We had to find an automated way to handle these sorts of issues so that the human engineers could focus on solving and preventing the larger, more complex outages.
This seems backwards to me. Surely the "larger, more complex outages" are caused by an accumulation of, or interaction between, the smaller, less complex problems/situations. If all of the smaller problems are well understood and dealt with, then those more complex problems should not arise. I think it's dangerous to assume that because the smaller problems can be transiently resolved by a script with minimal human intervention that the more complex problems need less exploration. Sure, scripts to handle the less complex issues are great, but this should not shift the focus of the human engineers to "focus on solving and preventing complex outages"; solving those often (always?) means solving the less complex issues.
How will this deliver "fewer patents, but those that do get accepted are of higher quality"? It seems to me that it will do the exact opposite.
Supporters of the act contend that reforming the patent system will unlock innovation and produce jobs in an economy that is increasingly driven by intellectual property. Currently, there is a backlog of about 700,000 patents waiting for examination, and the next cellphone, incandescent lamp or miracle drug could be hidden in that pile, supporters said.
How, exactly will this "unlock innovation" and produce jobs? And, what the hell does "Currently, there is a backlog of about 700,000 patents waiting for examination and the next cellphone, incandescent lamp or miracle drug could be hidden in that pile, supporters said" mean, or add to the conversation? It's all smoke and mirrors -- and you cannot seem to see that, but you don't seem to be alone. This benefits nobody (personally) (except for CEOs). But, the sheep that seem to make up most of the U.S. population cannot see it.
It is hard to say at this point what could it mean to WebOS but I've heard rumors about some experiments with Android at HP. Some speculate that HP is thinking about making the WebOS just a thin UI layer on top of Android, just like Mac OS X did with UNIX. It may seem strange at first but after thinking about it for a while it could be the only way that HP could survive in the not so distant future after the Apple-Google war is over and still have original software advantage without the hassle to develop and maintain the entire operating system stack.
Why do HP need an "original software advantage"? I thought they were primarily (apart from necessary propriety drivers for their hardware and storage and cloud solutions, etc of course). I do see that Wikipedia (quoted below) make some statements regarding their software division.
HP Software Division is the company's enterprise software unit. For years, HP has produced and marketed its brand of enterprise management software, HP OpenView. From September 2005 through 2010, HP purchased a total of 15 software companies between as part of a publicized, deliberate strategy to augment its software offerings for large business customers.[48] HP Software sells three categories of software: IT performance management, IT management software and information management software. HP Software also provides consulting, Software as a service, cloud computing solutions, education and support services.
But to be honest I didn't think it was a major part of their corporation or revenue. Perhaps I've been living in a cave...
Is there anyone here that works for a large business customer of HP and used there software?
(I'm genuinely interested; even though it may sound like a troll that's just because I appear to be ignorant on the subject.)
Adding to my above comment, do you think they (the kids) would be excited if a baker came into the class and taught them how to bake a basic loaf of bread? Whack some flour in here, add a bit of yeast, a pinch of salt, pound it, turn it, let it rise, pound it, let it rise, bake (sorry if that's not the correct procedure, I am not a baker). Their eyes would glaze over until they ate the finished product. Even then they wouldn't have learned anything (well, the majority would not have). Except that fresh bread tastes nice.
Really. You don't explain to 2nd graders what it's like to be a farmer, a preacher, an engineer, a politician, an author, a doctor, an ecologist, a chemist, a clerk, a physicist, a professor, a teacher, a police officer, a cabinet maker, a candlestick maker, a fireman, an astronaut, a pilot, a nurse, a proofreader, an electrician, a builder, a seamstress, an artist, a race driver, a GIS specialist, a mountain climber, a kebab maker, a bearucrat, a paramedic, a storekeeper, a herdsman, a psychologist, a film director, a lawyer, an artist, a husband, or a wife, a giver, or a carer, a baker, or a master brewer. You just don't "explain" these things to a 2nd grade student. There is no point, because they have not yet developed the understanding, passion, drive, abstract thought, whatever; what I am trying to say is that there is no way to "explain" because they don't have the background. You're over-thinking things I think -- just go in and say why you like your work. That's about as much as they could understand I reckon. You surely can't expect them to be enthralled by the source code of even a simple game.
For me, reading the article immediately brought to mind the argument as to whether thought is a function of language, or whether language is a function of thought. I think that it's perhaps the latter, but that might only be true for abstract ideas (I don't know... I've never read any philosophy or studies on this, but I have pondered it in idle moments on occasion). Do thoughts rely on language at any point? Do the abstractions rely or draw upon language? And if so, are the thoughts of a non-English speaker "different", in some way, to the thoughts of an English speaker? (I'm just using English as an example -- don't read anything more into it than that). Perhaps egocentrism is something to think about as well. An example that comes to mind is the concept of time (see here, here here, and also the Aymaran language. I wonder how this "conversion" from thought/abstractions to language/description/communication really works.
