You have to understand every possible interaction between what you're changing and the rest of the system to write a 100% effective unit test. That just can't happen once you have a few dozen people writing your product.
This is what regression tests are for, not unit tests. Also while a code review might catch this but it's not a guarantee and it's an incredibly expensive option when automated regression testing is much more effective. Code reviews really aren't for bug reduction and they are a poor tool for it. It's kinda like using a hammer to cut metal. It's not that it can't be effective it's just that it's not the best or even a good way to address that particular task.
Write your unit test first and do automated unit testing and you'll find even more benefit. That said, unit testing and code reviews have different aims. Code reviews address non-functional, style, and supportability issues not functional bug issues. In general your post is correct in stating that unit testing of more benefit than code reviews but that is because the problem unit testing addresses is more damaging not because unit testing and code reviews address the same thing and one is more effective. If your organization is using code reviews to address functional bugs then yes it's just management fodder, if they use them correctly then it can provide actual benefit depending on the organization and situation.
What most developers/tech staff don't realize is that code reviews rarely result in a significantly lower bug rate. Proper unit, integration, and user acceptance testing is your best defense against bugs. What code reviews do provide is increased code quality with regards to style and supportability as well as some cross training that can benefit support efforts. It can also benefit performance and other NFR areas as expert developer help novice developer find less efficient code but if your testing properly tests your NFRs this is less likely to be of any financial benefit other than the growth of your developer staff that might help in a future effort.
If you have problems with operating / support costs due to poor quality code and code of drastically different styles from different developers then code reviews can help but only if you write good code standards first so everyone is writing to the same standards. This becomes more valuable as the size of the organization grows. If you have 10 developers the benefit is probably minor compared to if you have 100 developers.
In general I'm pro design review in ALL situations and I'm pro code review only in instances where I have operating / support issues.
First I 100% agree with your post regarding the EC being a bunch of money whoring out of control idiots (ok, you didn't exactly say that but I will).
Some advice to MS however would be to provide a good package management system that allowed 3rd party developers to easily distribute their apps into some sort of online app store. Providing a universal mechanism for getting apps on the machine and distributing their software in the same manner might help the image. That said no other company would be required to do so, I just think it would help them appear to be providing equal access to all developers and be cheaper than trying to guess what the EC wants and comply with ever shifting regulations. Side note to MS...if you do this don't be an idiot like Apple and try to use the distribution mechanism as a way to limit competitors as this will only cause more problems.
I should have added that if you want to buy DRMed crippled media that can be returned and deactivated during the time period specified as return time then maybe you have an argument but I would prefer to pay less per item and accept the risk myself while getting a fully functioning product that I can control how it is used once I own it.
That said your argument is nonsensical. When talking about physical products you have no guarantee of quality either yet we don't allow you to steal and then decide whether or not to pay for it. What you do have is reviews and consumer reports. The same holds true for entertainment media.
So, like, walmart doesn't let you return items you didn't like? Wait a second..
First your analogy is a bit off because you're talking about a retail reseller and not the manufacturer of goods. But allowing that little logical shift, in general when talking about a retail reseller it depends on the item. If it can't be repackaged and resold then no they don't let you. Even if they do it's not really a given it's more of a specific retailer policy which is put in place because retailers don't really sell items they sell access to items that they have already bought from manufacturers. When they choose to allow returns that don't support reselling they have more interest in you using their access channel than someone else's. This part of the distribution chain disappears (or more accurately is minimized) as you move to a more efficient online delivery model.
With respect to manufacturers it usually requires a manufacturing defect before it can be returned. Unfortunately a crappy quality product is not considered a manufacturing defect.
To me, the best pro-piracy argument is it allows people to not reward people for making shit products.
First let me say that I have no use for the studios and I'm glad piracy is driving them out of an old and broken robber-baron business model. Additionally I think they produce 95% worthless crap. That said your argument is nonsensical. When talking about physical products you have no guarantee of quality either yet we don't allow you to steal and then decide whether or not to pay for it. What you do have is reviews and consumer reports. The same holds true for entertainment media.
