Not necessarily. You could (for example) have them control all kinds of things with no peripherals attached for most of the time (that is, except in the case when a problem needs to be diagnosed).
In case of a problem if there's need for diagnostics, you can then plug some small screen+keyboard and you're set to go.
They're running linux so they should be ideal for monitoring sensors and reporting, transmitting ping/heartbeat signals for any kinds of devices, for controlling hardware, basically for anything that can run autonomously.
I believe PGP Purge File functionality (I used it around 5? years ago) was overwriting the file for a number of times with the following sequence: 0x55 (bit pattern 01010101) 0xAA (bit pattern 10101010) 0x00
The "number of times" defaulted to 20 (or was it forty?)
After overwriting (even the name was overwritten in the process), it would be deleted.
It's common sense, hardly new functionality and already on the market.
It just doesn't seem like they cared much for it (at least, not enough to have an enforced policy in place).
That's what I thought also: in other words, IE will provide part of the functionality of NoScript and AdBlockPlus, starting from version 8.
Of course, they couldn't market it as such: it would be harder to plaster "innovation" all over it.
Marketing spin aside, this is good news: since most people still use IE, it's good that this should increase the privacy level for everyone (if implemented right, that is).
I think it's a common defense mechanism: it's not our responsibility, but "the leader's".
It's easier to point the finger at the leader than accept responsibility as a people, for what goes on in people's name. The leader's behavior is simply easier to see.
Most of us seem to dismiss the fact that media is also there, the support structure for everything Bush/whoever is leading does, is also there and so on.
Bush didn't torture prisoners (he just condoned it).
Sadly you see this everywhere you look: post-WWII Germany pointed fingers at "the Nazis" (if I remember correctly) and Romanians (no, my country is not clean either) pointed the fingers at "the communist regime" right after throwing it off: "we" didn't do anything:(.
What exactly makes GM crops less green than unmodified crops?
Nothing. That doesn't necessarily mean they're healthy. There are cases when GM is the way to go (for example, Israelis have modified tomatoes, potatoes and some other plants, so they can be grown in the climate of that area), but you should have a damn-good reason for thinking you know better than nature, and do lots and lots of testing before deeming those plants healthy for human consumption.
At the moment, GMing plants is not in the interest of healthier crops, but in the interest of making money. As long as you can impose that those crops are healthy, nothing should go wrong*.
* - this theory works well for other areas also: - as long as you are sure that food additives are healthy feel free to use them. - as long as you can insure science will not be turned into a weapon, feel free to publish scientific data. - as long as you're sure your private data will not be abused, feel free to keep it online.
We have a poor track record in ensuring our best interest, when other parties are financially motivated to walk over our best interest.
I think the real question we should be asking wrt to diet is 'How can we make farming and agriculture a green process?'
It's not hard to achieve and most ways are known, but don't fit with the industrialization of agriculture: - rotate the grown cultures every few years to keep the land from loosing nutrients for the crops - do not use chemically-produced fertilizers - do not use genetically engineered crops (there may be exceptions to this) - recycle everything you can: bio-gas, animal waste (for fertilizers)
There are others, that don't come to mind right now. Ask any farmer in eastern Europe and they'll tell you more than enough.
There still are villages in that region that do this (unfortunately they are on the way out as they can't compete with industrialized agriculture and GM crops).
Fuel consumption efficiency is not the answer here.
It's of course better to be efficient than not, but consuming less oil doesn't move you to independence of foreign sources; it is moving you to less dependency, but not to independence.
The answer (as I see it) is not to impose cheap oil prices (being outside the US this is what I get the feeling the US are doing. Instead, let the price go up, and more than that, impose a task on oil consumption. That should encourage people to actively seek alternate fuel sources.
Unfortunately, such a measure would make whoever takes it, terribly unpopular with the American public and is a sure way of ending a political career. The current direction in the US, is like seeing you have tooth aches and continuously taking pain-killers and hoping the problem will auto-magically disappear (without going to the dentist). I did that for half a year and the result is not pretty (in the end it affected my health, did more damage and cost me more than simply addressing the actual problem in the first place).
