You're missing the point entirely. What about someone who invested long-term from the beginning of their career. Someone who has been contributing to their retirement since their early to mid 20s. Now some jackass fucks up their trading and crashes this guy's retirement account.
He's not looking for a quick payout, he's looking to get the money he has been wisely investing for decade after decade at this point.
No, they won't. People will just stick to windows 7 for a long time (like they did with XP). Even if windows 8 and 9 are complete bullshit people will still migrate to them when windows 7 support ends. Why? Because so much software is windows-only that no one will be able to move to linux or mac.
It doesn't matter who is at the most risk for transmission. Sure, you're more likely to be infected if you shoot up a syringe full of infected blood, but that doesn't mean that having vaginal intercourse is no-risk.
ANYONE can get aids from ANYONE who has aids if you have ANY TYPE of sex. End of story.
I suspect this is the case. A VPN isn't going to help matters here because the real problem isn't routing, it's bandwidth. I think the OP has his priorities in the wrong order.
No, it's not the culture. Sure, you do have to be aware of cultural differences when dealing with other countries, but being 5 years behind schedule is not a "cultural" issue. The situation here is just Chinese businesses being very shady and deceptive in order to get contracts. Remember, these are the same companies that fake reports about the chemical content of their products in order to bypass various regulations and contracts. Given that there's little to no oversight in China and that suing a Chinese company is an exercise in futility this happens a lot.
You can climb a ladder with two limbs. I'm sure it won't be graceful, but there's no physical reason you need four limbs to climb a ladder.
The ladder is easy, the entire thing can be solved before the robot even starts moving. The terrain isn't easy, but it's been done enough before to the point that it won't cause a huge amount of trouble. The real problems show up when trying to do things that humans use fine motor skills for. Operating screwdrivers, ratchets, a lot of actuation that has to be compliant to some degree. The tractor presents the same problems, attempting to grip the steering wheel won't be easy, but it's certainly easier than replacing any kind of pump.
As you mentioned, the self-containment issue is a big one. You've got to pack an enormous amount of processing power into a very small chassis and have enough energy left over to run your actuators. I bet we'll see some experimental batteries with stupidly high energy densities.
You'd think so, yes. Of course, DARPA isn't so much about making useful things as it is about spurring research that can be used to later create useful things. I suspect that's why they are going with a competition that no one will be able to complete in the next 3 years, and certainly not in a reasonable time frame.
This has happened before. It took two years before any competitor was able to even finish the off-road DARPA grand challenge, and that was just driving. A bi-pedal robot is orders of magnitude more complicated.
I predict that they're going to have to start each section of the race separately. They'll put the bot in the tractor, start the race. Then they'll move the bot to the door, start it again, etc. No way in hell anyone is going to be able to do these tasks in sequence. Some they probably won't be able to do at all.
"if your average picture is worth a thousand words, then a picture from lunar orbit may be worth a classroom full of engineering and science degrees"
This is the dumbest thing I've heard in my life. And I don't say that lightly, this is, quite literally, the dumbest thing I have heard anyone say, ever.
Exactly, the entire point of a conference is to make things public, not exactly a security issue.
And the author mentions something about "I could have installed keylogging software on a demo computer". Who cares? I guess he could have stolen the generic "admin/admin" and "tester/tester" accounts from all the machines. Unless someone is stupid enough to hook their demo computer into a real set of confidential data, this isn't a problem. And if that is, in fact, the case then it's the company's issue, not the conference's.
And that doesn't even take into account the fact that they're going to make literally no money on this drug. If they release it open then every company will make generics. They can charge a lot less because all they have to do is retool their machines and hit "go" to start producing this drug. This "open" company has to somehow recover their R&D expenses.
It's a terrible solution to the problem of pharma companies profiting from the suffering of people. Switch to the universal healthcare option and on top of that start funding drug development. You'll end up with a lot more drugs that work a lot better and cost everyone less money. No more drug patents, no more incentive to create derivatives of the same drug so you can keep patenting one damn formula, no more incentive to create fifty pills for some stupid thing like erectile dysfunction instead of a harmful disease, no more reason for two companies to expend money doing the same research to race towards the same drug.
Why does this argument keep showing up? I thought we debunked this already.
You don't do anything wrong when you sleep, use the toilet, or make love to your significant other and yet these things are still private and I think we would all agree that the government has no right to monitor them.
Then he's a terrible engineer. 0.3% of $8000 is $24. Transferring to another university would cost more than that in transcript fees alone (which vary but can be about $30). Once you take into account moving expenses you blow that out of the water.