I don't really believe there is a good ethical argument for piracy but I can't wait to support the first set of media producers that realize they don't need the studios anymore and start using the piracy distribution channels to drive profits rather than desperately clinging to an old and outdated business model that relies on inefficient distribution and high barriers to entry to allow middle men to profit. I want to get my art directly from the artist rather than something homogenized by a risk management entity in the middle and I'm willing to pay for it. What's going to be more interesting is when the content producers figure out how to give away the digital content to drive money in other areas. I believe the artists that accomplish that are going to be the big winners. Just because something has always been done one way is not a reason to continue doing it that way and digital distribution is going to provide the chance for some innovative artists to break away from the age old plantation model used by the studios.
The recording industry wants music that will sell. That does not necessarily mean good music.
Actually good music often sells. The problem is predicting which music is good and marketable. So instead they make poor copies of something else that once sold then try to manufacture a market around it. It's a bad business model if you have the ability to actually create something marketable and unique and you're willing to risk several busts prior to boom. If on the other hand you're trying to make ever move a monetary success and you lack the ability to produce unique works yourself and you're burdened with expensive middlemen who do little to contribute to the quality of the end product it's the model you're stuck with.
No I was saying you SHOULDN'T be able to patent math or other descriptions of abstract processes not that you can't. In fact you definitely can which is what i think is badly broken.
To me that's the equivalent of a group of kindergardeners trying to draw turkeys for thanksgiving and one saying "I traced my hand to make my turkey first so no one else can do that. if you want a hand turkey you have to pay me for the right to trace your own hand." I do think that the innovative kindergardener should be able to keep people from xeroxing his hand tracing and using that as a base if he chooses but forbidding others to use the same process is what breaks the system. The protection against copying of the actual tracing would represent a copyright not a patent.
I also think copyright law and the enforcement and transferability is busted but I don't have the same issues since I fundamentally agree with the fact that a creator of work should be able to decide what gets done with his/her actual work. I don't think they should be able to stop others from doing different work in the same manner however.
[snip] All that said the nature of an open system does make it harder than simply declaring a "standard" by fiat but standards will evolve as obvious best practices win out. I think it's slower in the case of Linux for a number of reasons.
1. Some subsystems are immature
You mean MOST subsystems. And after 15 years, too. Impressive.
2. The user base is restricted so there isn't a monetary driver isn't there to accelerate development of various standards
Every OS has that "chicken and egg" problem. At first. See "15 years", above.
As to your two I'm angry Linux sucks comments about 15 years I'm not arguing it is good or bad just saying that that's what I think has hindered standards. If you think it's too immature for use then don't use it. I will say about your "chicken and egg" crack that it appears you're missing my argument which was that there isn't an artificial monetary driver (i.e. a corporation) behind it to help it skip over the chicken and egg phase and go straight to a tipping point where it is profitable. As a result it caters to it's user base not it's marketability to the masses at large. As a result growing the user base is not a priority and takes longer.
3. The user base is relatively sophisticated so they put up with a less polished interface that requires tweaking and hacking."
You actually mean "The user base is insanely stubborn so they continually make excuses for a 15 year old OS that STILL has a less polished interface that STILL, AFTER 15 YEARS, requires tweaking and hacking."
No I meant they put up with things that normal users won't. It's not good or ill it just is. I also don't think normal users should be chastised for not putting up with it.
4. The broken Patent system (I still don't get how patenting an abstract concept or math makes any sense) blocks some standards and creates barriers to evolution of technology by closing off some paths of competition.
Citation, please? Sounds like a piss-poor excuse to me, actually.
As to your request for a citation, what part of "disagree" and "think" didn't you understand? My citation for an opinion would be the fact that I wrote it. Despite the fact that I really want to end my comment here and inform you that there is no citation policy and that opinions aren't subject to scientific review I won't.
If you'd like an example of why I think that then things like the LZW compression patent in GIF back in the day would be a good one. Without all that crap going on GIF would have been the de facto image standard sooner. And to be clear I'm not even saying GIF is a good image standard just that the patent issue delayed universal acceptance. Also, the patent doesn't kill the approach but it does slow it down IMO. As a result an open system that eschews the use of patents is at a disadvantage if we consider standards a desirable thing (which at least the de facto variety I do). The same sort of thing plays out all throughout technology spaces and I think it slows down de facto standards adoption. I personally think the current system is broken and in effect regulates out competition and makes the whole evolution of technology slower and more artificial.
The freedom (free as in liberty) aspect of Linux make that sort of standardization somewhere between extremely difficult and absolutely impossible. Freedom and autonomy are the enemies of standards.