Go is an open game; you have few rules and a lot (that is, A LOT) of possibilities for each move.
That means that predicting moves raises exponentially the more steps you try to predict. In this case, MoGo used borrowed power from some supercomputer and a network to distribute the effort sufficiently, so that the game would be played in a humanly-reasonable time (if I understood correctly).
Moore's law states that computing capabilities grow exponentially also (though probably much slower than the growth in possibilities, required with each subsequent predicted step in the MoGo algorithm).
In this context, it would be reasonable to consider that there will come a time when a supercomputer (by future standards) will not be necessary to generate the same amount of effort.
I don't think he mentioned Moore's law just for the sake of it.
I'm not sure they have no use for waste hydrogen. Still, it may be that actually processing that hydrogen is (at the moment) prohibitive. We're looking here at having a stable installation, designed for imponderability, that's easily operated, lightweight, is shock-resistant, doesn't take much space and a bunch of other things.
If they start using the technology, I'm sure they'll come up with something efficient for the extra hydrogen though...
No! They are not expecting to like the kool-aid. They are expecting to get their foot in the door and have some leverage to dominate the open source community. I realize that. But we have to give them enough kool-aid so that they start liking it.
Actually I think they know what to expect quite well.
Working with the open-source community (you should probably read that as "having the community maintain some software for MS") could be quite advantageous for them; just look at mono.
The only question is, what do they get in return...
it is a little reactive, so recycling would need some special handling.
A little reactive? It would burn pretty violently if simply exposed to air, and EXPLODE if it came in contact with water. And either event would produce highly corrosive byproducts.
What he meant was... Do not touch the operational end of The Device. Do not look directly at the operational end of The Device. Do not submerge The Device in liquid, even partially. Most importantly, under no circumstances should you-HHhhhHH!
Doing so, will result in an 'unsatisfactory' mark on your official testing record followed by death.
Thank God for "Don't be evil." They better not be.
Maybe I missed something; I read a case study that detailed the history of google on the market and that said that google's decision to not compromize the quality of their search results by accepting to raise the pagerank of a site is called, for short "don't be evil".
It may be that "google is not evil" as it's generically stated around here is just a misunderstanding.
That said, I've had the experience of working in a corporation for some time where everything was too standardized.
That means that (for example) we needed to all use the company developed CRM (because we ate our own dog food) that had two speeds: very slow and not working (very slow here means that is was web-based, with the server in another country - over VPN and with a single webpage loading in 40 seconds at times). Performing a code change required loading about ten reloads.
We also had to use the same Perforce server (hosted in another country, accessed over VPN) with in-house developed addons on top of it (slow and buggy) which meant that a checkout operation would take anywhere between twenty seconds and five minutes, if it didn't crash.
If it crashed, you had to call the infrastructure guys to unlock your files manually (if it was really urgent, that meant half an hour on the official channel, or five minutes if you were friends with the Infra guy and promised you'll open a help-desk ticked afterward).
On top, we had a corporation "enterprisey"-level workflow that required us to put the same descriptions of the problem in the CRM, in Perforce, and attached in a text file in both CRM (in two places) and Perforce, for each checkout.
In the end, checking out a file to add a line of code could take around two hours (one and a half if you streamlined the process as much as you could).
If you had to propagate one change across three versions of the application, there went your whole day.
All this was because, at the top level, somebody started standardizing too much.
I am not arguing here about total freedom, but standardizing can definitely be taken too far.
Now, now, if you follow standard insertion procedure, everything will be fine.... Although I will admit that the possibility of a resonance cascade scenario is extremely unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily. You could (for example) have them control all kinds of things with no peripherals attached for most of the time (that is, except in the case when a problem needs to be diagnosed).
In case of a problem if there's need for diagnostics, you can then plug some small screen+keyboard and you're set to go.