0.3% is insignificant for just about everything engineers do. You're going to use a factor of safety of somewhere between 1.5 and 2 for even the most well-known situations, 0.3% is well within this limit.
Getting in trouble with the law? This seems like an outlier case to me. I would be extremely hesitant to chalk this up to modern technology. Sure, some slight differences in behavior, a general negative trend wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility; but something this serious likely has other, much larger, factors involved.
All these girls nowadays aren't developing normal social tendencies! I mean, they're out in the street wearing pants! Not a single one in a dress. How obscene!
With regard to your opinion that text messages aren't meaningful, I think you're just old. They're just another form of communication. Communicating in nothing but 160 char. messages is a problem, but using 160 char. messages often is simply adapting to technology. People made the same argument about email or the telephone when they said that they preferred a handwritten letter and waiting weeks to hear back from people.
What I can't stand about most young people (aka, people my age) is that they have to be texting wherever the fuck they go. Kids today think it's OK to just go ahead and text while in the middle of a conversation. It's not even a "hey, I have to take this, sorry" like you get when the person you're talking to receives a phone call. Every time someone starts texting in the middle of a conversation I have an urge to punch them right in the face. They don't realize that texting is diverting their attention from the conversation and that that's rude to do. I don't care what form of technology it is, diverting your attention from a conversation is rude. I cannot for the live of me comprehend this behavior.
The military is different because this device is considerably more dangerous and risky than a fucking car. Higher risk means the consequences are more serious. This is accepted because, again, it's the military. The risk is necessary to operate the devices that will be used to defend this country should the need arise.
It's also an all-volunteer military, so increased risk isn't being forces on anyone. I guess it's technically a choice to drive a car too, but driving a car is effectively a requirement to have a job, which is generally required to live.
I have no idea what dipshit decided that would be a good place for such an important device. Not to mention how ridiculously easy it is to install backwards and possibly render completely inoperable. 40 pounds of force straight forward from your hip while sitting down, wearing all sorts of shit, and trying not to bump anything else in the process, absolutely fucking ridiculous.
The report mentions that in tests they managed to activate the system while installed backwards, but I wonder if that's only because it was under controlled conditions. Is there the slightest chance in hell that anyone could do this in an emergency (which is literally the only time you would ever have to do this)?
And then the fact that it's hard to locate if dropped due to the cable jamming, a failure to exert the necessary force, etc. Short of removing the system entirely, I don't think it's possible to design anything worse. This design is a textbook example of how not to design an emergency system.
This argument comes up a lot. The problem is that whenever a company does something wrong it's always "victim v. the company" and NEVER "victim v. a specific employee(s) of the company". If only people can commit crimes, then why are companies held to account and people never are?
Some of my professors gave open-book exams. This allowed you to look up equations, material properties, etc. If you understood how to do all the work but were unsure of whether the last coefficient in a particular equation was positive or negative, this helped a lot. If you had no idea what you were doing then the book didn't help you at all. Brilliant exam, because in the real world you will have reference materials and you will sometimes forget things like the naiver-stokes equation.
However, the professors wouldn't in a million years consider making these tests open-internet. The internet allows answers to be shared, which doesn't allow for testing of individual students. In addition, the internet has a lot more information than in a textbook. A student may be able to find problems almost identical to those on the exam and simply copy the answer verbatim.
There's also a difference between being able to do your work with the assistance of a reference manual, and only being able to do your job if you have access to the internet.
Their solution to "no internet" was to connect the computers to the internet and then try to restrict web browsers? How about just unplugging the line to the outside?
Cheap 2 factor isn't too costly, but it's less secure. The more secure ones, like RSA, cost about $100 per token. (Although, how secure those are is really up for some debate since they fucked up a few months ago).
The general solution to this (as far as I can tell, based on being a student in a university) is to go with a third party and then implement a "no grades over email" policy. Professors can't send our grades, various things related to registration, etc. over email. At first I thought this was the university being stupid or an odd federal law with a blanket prohibition on such things, but now I'm starting to think that it's due to the interaction with third party devices. (we use Google for our email)
Sure, it's great to help out the company and as engineers we like to just get things done. The problem is that the legal department doesn't give a fuck and would sooner sue you than allow anything to get done on time. Burning your personal copies of the documents might not help the project get done, but it will save your ass should anyone with malicious intent start asking why you have documents you're not allowed to have. You're a consultant so it's not like a project failure is going to cost you your job. I don't know how risky this is because I don't know the details of the situation, but there's no way I'd risk my neck, and career, over a company I left many years ago that wasn't competent enough to keep its own damn files.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the point entirely. What about someone who invested long-term from the beginning of their career. Someone who has been contributing to their retirement since their early to mid 20s. Now some jackass fucks up their trading and crashes this guy's retirement account.