I disagree. A good standard is about enabling and informing so that different groups/technologies/interfaces can communicate effectively, not about restricting choice. Unfortunately many organizations don't realize this. All that said the nature of an open system does make it harder than simply declaring a "standard" by fiat but standards will evolve as obvious best practices win out. I think it's slower in the case of Linux for a number of reasons.
1. Some subsystems are immature
2. The user base is restricted so there isn't a monetary driver isn't there to accelerate development of various standards
3. The user base is relatively sophisticated so they put up with a less polished interface that requires tweaking and hacking
4. The broken Patent system (I still don't get how patenting an abstract concept or math makes any sense) blocks some standards and creates barriers to evolution of technology by closing off some paths of competition.
There are probably many more reasons that I haven't thought of but in general my point is I don't think "standards" for Linux are impossible they just aren't subject to immediate drivers and as such they aren't currently a priority (and may never be) but there isn't anything fundamental to an open system that says standards aren't welcome.
That said, why do you Linux guys seem to hate standards so much, hmmm?
I'd fell I should complain about your use of the word standard here but that seems to be quibbling over semantics so I'll leave you to think about what you've done in it's misuse and in the meantime I'll accept your word for the purpose of discussion.;)
You make a good point from the marketability standpoint. This is one of the reasons it's so hard to get good uptake for Linux with the general public. That said, from an evolution of technology standpoint it's the strength of an open system that I'm not forced to accept a crappy "standard" that no one is allowed to improve on and the owner isn't interested in. At the end of the day it's a double edged sword.
I've got no idea about him but I've written several white papers for various platforms in my job including.NET and I use Windows daily at work and even in a VM at home sometimes. I also use Ubuntu and OS X primarily for my personal stuff. It's not an either/or religion for all of us who don't have the last name Stallman. I very much value open source products but there are things they don't do or don't do well or because of other cultural reasons such as de facto standards just are positioned properly in the market to do.
If you want it to be either/or us versus them then you have to make a product that meets ALL of my needs and currently no one does so I use Ubuntu (and previously FreeBSD, Suse, Gentoo, Slackware, or Redhat) when I feel it meets my needs and OSX or Win when they do.
The issue here is, when you're doing things like stem cell research, the future of human kind is in your hands. This is like saying "we shouldn't put people in prisons, because they're not animals and being killers or thieves doesn't make them animals". Unfortunately, you're right, because almost anyone can do "research" today.
I don't really understand your point about people and prisons. I suspect there is a typo or something in there but I would like to address the first sentence.
The level of importance of a task doesn't make people more or less likely to cheat. And when I say "people" I mean a sample community en masse (in this case the research community). I suspect there is little that will make some people cheat and other cheat quite easily so I'm really talking about the statistical chance of the random community member cheating.
The chance they'll get caught and the penalty for getting caught versus the reward they'll experience if they succeed is what matters and rewards don't have to be monetary (think notoriety, vindication, etc.). The work being important affects both of these usually but it doesn't directly affect the cheater. I suspect despite our protestations of being reasoning creatures you'll find that cheating or not cheating when modeled at a group level looks a lot like every other risk taking decision we make and even more primitive ones like do I drink from the water hole while predators are around.
Correct...the way I read it, it's a chem stick that is encoded at the time of manufacture. They are currently trying to figure out how to dynamically encode it prior to use though I suspect this part will require electricity but who knows.
What is reasonable if it is IR or if it is some other form of EM signal (even visible light) it can be encrypted at time of encoding with a one time pad or any other method for that matter. Then it can be read at a remote distance (i.e. from a helicopter, plane, satellite, etc.) depending on the strength of the source and the sensitivity of the sensor. I would assume this receiver is connected to a computer and was powered.
It of course could also be used from one unpowered source to another optically or even via IR if if the receiver had a powered lens. Perhaps between two sniper teams converging on a target. Who knows what other uses there are.
My point is that despite the numerous comments decrying it's lack of practicality I can see several scenarios where something the size of a match that can send encoded information without the need for electricity at the transmission source would interest DARPA.
Reading between the lines of the article it's apparently something that can be read by a remote sensor which means if you can attach that to a computer you make it perhaps even more useful in a rescue scenario where a small light rather than a big fire or flag is used to signal in the cavalry or air cavalry as the case may be.