They're running linux so they should be ideal for monitoring sensors and reporting, transmitting ping/heartbeat signals for any kinds of devices, for controlling hardware, basically for anything that can run autonomously.
Too bad it's not available to the general public at the moment :(
I believe PGP Purge File functionality (I used it around 5? years ago) was overwriting the file for a number of times with the following sequence:
0x55 (bit pattern 01010101)
0xAA (bit pattern 10101010)
0x00
The "number of times" defaulted to 20 (or was it forty?)
After overwriting (even the name was overwritten in the process), it would be deleted.
It's common sense, hardly new functionality and already on the market.
It just doesn't seem like they cared much for it (at least, not enough to have an enforced policy in place).
That's what I thought also: in other words, IE will provide part of the functionality of NoScript and AdBlockPlus, starting from version 8.
Of course, they couldn't market it as such: it would be harder to plaster "innovation" all over it.
Marketing spin aside, this is good news: since most people still use IE, it's good that this should increase the privacy level for everyone (if implemented right, that is).
I think it's a common defense mechanism: it's not our responsibility, but "the leader's".
It's easier to point the finger at the leader than accept responsibility as a people, for what goes on in people's name. The leader's behavior is simply easier to see.
Most of us seem to dismiss the fact that media is also there, the support structure for everything Bush/whoever is leading does, is also there and so on.
Bush didn't torture prisoners (he just condoned it).
Sadly you see this everywhere you look: post-WWII Germany pointed fingers at "the Nazis" (if I remember correctly) and Romanians (no, my country is not clean either) pointed the fingers at "the communist regime" right after throwing it off: "we" didn't do anything :(.
Nothing. That doesn't necessarily mean they're healthy. There are cases when GM is the way to go (for example, Israelis have modified tomatoes, potatoes and some other plants, so they can be grown in the climate of that area), but you should have a damn-good reason for thinking you know better than nature, and do lots and lots of testing before deeming those plants healthy for human consumption.
At the moment, GMing plants is not in the interest of healthier crops, but in the interest of making money. As long as you can impose that those crops are healthy, nothing should go wrong*.
* - this theory works well for other areas also:
- as long as you are sure that food additives are healthy feel free to use them.
- as long as you can insure science will not be turned into a weapon, feel free to publish scientific data.
- as long as you're sure your private data will not be abused, feel free to keep it online.
We have a poor track record in ensuring our best interest, when other parties are financially motivated to walk over our best interest.
It's not hard to achieve and most ways are known, but don't fit with the industrialization of agriculture:
- rotate the grown cultures every few years to keep the land from loosing nutrients for the crops
- do not use chemically-produced fertilizers
- do not use genetically engineered crops (there may be exceptions to this)
- recycle everything you can: bio-gas, animal waste (for fertilizers)
There are others, that don't come to mind right now. Ask any farmer in eastern Europe and they'll tell you more than enough.
There still are villages in that region that do this (unfortunately they are on the way out as they can't compete with industrialized agriculture and GM crops).
Fuel consumption efficiency is not the answer here.
It's of course better to be efficient than not, but consuming less oil doesn't move you to independence of foreign sources; it is moving you to less dependency, but not to independence.
The answer (as I see it) is not to impose cheap oil prices (being outside the US this is what I get the feeling the US are doing.
Instead, let the price go up, and more than that, impose a task on oil consumption. That should encourage people to actively seek alternate fuel sources.
Unfortunately, such a measure would make whoever takes it, terribly unpopular with the American public and is a sure way of ending a political career.
The current direction in the US, is like seeing you have tooth aches and continuously taking pain-killers and hoping the problem will auto-magically disappear (without going to the dentist). I did that for half a year and the result is not pretty (in the end it affected my health, did more damage and cost me more than simply addressing the actual problem in the first place).
Deep Blue (the computer playing chess with Kasparov) was the same: custom made hardware and a lot of computing power, used exclusively for this.