He's not looking for a quick payout, he's looking to get the money he has been wisely investing for decade after decade at this point.
No, they won't. People will just stick to windows 7 for a long time (like they did with XP). Even if windows 8 and 9 are complete bullshit people will still migrate to them when windows 7 support ends. Why? Because so much software is windows-only that no one will be able to move to linux or mac.
It doesn't matter who is at the most risk for transmission. Sure, you're more likely to be infected if you shoot up a syringe full of infected blood, but that doesn't mean that having vaginal intercourse is no-risk.
ANYONE can get aids from ANYONE who has aids if you have ANY TYPE of sex. End of story.
I suspect this is the case. A VPN isn't going to help matters here because the real problem isn't routing, it's bandwidth. I think the OP has his priorities in the wrong order.
No, it's not the culture. Sure, you do have to be aware of cultural differences when dealing with other countries, but being 5 years behind schedule is not a "cultural" issue. The situation here is just Chinese businesses being very shady and deceptive in order to get contracts. Remember, these are the same companies that fake reports about the chemical content of their products in order to bypass various regulations and contracts. Given that there's little to no oversight in China and that suing a Chinese company is an exercise in futility this happens a lot.
You can climb a ladder with two limbs. I'm sure it won't be graceful, but there's no physical reason you need four limbs to climb a ladder.
The ladder is easy, the entire thing can be solved before the robot even starts moving. The terrain isn't easy, but it's been done enough before to the point that it won't cause a huge amount of trouble. The real problems show up when trying to do things that humans use fine motor skills for. Operating screwdrivers, ratchets, a lot of actuation that has to be compliant to some degree. The tractor presents the same problems, attempting to grip the steering wheel won't be easy, but it's certainly easier than replacing any kind of pump.
As you mentioned, the self-containment issue is a big one. You've got to pack an enormous amount of processing power into a very small chassis and have enough energy left over to run your actuators. I bet we'll see some experimental batteries with stupidly high energy densities.
You'd think so, yes. Of course, DARPA isn't so much about making useful things as it is about spurring research that can be used to later create useful things. I suspect that's why they are going with a competition that no one will be able to complete in the next 3 years, and certainly not in a reasonable time frame.
This has happened before. It took two years before any competitor was able to even finish the off-road DARPA grand challenge, and that was just driving. A bi-pedal robot is orders of magnitude more complicated.
I predict that they're going to have to start each section of the race separately. They'll put the bot in the tractor, start the race. Then they'll move the bot to the door, start it again, etc. No way in hell anyone is going to be able to do these tasks in sequence. Some they probably won't be able to do at all.
When you consider how amazingly big space is and how incredibly fast debris can travel, that's actually really close.
"if your average picture is worth a thousand words, then a picture from lunar orbit may be worth a classroom full of engineering and science degrees"
This is the dumbest thing I've heard in my life. And I don't say that lightly, this is, quite literally, the dumbest thing I have heard anyone say, ever.
Exactly, the entire point of a conference is to make things public, not exactly a security issue.
And the author mentions something about "I could have installed keylogging software on a demo computer". Who cares? I guess he could have stolen the generic "admin/admin" and "tester/tester" accounts from all the machines. Unless someone is stupid enough to hook their demo computer into a real set of confidential data, this isn't a problem. And if that is, in fact, the case then it's the company's issue, not the conference's.
And that doesn't even take into account the fact that they're going to make literally no money on this drug. If they release it open then every company will make generics. They can charge a lot less because all they have to do is retool their machines and hit "go" to start producing this drug. This "open" company has to somehow recover their R&D expenses.
It's a terrible solution to the problem of pharma companies profiting from the suffering of people. Switch to the universal healthcare option and on top of that start funding drug development. You'll end up with a lot more drugs that work a lot better and cost everyone less money. No more drug patents, no more incentive to create derivatives of the same drug so you can keep patenting one damn formula, no more incentive to create fifty pills for some stupid thing like erectile dysfunction instead of a harmful disease, no more reason for two companies to expend money doing the same research to race towards the same drug.
Why does this argument keep showing up? I thought we debunked this already.
You don't do anything wrong when you sleep, use the toilet, or make love to your significant other and yet these things are still private and I think we would all agree that the government has no right to monitor them.
Then he's a terrible engineer. 0.3% of $8000 is $24. Transferring to another university would cost more than that in transcript fees alone (which vary but can be about $30). Once you take into account moving expenses you blow that out of the water.