My thoughts exactly. When did a place who's slogan is "News for Nerds" become such the antithesis of that? Once upon a time (I've read for much longer than my UID indicates) we'd discuss things because they were interesting. We'd discuss just about anything that inspired the imagination. Now the big stories are world events, and the really interesting things (peoples doing things just because they're interesting and trying out new ideas) are shoved aside, or they get comments like "Two words... Asperger's Syndrome."
Thanks. That's what had me confused. To me if you're programming in C++ anyway, I would have thought you'd do the UI in C++ also (especially considering Qt is C++ [with the moc]). I get that using QML may make the UI design easier for designers, but I couldn't see any other real advantages. Anyway, I thought he was saying the whole application would be written in QML, so thanks for clearing that up.
Aaron spend a lot of time speaking about a transition, in the long-term, to QML (I had to look it up) in the interview. He mentioned that it makes prototyping interfaces quicker, and I assume that also means implementation of the GUI aspects would therefore be quicker also. But I am confused. Is QML just for GUI stuff, or do you write the entire application using it? What other advantages over C++ does it offer? Cheers
To be fair, that's ultimately a Gnome problem, not a Fedora problem (although I concede that, yes, Fedora has included it in their release, but that's the way it's always been; it brings back fond memories for me of the KDE 4.0 inclusion)
Umm. Right. Do you know why most companies don't block most websites? It's because: a) it's a form of centralized control and stifles employee creativity, research and, as the article states it, employee innovation; b) IT people don't know what websites need to be blocked vs those that don't. If you block every website and have a whitelist then the IT people are deciding what the employees doing unrelated need to research and look at. I don't think the IT people have any idea what the employees using their network have to do in their day-to-day work, so blocking "most web sites (sic)" is, umm, stupid.
the pendulum is now swinging back in the direction of centralized control.
You've got the entire point of the article backwards.
He could have potentially wiped out some on going expensive research while he was at it and potentially cost lives not to mention jobs at a company that obviously wasn't in the best financial health to start with. This selt centered little prick doesn't deserve any leniency.
English. Do you speak it? Your comment does not say what you think it does.
There still are places, believe it or not, in the world where humans have never (or very rarely) trodden. Even in those places where humans have trodden, there are many that are poorly documented, explored, or studied. I don't think that GPS changes us very much at all. The majority of people still stay at home or close to areas that they know. There are people who rely on GPS to tell them where to go, and what streets to follow. Then there are other people, probably a minority, who go where they need to go to find out something interesting, or research something where there probably aren't any streets; in those cases GPS coordinates are merely extra metadata. I, personally, don't care about the people in cities who need a GPS to find a post office or whatever. For those people doing real work, a GPS is merely a more accurate and modern system of identifying (and recording) coordinates of interesting things.
What if the individual senders didn't know or have reason to know about the limitation of the recipient? I know when I send an email I don't think to myself "hmm, I wonder how big their inbox is and if it's full?... Maybe I'd better ring them before sending the email to make sure there's room".
If the car has power and the "Avatar" is actually working.
Reminds me of the old "Keyboard not found; press F1 to continue" errors.
There wasn't actually anything wrong with that error. It gave you a chance to plug a keyboard in, or replace the keyboard, and if that fixed the problem you could press F1 to continue. The other option would be to have just halted on the error and forced a reboot to try again which would be annoying if you had to try a few keyboards before deciding it wasn't actually the keyboard itself causing the error. Allowing the user to press F1 to continue sped up the debugging process.
When did facebook receive exclusive rights to that name? Just because a movie was made about it under that name does not mean there is no other social network on the planet...
You were referring to "the social network" but I can't quote the title of your message (well, not lazily, anyway).
Nobody said it was "THE" social network. The fragment "the social network" obviously refers back to the start of the sentence where Facebook is referenced as the subject. So, the fragment is saying that Facebook is a social network; which it is. Your whole post disregards context and makes an assumption based on disregarding that context. Are you a journalist?
cosm didn't specify it was 10 million DOLLARS a year; perhaps it's 10 million new applications a year, although I do think that would be a heavy workload
Slashdot Mirror
What is the point of a $1k house when land costs at least 100x that amount?
We had to find an automated way to handle these sorts of issues so that the human engineers could focus on solving and preventing the larger, more complex outages.
This seems backwards to me. Surely the "larger, more complex outages" are caused by an accumulation of, or interaction between, the smaller, less complex problems/situations. If all of the smaller problems are well understood and dealt with, then those more complex problems should not arise. I think it's dangerous to assume that because the smaller problems can be transiently resolved by a script with minimal human intervention that the more complex problems need less exploration. Sure, scripts to handle the less complex issues are great, but this should not shift the focus of the human engineers to "focus on solving and preventing complex outages"; solving those often (always?) means solving the less complex issues.
