Time for a Goodwin's Law 2.0: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of somebody blaming Islamic terrorists or Muslims in general approaches 1."
Airline safety is improving to the point where it will eventually be even odds whether Hanlon's razor prevails as a default guess in a commercial airliner disaster.
I'm rather confident the appropriate regulators will conduct an appropriate investigation and figure the problem out.
Like they figured out the problem with UA 811? One of the victims parents by themselves had to figure out the real problem because NTSB was too interested in protecting Boeing. NTSB only capitulated and forced to change the report to reflect reality after all plausible deniability was totally exhausted and exposed by one of the victims parents.
The only thing I'm confident in is the need to hold all feet to fire and not assume anyone will do their jobs properly.
In the mean time the actual risk is remarkably low and not worthy of panicking over. We don't know the details about what caused the Ethiopian crash so it's highly premature to declare this aircraft to be dangerous.
Love word games people play in face of absence of evidence in order to comport with predetermined narrative.
Only facts are relevant and people will respond accordingly to a new aircraft killing everyone on board twice in the span of a few months no matter how the issue is characterized or what clever statistical hat tricks are invoked on useless sample sizes.
Unless you're doing something truly weird, your CPU isn't spending much time at all on even heavy web browsing. Even the heaviest of web pages are not going to exceed a few % usage of your cpu. A lot of people around here seem to base a lot of their perceptions and priorities on what things were like 15 years ago.
Percentages might look low but typically it's because only a single thread of execution is being utilized. I routinely find myself in CPU limited territory when viewing large tables of data from browser.
My prediction in the not too distant future the use of credit cards for transactions will be greatly diminished. Instead people will use bank tied "push" payment systems for electronic payment without transaction fees.
Cash will still be widely used and smartphone based payment systems (Apple Pay, Samsung Pay, Google Pay, ad nausea) will be phased out entirely.
Or it's an effect of cost-cutting and automation demands. I work for an organization that's done a lot of manual vetting, fact-checking, reminders, warnings, follow-ups, massaging and approving of data.
Basically some people expect us to screen everything for junk and what comes out in the other end should be as complete and correct as reasonably possible.
Apparently HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars have been spent on the broadband map. This does not include any of the source data all of which is provided by third parties using a data exchange format of FCC's choosing.
Socialism at its root is the concept that no one should own anything personally, really. Business should be owned by - effectively - society at large, and rewards/benefits should be shared by all. Taxing accumulated wealth is another form of taxation. If you save and build up a nice nest egg, you don't get to keep it - you have to share it with others. Even though you paid taxes on all of it at the beginning.
Is it your assertion any taxation IS socialism? If not what differentiates a tax that is socialism from one that is not?
My income is taxed. I am taxed again when spending money I already paid taxes on purchase something. Is sales tax socialism?
Is paying property tax on value of physical property owned every year socialism?
When it penalizes success, and the person pushing the breakup demands a chunk of your savings - even after you've paid tax on the income to build that savings in the first place (her wealth tax).
What do your opinions about taxation have to do with socialism?
Don't be too successful or the Government will cut you down...
You got that right. Nothing sucks more on tax day than just making it to the next tax bracket.
How it is even possible for FCC to fail basic sanity checking of deployment data.
Given the number of small shops submitting data one would think FCC would be spending a significant amount of effort cross checking data.
Simply overlaying providers broadband subscription with deployment for certain fixed access technologies would have instantaneously keyed FCC on to a problem. Claims of total state wide FTTP deployment of all things would be absolutely trivial to spot.
Ah. Right. So you're one of the antisemitic left who won't admit that you're antisemitic and are hoping that code words will mask it.
US public support for Israel is an outlier in the world. A problem now starting to unwind itself in earnest. This is really pissing off pro Israel crowds.
More people are seeing policies and actions of the Israeli government for what they are and speaking out against them accordingly.
Trying to mask unacceptable outrageous behavior by shouting anti-Semite to everyone who complains about Israel no longer works.
You don't see the contradiction in your statement?
No, can you give me a hint?
Smaller businesses can't compete with Chinese state-sponsored companies.
This is exactly what farmers in many countries are saying about agricultural subsidies handed out by the US government.
The idea of government intervention to strategically bolster a specific sector for national self interest is an interesting one with lots of political views. I just don't see the relevance to the issue at hand.
If you are arguing allowing monopolies to flourish as a cheap way to counter foreign state subsidies industries... I would tend to disagree as a political policy matter given my belief that monopolies have a proven track record of promoting laziness and stifling innovation.
