women nurses, but lots of male doctors; lots of women undergraduates, few in grad school, and even fewer women professors. The fact is that most top-level jobs demand candidates to have a long and unbroken career or education record. Any programmer who leaves the field for five years will have a lot of explaining to do when reapplying for a job. OTOH, a nurse can quit for many years and rejoin the workforce with maybe only retaking a licensure examination. Men and women have differences. Judging only by a narrow definition of merit is discrimination because one sex bears a large biological burden. Sincere attempts at bridging the gender gap in the workplace has to address this issue. How about mandatory paternal leave so that dads help out equally at home (and stay away from work)? How about more state support for childcare so that women do not have to stay home for purely financial reasons? More flexible tenure processes at universities? More realistic evaluations of fitness for a job - a programmer out of work for a few years can easily catch up with whatever is the latest language.
It seems clear that some excellent people moved to Silicon Valley and made it what it is today. Stanford is good because it consistently attracts the best students and faculty from all over the world. A large number of the founders and employees of the start-ups were born outside the US. So what made all these people move? First and foremost, California has always seemed welcoming to new immigrants. Compare this to most places in Europe where even being born in that country is not enough to grant you citizenship. Second, factors like a multi-cultural environment and the weather are important to new immigrants. People who leave their homelands are looking forward to nicer surroundings.
Linux may be a better operating system and all, but the reality for many users is this: 1. Windows is satisfactory most of the time. They are familiar with the Office suite, common tasks are easy to accomplish (of course at the expense of ease of less common tasks), and most hardware comes windows certified. 2. Windows usually comes preinstalled and Linux is at a disadvantage in this aspect (even though installation of new Linux distros is usually quite smooth). Based on my experience (long time Linux user, but I am now quite comfortable using Windows too), I believe that Windows folks should switch to Linux only if they have strong reasons for doing so. These could be not wanting to pay for software, a better programming environment, security, etc. Unless there is some personal motivation, people will not want to put in the effort to learn to use a new operating system.
Sorry, but there is hard evidence for falling science and math standards in the US. You don't have to compare American high schools with other countries - just compare it with the standards from about 25 years ago. This is a matter of much discussion in journals on education, and is a concern to American universities (many now have to offer remedial pre-calculus courses to their undergraduates).
I agree. I think the simplicity aspect is underestimated by the /. community. This reminds me of what the founder of the hugely popular (in California) "99c only" stores said in an interview: he tried selling his stuff at 98c but even that was not as popular as 99c for everything!
The ipod/iTMS has become the phenomenon it is because of its simple appeal: buy an iPod and pay 99c for a song. Compare this with the other more complicated, but perhaps cheaper options. For instance, teenagers get their iPods from their parents. For parents, it is important to understand what the long-term costs are going to be.