Go is an open game; you have few rules and a lot (that is, A LOT) of possibilities for each move.
That means that predicting moves raises exponentially the more steps you try to predict. In this case, MoGo used borrowed power from some supercomputer and a network to distribute the effort sufficiently, so that the game would be played in a humanly-reasonable time (if I understood correctly).
Moore's law states that computing capabilities grow exponentially also (though probably much slower than the growth in possibilities, required with each subsequent predicted step in the MoGo algorithm).
In this context, it would be reasonable to consider that there will come a time when a supercomputer (by future standards) will not be necessary to generate the same amount of effort.
I don't think he mentioned Moore's law just for the sake of it.
I'm not sure they have no use for waste hydrogen. Still, it may be that actually processing that hydrogen is (at the moment) prohibitive.
We're looking here at having a stable installation, designed for imponderability, that's easily operated, lightweight, is shock-resistant, doesn't take much space and a bunch of other things.
If they start using the technology, I'm sure they'll come up with something efficient for the extra hydrogen though ...
err ... that would be Microsoft.
Actually I think they know what to expect quite well.
Working with the open-source community (you should probably read that as "having the community maintain some software for MS") could be quite advantageous for them; just look at mono.
The only question is, what do they get in return ...
yes ... but can it compute number of horns on a unicorn multiplied by the answer to life, the universe and everything?
How about the number of horns on a unicorn acre in tea spoons per light year?
Teach him python (or ruby, or whatever else that is high-level and easy).
It's the same as basic was twenty years ago, just much more powerful, easyer to learn and more fun.
Yes ... especially if you're among the healthy ones; otherwise, your perspectives might change ...
What he meant was ...
Do not touch the operational end of The Device.
Do not look directly at the operational end of The Device.
Do not submerge The Device in liquid, even partially.
Most importantly, under no circumstances should you-HHhhhHH!
Doing so, will result in an 'unsatisfactory' mark on your official testing record followed by death.
I modded you redundant by mistake; I meant 'insightful'.
Maybe I missed something; I read a case study that detailed the history of google on the market and that said that google's decision to not compromize the quality of their search results by accepting to raise the pagerank of a site is called, for short "don't be evil".
It may be that "google is not evil" as it's generically stated around here is just a misunderstanding.
The theory sounds about correct.
That said, I've had the experience of working in a corporation for some time where everything was too standardized.
That means that (for example) we needed to all use the company developed CRM (because we ate our own dog food) that had two speeds: very slow and not working (very slow here means that is was web-based, with the server in another country - over VPN and with a single webpage loading in 40 seconds at times). Performing a code change required loading about ten reloads.
We also had to use the same Perforce server (hosted in another country, accessed over VPN) with in-house developed addons on top of it (slow and buggy) which meant that a checkout operation would take anywhere between twenty seconds and five minutes, if it didn't crash.
If it crashed, you had to call the infrastructure guys to unlock your files manually (if it was really urgent, that meant half an hour on the official channel, or five minutes if you were friends with the Infra guy and promised you'll open a help-desk ticked afterward).
On top, we had a corporation "enterprisey"-level workflow that required us to put the same descriptions of the problem in the CRM, in Perforce, and attached in a text file in both CRM (in two places) and Perforce, for each checkout.
In the end, checking out a file to add a line of code could take around two hours (one and a half if you streamlined the process as much as you could).
If you had to propagate one change across three versions of the application, there went your whole day.
All this was because, at the top level, somebody started standardizing too much.
I am not arguing here about total freedom, but standardizing can definitely be taken too far.
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim. ~Edsger Dijkstra
Also, for understanding recommendation systems and pattern recognition in volumes of data, I found Collective Intelligence to be a great resource.
Now, now, if you follow standard insertion procedure, everything will be fine. ... Although I will admit that the possibility of a resonance cascade scenario is extremely unlikely.
so much for quoting :(
"Yeah! And he talks like a fag too!"
"Here at the Enrichment Center we believe that if at first you don't succeed, you fail."