Maybe I'm feeding the trolls but perhaps the key is that it's not a giant flag telling the enemy where you are down behind enemy lines. Maybe the fact that it's IR and can be activated when you hear your rescue run coming could have something to do with the fact that DARPA finds value in it.
Depends on how cheap the network appliances are. If a net appliance costs $100 and a full functioning machine due to a dwindling market costs $2000 then no...they'll just wait for the storm to pass. Data storage and security are the big hurdle. People don't want their data owned/locked in to an online app. Figure out a good distributed storage that creates data fragments so any one piece is useless and where fragments are all cryptographically locked so you need a key (or keys) for reassembly and reading and have it all be crazy user friendly and this vision will be much closer to reality.
Ok if were going to parse semantics and play with definitions then I don't agree with the underlying point, obscurity is an important component of security. "Security through obscurity" is always a bad thing when related to mathematical or technical proofs of a securing mechanism or process. The whole concept of security is the obscurity of data, however. Separate the idea of a process and the data. The location of the physical asset you want to steal is data. You should want this kept secret. The manner of the secret keeping is the process or algorithm. This benefits from review.
When we play these word games we really just distract from the issue of how to make things better and being overly zealous of a given idea and trying to apply it to everything isn't practical. The principle of opening up process/algorithms for review is a good one. Treating it like a religion and saying that anytime something goes wrong mean they should have shared more info is blindly following that principle and not really understanding what it applies to and what it doesn't.
Since I'm part of the problem (focusing on word games and definitions) I have really no idea if this discussion even applies to this case anymore but I assume you at least get my point.
Sigh. This attitude is silly and I get tired of hearing the "if it's natural it's good for you crowd". Some manufactured things are bad some are good. There are manufactured medicines that save lives every day. And their are all manner of natural things that (e.g. urainium, hemlock, poison frogs, leprosy, lightning) that are bad for you. We should try to learn about ourselves and understand what is good and what is bad and why rather than simply generalizing and passing on a deceptive concept to those we talk with.
It'd be nicer if the real world would learn from the cryptography field. Meaning no White House security procedure would be considered really safe if it hasn't been publicly reviewed. Everything else is security through obscurity, and it's bound to be leaked as shown. Just speculating.
So I totally agree with your underlying point (i.e. Security through obscurity sucks and is stupid). That said I'm not sure how this applies here. This article isn't about the security of an algorithm it's about the fact that someone physically stole an asset.
Not to mention... some of the assumptions aren't great. As the article itself points out, it's been a long time since there was a civilian-free battlefield.
As for the direct example of the robot locating a sniper and being offered the choice of a grenade launcher and rifle - how does the robot know that the buildings surrounding it aren't military targets? How do they get classified? How does a hut differ from a mosque, and how does a hut differ from some elaborate sniper cover?
I don't think this is going to work out as planned.
I think the interesting part is that it's being worked on, this isn't the end all be all answer. This is a first step, I'm sure more will developments will come.
This is typical generation gap stuff. Old people being replaced by young people resent it and old millionaires relying on old business models built on old barriers to entry for creatives resent it when those barriers for entry go away, their inflated friction filled distribution channel goes away, and their position as a risk management entity becomes unnecessary for the creatives. For him personally, I'm sure it is better if the net had never existed. However for the numerous people who now don't need a monolithic studio to get their content made and distributed so that the public and not a few risk averse suits can decide what is good, I'm sure the net is primarily a positive thing. And this argument confines the benefits only to the field he's whining about rather than mentioning all the field more relevant to the human condition than what watered down escapist crap will produce the next summer blockbuster.
In the end, he's not properly equipped to deal this new environment. I'm sure if I were dropped off in the middle of the Amazon rain forest without any supplies i probably wouldn't see much good come from it despite the ecological and pharmaceutical benefits derived from it. Fortunately for him he's already extremely wealthy and doesn't have to compete in the new world. Unfortunately for Sony they have a leader who without a vision for the future is effectively stuck 30 years in the past complaining about the good old days. If it were my company I'd want someone prepared to move forward not desperately clinging to the old.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to understand every possible interaction between what you're changing and the rest of the system to write a 100% effective unit test. That just can't happen once you have a few dozen people writing your product.