Apple is successful, but it doesn't have a monopoly position by far. Even in their strongest branch, phones and tablets, they don't even remotely hold half of the market.
They have a monopoly on software distribution for captive iThing users. Hopefully pending Apple v Pepper decision in the supreme court will bring some much needed sanity to this domain.
Russia and China would absolutely love if the US government shot their only remaining economic golden goose in the head in a fit of raging populism.
Russia is irrelevant economically so there is no point in even mentioning it.
The unfalsifiable China talking point is getting old. Either you believe capitalism and freedom produces better outcomes than dictatorships and socialism or you don't.
Allowing monopolies to run amok isn't capitalism. Without competition it's just a sign of market failure.
The CCP right now only wishes that it could get Americans using QQ for their searches, filtering every scrap of information through Beijing for monitoring and indexing. The government obliterating Google would be their pathway to do that.
Russia has the economy of Spain. What CCP thinks is irrelevant.
Collecting data from the web requires a massive infrastructure to do it right and it seems inevitable that most companies will narrow their focus here, prioritizing only the biggest websites, in order to save some cash.
The Internet archive has a budget of something on the order of $10 million/year and they retain a lot more data for a lot longer than would be useful for any search engine.
Organizing the raw data into something searchable is extremely complicated and technical; Google has spent a fortune building the technology to do this well and it is difficult for a smaller search engine to compete with them.
Was the Google of 10 years ago (Minus Wikipedia integration) any better at finding shit than the Google of today?
Page rank is old hat. The biggest drain on search engines these days is countering legions of opportunists seeking to dilute and exploit the index and its users for personal financial gain. Part of that is caused by Google's business model itself. Specifically the affiliate network system is a cesspool of fraud.
So if the US Government wanted to encourage competition in the search engine field, a straightforward approach would be to force Google to sell search data to 3rd parties who could then index it and display it as they will.
Again crawling the web is no big deal in the grand scheme of things. Lots of companies that are not Google are doing it for lots of different reasons. Figuring out what is most useful to human users is the challenge.
Internet neutrality is poorly understood by Washington, and there would be throngs of salivating international competitors for the void created if the US government handicaps their domestic tech industry.
The opposite is true. The point of competition is promoting a health industry. The US is only handicapping itself in the long run by failing to insist on a competitive market.
Seriously, that's her plan "break up the monopolies"... and give the market to the Chinese who have a vested interest in maintain control of the world's infrastructure and who have demonstrated the ability to exploit a totalitarian surveillance state? This is JV level retarded, not something that should be seriously endorsed by a reasonable statesman.
When giving advantage to Chinese is proffered as an excuse for a position safe bet the underlying argument is "JV level retarded".
Nothing is being given away to the Chinese or anyone else. Companies are simply being prevented from leveraging their positions.
Sure, programming is all about managing complexity, and it's possible to scale up to systems which can deal with extremely complex requirements of legacy customers and very old APIs and hardware and all that. But all of those considerations come with costs attached. Costs in time, money, resources of all kinds.
This is an unfalsifiable concept. Everything costs something. I hear these arguments all the time. They don't communicate any objectively useful information.
So where are these resources going to come from and how shall they be justified?
It provides value to users.
It is easy for customers, or users, or devs to sit back and demand a quality product that meets all our needs, that's delivered on time, that's well-supported, and doesn't cost US an arm and a leg, but those are all held in tension, and in the Real World, you simply can't have all four at the same time, so prepare to make some trade-offs and compromises.
Demanding isn't the issue. Delivering is. If you can't someone else will. As technology matures and dependencies skyrocket the appetite for customers tolerating change without commensurate provision of value will continue to trend down. Find a way to deal with it or someone else will.
Q: Why use lambdas? A: You give a name to something when it has proven important enough to give a name to.
This isn't a reason it's utter gibberish.
Lambda expressions are awesome and a long overdue language feature. That neither you nor the PP understand this means you have something new to learn. Go for it.
Lambda expressions are crack for undisciplined lazy coders.
Factually incorrect as every Win10 box comes with a decent AV installed and running by default. It is actually much harder to infect a Windows 10 system than a Windows 7 box.
AV has been around since the beginning of time. Microsoft's is far from the best and all only protect against known malicious software in its database.
Unless you are willing to lock the system to approved apps blessed by the king it's trivial for a human adversary to bypass.