Those were never "hackers"
How will this deliver "fewer patents, but those that do get accepted are of higher quality"? It seems to me that it will do the exact opposite.
Supporters of the act contend that reforming the patent system will unlock innovation and produce jobs in an economy that is increasingly driven by intellectual property. Currently, there is a backlog of about 700,000 patents waiting for examination, and the next cellphone, incandescent lamp or miracle drug could be hidden in that pile, supporters said.
How, exactly will this "unlock innovation" and produce jobs? And, what the hell does "Currently, there is a backlog of about 700,000 patents waiting for examination and the next cellphone, incandescent lamp or miracle drug could be hidden in that pile, supporters said" mean, or add to the conversation? It's all smoke and mirrors -- and you cannot seem to see that, but you don't seem to be alone. This benefits nobody (personally) (except for CEOs). But, the sheep that seem to make up most of the U.S. population cannot see it.
It is hard to say at this point what could it mean to WebOS but I've heard rumors about some experiments with Android at HP. Some speculate that HP is thinking about making the WebOS just a thin UI layer on top of Android, just like Mac OS X did with UNIX. It may seem strange at first but after thinking about it for a while it could be the only way that HP could survive in the not so distant future after the Apple-Google war is over and still have original software advantage without the hassle to develop and maintain the entire operating system stack.
Why do HP need an "original software advantage"? I thought they were primarily (apart from necessary propriety drivers for their hardware and storage and cloud solutions, etc of course). I do see that Wikipedia (quoted below) make some statements regarding their software division.
HP Software Division is the company's enterprise software unit. For years, HP has produced and marketed its brand of enterprise management software, HP OpenView. From September 2005 through 2010, HP purchased a total of 15 software companies between as part of a publicized, deliberate strategy to augment its software offerings for large business customers.[48] HP Software sells three categories of software: IT performance management, IT management software and information management software. HP Software also provides consulting, Software as a service, cloud computing solutions, education and support services.
But to be honest I didn't think it was a major part of their corporation or revenue. Perhaps I've been living in a cave...
Is there anyone here that works for a large business customer of HP and used there software?
(I'm genuinely interested; even though it may sound like a troll that's just because I appear to be ignorant on the subject.)
Adding to my above comment, do you think they (the kids) would be excited if a baker came into the class and taught them how to bake a basic loaf of bread? Whack some flour in here, add a bit of yeast, a pinch of salt, pound it, turn it, let it rise, pound it, let it rise, bake (sorry if that's not the correct procedure, I am not a baker). Their eyes would glaze over until they ate the finished product. Even then they wouldn't have learned anything (well, the majority would not have). Except that fresh bread tastes nice.
Really. You don't explain to 2nd graders what it's like to be a farmer, a preacher, an engineer, a politician, an author, a doctor, an ecologist, a chemist, a clerk, a physicist, a professor, a teacher, a police officer, a cabinet maker, a candlestick maker, a fireman, an astronaut, a pilot, a nurse, a proofreader, an electrician, a builder, a seamstress, an artist, a race driver, a GIS specialist, a mountain climber, a kebab maker, a bearucrat, a paramedic, a storekeeper, a herdsman, a psychologist, a film director, a lawyer, an artist, a husband, or a wife, a giver, or a carer, a baker, or a master brewer. You just don't "explain" these things to a 2nd grade student. There is no point, because they have not yet developed the understanding, passion, drive, abstract thought, whatever; what I am trying to say is that there is no way to "explain" because they don't have the background. You're over-thinking things I think -- just go in and say why you like your work. That's about as much as they could understand I reckon. You surely can't expect them to be enthralled by the source code of even a simple game.
For me, reading the article immediately brought to mind the argument as to whether thought is a function of language, or whether language is a function of thought. I think that it's perhaps the latter, but that might only be true for abstract ideas (I don't know... I've never read any philosophy or studies on this, but I have pondered it in idle moments on occasion). Do thoughts rely on language at any point? Do the abstractions rely or draw upon language? And if so, are the thoughts of a non-English speaker "different", in some way, to the thoughts of an English speaker? (I'm just using English as an example -- don't read anything more into it than that). Perhaps egocentrism is something to think about as well. An example that comes to mind is the concept of time (see here, here here, and also the Aymaran language. I wonder how this "conversion" from thought/abstractions to language/description/communication really works.
Rains, or reigns?
While interesting, your reply does not address the "assumed" aspect.