This is what regression tests are for, not unit tests. Also while a code review might catch this but it's not a guarantee and it's an incredibly expensive option when automated regression testing is much more effective. Code reviews really aren't for bug reduction and they are a poor tool for it. It's kinda like using a hammer to cut metal. It's not that it can't be effective it's just that it's not the best or even a good way to address that particular task.
Write your unit test first and do automated unit testing and you'll find even more benefit. That said, unit testing and code reviews have different aims. Code reviews address non-functional, style, and supportability issues not functional bug issues. In general your post is correct in stating that unit testing of more benefit than code reviews but that is because the problem unit testing addresses is more damaging not because unit testing and code reviews address the same thing and one is more effective. If your organization is using code reviews to address functional bugs then yes it's just management fodder, if they use them correctly then it can provide actual benefit depending on the organization and situation.
What most developers/tech staff don't realize is that code reviews rarely result in a significantly lower bug rate. Proper unit, integration, and user acceptance testing is your best defense against bugs. What code reviews do provide is increased code quality with regards to style and supportability as well as some cross training that can benefit support efforts. It can also benefit performance and other NFR areas as expert developer help novice developer find less efficient code but if your testing properly tests your NFRs this is less likely to be of any financial benefit other than the growth of your developer staff that might help in a future effort.
If you have problems with operating / support costs due to poor quality code and code of drastically different styles from different developers then code reviews can help but only if you write good code standards first so everyone is writing to the same standards. This becomes more valuable as the size of the organization grows. If you have 10 developers the benefit is probably minor compared to if you have 100 developers.
In general I'm pro design review in ALL situations and I'm pro code review only in instances where I have operating / support issues.
First I 100% agree with your post regarding the EC being a bunch of money whoring out of control idiots (ok, you didn't exactly say that but I will).
Some advice to MS however would be to provide a good package management system that allowed 3rd party developers to easily distribute their apps into some sort of online app store. Providing a universal mechanism for getting apps on the machine and distributing their software in the same manner might help the image. That said no other company would be required to do so, I just think it would help them appear to be providing equal access to all developers and be cheaper than trying to guess what the EC wants and comply with ever shifting regulations. Side note to MS...if you do this don't be an idiot like Apple and try to use the distribution mechanism as a way to limit competitors as this will only cause more problems.
I should have added that if you want to buy DRMed crippled media that can be returned and deactivated during the time period specified as return time then maybe you have an argument but I would prefer to pay less per item and accept the risk myself while getting a fully functioning product that I can control how it is used once I own it.
That said your argument is nonsensical. When talking about physical products you have no guarantee of quality either yet we don't allow you to steal and then decide whether or not to pay for it. What you do have is reviews and consumer reports. The same holds true for entertainment media.
So, like, walmart doesn't let you return items you didn't like? Wait a second ..
First your analogy is a bit off because you're talking about a retail reseller and not the manufacturer of goods. But allowing that little logical shift, in general when talking about a retail reseller it depends on the item. If it can't be repackaged and resold then no they don't let you. Even if they do it's not really a given it's more of a specific retailer policy which is put in place because retailers don't really sell items they sell access to items that they have already bought from manufacturers. When they choose to allow returns that don't support reselling they have more interest in you using their access channel than someone else's. This part of the distribution chain disappears (or more accurately is minimized) as you move to a more efficient online delivery model.
With respect to manufacturers it usually requires a manufacturing defect before it can be returned. Unfortunately a crappy quality product is not considered a manufacturing defect.
To me, the best pro-piracy argument is it allows people to not reward people for making shit products.
First let me say that I have no use for the studios and I'm glad piracy is driving them out of an old and broken robber-baron business model. Additionally I think they produce 95% worthless crap. That said your argument is nonsensical. When talking about physical products you have no guarantee of quality either yet we don't allow you to steal and then decide whether or not to pay for it. What you do have is reviews and consumer reports. The same holds true for entertainment media.
I don't really believe there is a good ethical argument for piracy but I can't wait to support the first set of media producers that realize they don't need the studios anymore and start using the piracy distribution channels to drive profits rather than desperately clinging to an old and outdated business model that relies on inefficient distribution and high barriers to entry to allow middle men to profit. I want to get my art directly from the artist rather than something homogenized by a risk management entity in the middle and I'm willing to pay for it. What's going to be more interesting is when the content producers figure out how to give away the digital content to drive money in other areas. I believe the artists that accomplish that are going to be the big winners. Just because something has always been done one way is not a reason to continue doing it that way and digital distribution is going to provide the chance for some innovative artists to break away from the age old plantation model used by the studios.
except record good music
The recording industry wants music that will sell. That does not necessarily mean good music.