0.3% is insignificant for just about everything engineers do. You're going to use a factor of safety of somewhere between 1.5 and 2 for even the most well-known situations, 0.3% is well within this limit.
Getting in trouble with the law? This seems like an outlier case to me. I would be extremely hesitant to chalk this up to modern technology. Sure, some slight differences in behavior, a general negative trend wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility; but something this serious likely has other, much larger, factors involved.
All these girls nowadays aren't developing normal social tendencies! I mean, they're out in the street wearing pants! Not a single one in a dress. How obscene!
With regard to your opinion that text messages aren't meaningful, I think you're just old. They're just another form of communication. Communicating in nothing but 160 char. messages is a problem, but using 160 char. messages often is simply adapting to technology. People made the same argument about email or the telephone when they said that they preferred a handwritten letter and waiting weeks to hear back from people.
What I can't stand about most young people (aka, people my age) is that they have to be texting wherever the fuck they go. Kids today think it's OK to just go ahead and text while in the middle of a conversation. It's not even a "hey, I have to take this, sorry" like you get when the person you're talking to receives a phone call. Every time someone starts texting in the middle of a conversation I have an urge to punch them right in the face. They don't realize that texting is diverting their attention from the conversation and that that's rude to do. I don't care what form of technology it is, diverting your attention from a conversation is rude. I cannot for the live of me comprehend this behavior.
She's got drops of Jupiter in her hair hey, hey, hey, hey.
The military is different because this device is considerably more dangerous and risky than a fucking car. Higher risk means the consequences are more serious. This is accepted because, again, it's the military. The risk is necessary to operate the devices that will be used to defend this country should the need arise.
It's also an all-volunteer military, so increased risk isn't being forces on anyone. I guess it's technically a choice to drive a car too, but driving a car is effectively a requirement to have a job, which is generally required to live.
I have no idea what dipshit decided that would be a good place for such an important device. Not to mention how ridiculously easy it is to install backwards and possibly render completely inoperable. 40 pounds of force straight forward from your hip while sitting down, wearing all sorts of shit, and trying not to bump anything else in the process, absolutely fucking ridiculous.
The report mentions that in tests they managed to activate the system while installed backwards, but I wonder if that's only because it was under controlled conditions. Is there the slightest chance in hell that anyone could do this in an emergency (which is literally the only time you would ever have to do this)?
And then the fact that it's hard to locate if dropped due to the cable jamming, a failure to exert the necessary force, etc. Short of removing the system entirely, I don't think it's possible to design anything worse. This design is a textbook example of how not to design an emergency system.
This argument comes up a lot. The problem is that whenever a company does something wrong it's always "victim v. the company" and NEVER "victim v. a specific employee(s) of the company". If only people can commit crimes, then why are companies held to account and people never are?
Some of my professors gave open-book exams. This allowed you to look up equations, material properties, etc. If you understood how to do all the work but were unsure of whether the last coefficient in a particular equation was positive or negative, this helped a lot. If you had no idea what you were doing then the book didn't help you at all. Brilliant exam, because in the real world you will have reference materials and you will sometimes forget things like the naiver-stokes equation.
However, the professors wouldn't in a million years consider making these tests open-internet. The internet allows answers to be shared, which doesn't allow for testing of individual students. In addition, the internet has a lot more information than in a textbook. A student may be able to find problems almost identical to those on the exam and simply copy the answer verbatim.
There's also a difference between being able to do your work with the assistance of a reference manual, and only being able to do your job if you have access to the internet.
Their solution to "no internet" was to connect the computers to the internet and then try to restrict web browsers? How about just unplugging the line to the outside?
Cheap 2 factor isn't too costly, but it's less secure. The more secure ones, like RSA, cost about $100 per token. (Although, how secure those are is really up for some debate since they fucked up a few months ago).
The general solution to this (as far as I can tell, based on being a student in a university) is to go with a third party and then implement a "no grades over email" policy. Professors can't send our grades, various things related to registration, etc. over email. At first I thought this was the university being stupid or an odd federal law with a blanket prohibition on such things, but now I'm starting to think that it's due to the interaction with third party devices. (we use Google for our email)
Sure, it's great to help out the company and as engineers we like to just get things done. The problem is that the legal department doesn't give a fuck and would sooner sue you than allow anything to get done on time. Burning your personal copies of the documents might not help the project get done, but it will save your ass should anyone with malicious intent start asking why you have documents you're not allowed to have. You're a consultant so it's not like a project failure is going to cost you your job. I don't know how risky this is because I don't know the details of the situation, but there's no way I'd risk my neck, and career, over a company I left many years ago that wasn't competent enough to keep its own damn files.