My thoughts exactly. When did a place who's slogan is "News for Nerds" become such the antithesis of that? Once upon a time (I've read for much longer than my UID indicates) we'd discuss things because they were interesting. We'd discuss just about anything that inspired the imagination. Now the big stories are world events, and the really interesting things (peoples doing things just because they're interesting and trying out new ideas) are shoved aside, or they get comments like "Two words... Asperger's Syndrome."
Thanks. That's what had me confused. To me if you're programming in C++ anyway, I would have thought you'd do the UI in C++ also (especially considering Qt is C++ [with the moc]). I get that using QML may make the UI design easier for designers, but I couldn't see any other real advantages. Anyway, I thought he was saying the whole application would be written in QML, so thanks for clearing that up.
Aaron spend a lot of time speaking about a transition, in the long-term, to QML (I had to look it up) in the interview. He mentioned that it makes prototyping interfaces quicker, and I assume that also means implementation of the GUI aspects would therefore be quicker also. But I am confused. Is QML just for GUI stuff, or do you write the entire application using it? What other advantages over C++ does it offer?
Cheers
To be fair, that's ultimately a Gnome problem, not a Fedora problem (although I concede that, yes, Fedora has included it in their release, but that's the way it's always been; it brings back fond memories for me of the KDE 4.0 inclusion)
To the actual NOAA release, rather than the hideously dumbed-down MSN rehash?
http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/newsreleases/2011/orangesubstance081811.pdf
Although it's not much more informative...
Although interesting, that Stroop Effect online test has to be one of the worst examples of an experiment I've ever seen!
(No, I didn't RTFA.)
with companies still not blocking most web sites
Umm. Right. Do you know why most companies don't block most websites? It's because: a) it's a form of centralized control and stifles employee creativity, research and, as the article states it, employee innovation; b) IT people don't know what websites need to be blocked vs those that don't. If you block every website and have a whitelist then the IT people are deciding what the employees doing unrelated need to research and look at. I don't think the IT people have any idea what the employees using their network have to do in their day-to-day work, so blocking "most web sites (sic)" is, umm, stupid.
the pendulum is now swinging back in the direction of centralized control.
You've got the entire point of the article backwards.
(No, I didn't RTFA.)
Maybe you should
He could have potentially wiped out some on going expensive research while he was at it and potentially cost lives not to mention jobs at a company that obviously wasn't in the best financial health to start with. This selt centered little prick doesn't deserve any leniency.
English. Do you speak it? Your comment does not say what you think it does.
I'd like to add to my comment above that if there are people out there who think the world is "GPSified" then they have lost their sense of wonder.
There still are places, believe it or not, in the world where humans have never (or very rarely) trodden. Even in those places where humans have trodden, there are many that are poorly documented, explored, or studied. I don't think that GPS changes us very much at all. The majority of people still stay at home or close to areas that they know. There are people who rely on GPS to tell them where to go, and what streets to follow. Then there are other people, probably a minority, who go where they need to go to find out something interesting, or research something where there probably aren't any streets; in those cases GPS coordinates are merely extra metadata. I, personally, don't care about the people in cities who need a GPS to find a post office or whatever. For those people doing real work, a GPS is merely a more accurate and modern system of identifying (and recording) coordinates of interesting things.
What if the individual senders didn't know or have reason to know about the limitation of the recipient? I know when I send an email I don't think to myself "hmm, I wonder how big their inbox is and if it's full?... Maybe I'd better ring them before sending the email to make sure there's room".
If the car has power and the "Avatar" is actually working.
Reminds me of the old "Keyboard not found; press F1 to continue" errors.
There wasn't actually anything wrong with that error. It gave you a chance to plug a keyboard in, or replace the keyboard, and if that fixed the problem you could press F1 to continue. The other option would be to have just halted on the error and forced a reboot to try again which would be annoying if you had to try a few keyboards before deciding it wasn't actually the keyboard itself causing the error. Allowing the user to press F1 to continue sped up the debugging process.
It would make more sense if you provided context for your quote
Storms said it appeared that today's "Ping of Death" bug was a different vulnerability than Microsoft patched in its now-ancient OSes of the 1990s.
The bug exists in Windows Vista, Server 2008, Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2, Microsoft said, but not in Windows XP or Server 2003.
When did facebook receive exclusive rights to that name? Just because a movie was made about it under that name does not mean there is no other social network on the planet...
You were referring to "the social network" but I can't quote the title of your message (well, not lazily, anyway).
Nobody said it was "THE" social network. The fragment "the social network" obviously refers back to the start of the sentence where Facebook is referenced as the subject. So, the fragment is saying that Facebook is a social network; which it is. Your whole post disregards context and makes an assumption based on disregarding that context. Are you a journalist?
cosm didn't specify it was 10 million DOLLARS a year; perhaps it's 10 million new applications a year, although I do think that would be a heavy workload