Actually good music often sells. The problem is predicting which music is good and marketable. So instead they make poor copies of something else that once sold then try to manufacture a market around it. It's a bad business model if you have the ability to actually create something marketable and unique and you're willing to risk several busts prior to boom. If on the other hand you're trying to make ever move a monetary success and you lack the ability to produce unique works yourself and you're burdened with expensive middlemen who do little to contribute to the quality of the end product it's the model you're stuck with.
give me an easy way to get it on my HD tv without jumping through hoops and I might pay for some stuff but not for what they offer now.
What claim are you challenging? That you can patent math? That patenting something grants exclusive rights to produce it?
No I was saying you SHOULDN'T be able to patent math or other descriptions of abstract processes not that you can't. In fact you definitely can which is what i think is badly broken.
To me that's the equivalent of a group of kindergardeners trying to draw turkeys for thanksgiving and one saying "I traced my hand to make my turkey first so no one else can do that. if you want a hand turkey you have to pay me for the right to trace your own hand." I do think that the innovative kindergardener should be able to keep people from xeroxing his hand tracing and using that as a base if he chooses but forbidding others to use the same process is what breaks the system. The protection against copying of the actual tracing would represent a copyright not a patent.
I also think copyright law and the enforcement and transferability is busted but I don't have the same issues since I fundamentally agree with the fact that a creator of work should be able to decide what gets done with his/her actual work. I don't think they should be able to stop others from doing different work in the same manner however.
[snip] All that said the nature of an open system does make it harder than simply declaring a "standard" by fiat but standards will evolve as obvious best practices win out. I think it's slower in the case of Linux for a number of reasons. 1. Some subsystems are immature
You mean MOST subsystems. And after 15 years, too. Impressive.
2. The user base is restricted so there isn't a monetary driver isn't there to accelerate development of various standards
Every OS has that "chicken and egg" problem. At first. See "15 years", above.
As to your two I'm angry Linux sucks comments about 15 years I'm not arguing it is good or bad just saying that that's what I think has hindered standards. If you think it's too immature for use then don't use it. I will say about your "chicken and egg" crack that it appears you're missing my argument which was that there isn't an artificial monetary driver (i.e. a corporation) behind it to help it skip over the chicken and egg phase and go straight to a tipping point where it is profitable. As a result it caters to it's user base not it's marketability to the masses at large. As a result growing the user base is not a priority and takes longer.
3. The user base is relatively sophisticated so they put up with a less polished interface that requires tweaking and hacking."
You actually mean "The user base is insanely stubborn so they continually make excuses for a 15 year old OS that STILL has a less polished interface that STILL, AFTER 15 YEARS, requires tweaking and hacking."
No I meant they put up with things that normal users won't. It's not good or ill it just is. I also don't think normal users should be chastised for not putting up with it.
4. The broken Patent system (I still don't get how patenting an abstract concept or math makes any sense) blocks some standards and creates barriers to evolution of technology by closing off some paths of competition.
Citation, please? Sounds like a piss-poor excuse to me, actually.
As to your request for a citation, what part of "disagree" and "think" didn't you understand? My citation for an opinion would be the fact that I wrote it. Despite the fact that I really want to end my comment here and inform you that there is no citation policy and that opinions aren't subject to scientific review I won't.
If you'd like an example of why I think that then things like the LZW compression patent in GIF back in the day would be a good one. Without all that crap going on GIF would have been the de facto image standard sooner. And to be clear I'm not even saying GIF is a good image standard just that the patent issue delayed universal acceptance. Also, the patent doesn't kill the approach but it does slow it down IMO. As a result an open system that eschews the use of patents is at a disadvantage if we consider standards a desirable thing (which at least the de facto variety I do). The same sort of thing plays out all throughout technology spaces and I think it slows down de facto standards adoption. I personally think the current system is broken and in effect regulates out competition and makes the whole evolution of technology slower and more artificial.
The freedom (free as in liberty) aspect of Linux make that sort of standardization somewhere between extremely difficult and absolutely impossible. Freedom and autonomy are the enemies of standards.
I disagree. A good standard is about enabling and informing so that different groups/technologies/interfaces can communicate effectively, not about restricting choice. Unfortunately many organizations don't realize this. All that said the nature of an open system does make it harder than simply declaring a "standard" by fiat but standards will evolve as obvious best practices win out. I think it's slower in the case of Linux for a number of reasons.
1. Some subsystems are immature
2. The user base is restricted so there isn't a monetary driver isn't there to accelerate development of various standards
3. The user base is relatively sophisticated so they put up with a less polished interface that requires tweaking and hacking
4. The broken Patent system (I still don't get how patenting an abstract concept or math makes any sense) blocks some standards and creates barriers to evolution of technology by closing off some paths of competition.
There are probably many more reasons that I haven't thought of but in general my point is I don't think "standards" for Linux are impossible they just aren't subject to immediate drivers and as such they aren't currently a priority (and may never be) but there isn't anything fundamental to an open system that says standards aren't welcome.
That said, why do you Linux guys seem to hate standards so much, hmmm?
I'd fell I should complain about your use of the word standard here but that seems to be quibbling over semantics so I'll leave you to think about what you've done in it's misuse and in the meantime I'll accept your word for the purpose of discussion. ;)
You make a good point from the marketability standpoint. This is one of the reasons it's so hard to get good uptake for Linux with the general public. That said, from an evolution of technology standpoint it's the strength of an open system that I'm not forced to accept a crappy "standard" that no one is allowed to improve on and the owner isn't interested in. At the end of the day it's a double edged sword.
I've got no idea about him but I've written several white papers for various platforms in my job including .NET and I use Windows daily at work and even in a VM at home sometimes. I also use Ubuntu and OS X primarily for my personal stuff. It's not an either/or religion for all of us who don't have the last name Stallman. I very much value open source products but there are things they don't do or don't do well or because of other cultural reasons such as de facto standards just are positioned properly in the market to do.
If you want it to be either/or us versus them then you have to make a product that meets ALL of my needs and currently no one does so I use Ubuntu (and previously FreeBSD, Suse, Gentoo, Slackware, or Redhat) when I feel it meets my needs and OSX or Win when they do.
The issue here is, when you're doing things like stem cell research, the future of human kind is in your hands. This is like saying "we shouldn't put people in prisons, because they're not animals and being killers or thieves doesn't make them animals". Unfortunately, you're right, because almost anyone can do "research" today.
I don't really understand your point about people and prisons. I suspect there is a typo or something in there but I would like to address the first sentence.
The level of importance of a task doesn't make people more or less likely to cheat. And when I say "people" I mean a sample community en masse (in this case the research community). I suspect there is little that will make some people cheat and other cheat quite easily so I'm really talking about the statistical chance of the random community member cheating.
The chance they'll get caught and the penalty for getting caught versus the reward they'll experience if they succeed is what matters and rewards don't have to be monetary (think notoriety, vindication, etc.). The work being important affects both of these usually but it doesn't directly affect the cheater. I suspect despite our protestations of being reasoning creatures you'll find that cheating or not cheating when modeled at a group level looks a lot like every other risk taking decision we make and even more primitive ones like do I drink from the water hole while predators are around.
You're all useless drunkards, why should we differentiate over here...I know because the movies told me so. ;P
Correct...the way I read it, it's a chem stick that is encoded at the time of manufacture. They are currently trying to figure out how to dynamically encode it prior to use though I suspect this part will require electricity but who knows.
What is reasonable if it is IR or if it is some other form of EM signal (even visible light) it can be encrypted at time of encoding with a one time pad or any other method for that matter. Then it can be read at a remote distance (i.e. from a helicopter, plane, satellite, etc.) depending on the strength of the source and the sensitivity of the sensor. I would assume this receiver is connected to a computer and was powered.
It of course could also be used from one unpowered source to another optically or even via IR if if the receiver had a powered lens. Perhaps between two sniper teams converging on a target. Who knows what other uses there are.
My point is that despite the numerous comments decrying it's lack of practicality I can see several scenarios where something the size of a match that can send encoded information without the need for electricity at the transmission source would interest DARPA.
Reading between the lines of the article it's apparently something that can be read by a remote sensor which means if you can attach that to a computer you make it perhaps even more useful in a rescue scenario where a small light rather than a big fire or flag is used to signal in the cavalry or air cavalry as the case may be.
Maybe I'm feeding the trolls but perhaps the key is that it's not a giant flag telling the enemy where you are down behind enemy lines. Maybe the fact that it's IR and can be activated when you hear your rescue run coming could have something to do with the fact that DARPA finds value in it.
Depends on how cheap the network appliances are. If a net appliance costs $100 and a full functioning machine due to a dwindling market costs $2000 then no...they'll just wait for the storm to pass. Data storage and security are the big hurdle. People don't want their data owned/locked in to an online app. Figure out a good distributed storage that creates data fragments so any one piece is useless and where fragments are all cryptographically locked so you need a key (or keys) for reassembly and reading and have it all be crazy user friendly and this vision will be much closer to reality.
Life is algorithms.
No, life is data + algorithms.
Ok if were going to parse semantics and play with definitions then I don't agree with the underlying point, obscurity is an important component of security. "Security through obscurity" is always a bad thing when related to mathematical or technical proofs of a securing mechanism or process. The whole concept of security is the obscurity of data, however. Separate the idea of a process and the data. The location of the physical asset you want to steal is data. You should want this kept secret. The manner of the secret keeping is the process or algorithm. This benefits from review.
When we play these word games we really just distract from the issue of how to make things better and being overly zealous of a given idea and trying to apply it to everything isn't practical. The principle of opening up process/algorithms for review is a good one. Treating it like a religion and saying that anytime something goes wrong mean they should have shared more info is blindly following that principle and not really understanding what it applies to and what it doesn't.
Since I'm part of the problem (focusing on word games and definitions) I have really no idea if this discussion even applies to this case anymore but I assume you at least get my point.
Hint: if it's manufactured, it's bad for you.
Sigh. This attitude is silly and I get tired of hearing the "if it's natural it's good for you crowd". Some manufactured things are bad some are good. There are manufactured medicines that save lives every day. And their are all manner of natural things that (e.g. urainium, hemlock, poison frogs, leprosy, lightning) that are bad for you. We should try to learn about ourselves and understand what is good and what is bad and why rather than simply generalizing and passing on a deceptive concept to those we talk with.
It'd be nicer if the real world would learn from the cryptography field. Meaning no White House security procedure would be considered really safe if it hasn't been publicly reviewed. Everything else is security through obscurity, and it's bound to be leaked as shown. Just speculating.
So I totally agree with your underlying point (i.e. Security through obscurity sucks and is stupid). That said I'm not sure how this applies here. This article isn't about the security of an algorithm it's about the fact that someone physically stole an asset.
Not to mention... some of the assumptions aren't great. As the article itself points out, it's been a long time since there was a civilian-free battlefield.
As for the direct example of the robot locating a sniper and being offered the choice of a grenade launcher and rifle - how does the robot know that the buildings surrounding it aren't military targets? How do they get classified? How does a hut differ from a mosque, and how does a hut differ from some elaborate sniper cover?
I don't think this is going to work out as planned.
I think the interesting part is that it's being worked on, this isn't the end all be all answer. This is a first step, I'm sure more will developments will come.
This is typical generation gap stuff. Old people being replaced by young people resent it and old millionaires relying on old business models built on old barriers to entry for creatives resent it when those barriers for entry go away, their inflated friction filled distribution channel goes away, and their position as a risk management entity becomes unnecessary for the creatives. For him personally, I'm sure it is better if the net had never existed. However for the numerous people who now don't need a monolithic studio to get their content made and distributed so that the public and not a few risk averse suits can decide what is good, I'm sure the net is primarily a positive thing. And this argument confines the benefits only to the field he's whining about rather than mentioning all the field more relevant to the human condition than what watered down escapist crap will produce the next summer blockbuster.
In the end, he's not properly equipped to deal this new environment. I'm sure if I were dropped off in the middle of the Amazon rain forest without any supplies i probably wouldn't see much good come from it despite the ecological and pharmaceutical benefits derived from it. Fortunately for him he's already extremely wealthy and doesn't have to compete in the new world. Unfortunately for Sony they have a leader who without a vision for the future is effectively stuck 30 years in the past complaining about the good old days. If it were my company I'd want someone prepared to move forward not desperately clinging to the old.