Say what you like about their Fischer Price looking OS but they have come a very long way in the security department, especially on Enterprise versions with Credential Guard enabled.
Given neither myself nor any other normal user is even able to purchase Enterprise version even if we wanted to it isn't clear why this version matters?
Never understood this. Why would anyone intentionally give up the opportunity to compartmentalize code that for all they know might be nice to reuse later into a separate real function? Seems like the worst kind of tradeoff you could make coding any non-trivial system.
However, if the program is likely to be running a minute or more, than a well written Java program will most likely out perform a well written C program. Because in Java, the code parts that are executed intensely, will be compiled into native machine code optimized for that run time profile by the Just-in-Time Java compiler that is part of the JVM. The JIT can even in-line code that is at the end of a long pointer chain.
Where is this software? Does it exist in the real world or is this simply an abstract theory? Every Java program I've ever used has two things in common:
1. Poor performance relative to native version of substantially similar software. 2. Requires insane amounts of ram
Hell even popular Java native IDEs (e.g. Eclipse) are painfully slow to the point people with nice hardware are constantly whining about it.
For years I've been hearing these and similar claims. What I've yet to see is a real world software product written in Java at all competitive with native variant of substantially similar software. Do you know of any?
If Microsoft was smart they would make LTSC avaliable to the masses to replace their Windows 7 fleets. But Microsoft will probably let hundreds of millons of Windows 7 machines flounder and we will see more wannacrys instead.
Ransomware is installed by end users just as easily on Windows 10 as it is on Windows 7.
My personal view is asking the world to change their ways because you are too lazy to provide a proper mechanism for managing change is unacceptable.
The argument often peddled is of the unfalsifiable objective evidence challenged variety which asserts progress / improvement necessitates breakage or some sob story about how dealing with old crap slows down development or requires too many resources.
I don't share this view. Managing complexity is what programming is all about. Having a long term robust workable plan to manage change and maintain compatibility has ever increasing value in a world of growing user base, dependency trees and maturing technology.
If you have problems it's not because everyone else doesn't want to waste their time on unnecessary hoops it's because you failed fundamentally to design your systems to accommodate change.
It's ironic how the people who complain the most about any effort to examine or quantify the gender wage gap, are also the first to demand it gets fixed when men are on the losing end.
Nobody here was demanding anything get fixed. They are providing antidotal evidence to support premise underlying narrative is BULLSHIT based on occurrence of the reverse happening at Google.
Slashdot Mirror
Time for a Goodwin's Law 2.0: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of somebody blaming Islamic terrorists or Muslims in general approaches 1."
Airline safety is improving to the point where it will eventually be even odds whether Hanlon's razor prevails as a default guess in a commercial airliner disaster.
I'm rather confident the appropriate regulators will conduct an appropriate investigation and figure the problem out.
Like they figured out the problem with UA 811? One of the victims parents by themselves had to figure out the real problem because NTSB was too interested in protecting Boeing. NTSB only capitulated and forced to change the report to reflect reality after all plausible deniability was totally exhausted and exposed by one of the victims parents.
The only thing I'm confident in is the need to hold all feet to fire and not assume anyone will do their jobs properly.
In the mean time the actual risk is remarkably low and not worthy of panicking over. We don't know the details about what caused the Ethiopian crash so it's highly premature to declare this aircraft to be dangerous.
Love word games people play in face of absence of evidence in order to comport with predetermined narrative.
Only facts are relevant and people will respond accordingly to a new aircraft killing everyone on board twice in the span of a few months no matter how the issue is characterized or what clever statistical hat tricks are invoked on useless sample sizes.
Time for CSS to become a real programming language with variables and functions.
CSS is a domain specific language not a general purpose language.
Unless you're doing something truly weird, your CPU isn't spending much time at all on even heavy web browsing. Even the heaviest of web pages are not going to exceed a few % usage of your cpu. A lot of people around here seem to base a lot of their perceptions and priorities on what things were like 15 years ago.
Percentages might look low but typically it's because only a single thread of execution is being utilized. I routinely find myself in CPU limited territory when viewing large tables of data from browser.
My prediction in the not too distant future the use of credit cards for transactions will be greatly diminished. Instead people will use bank tied "push" payment systems for electronic payment without transaction fees.
Cash will still be widely used and smartphone based payment systems (Apple Pay, Samsung Pay, Google Pay, ad nausea) will be phased out entirely.
Or it's an effect of cost-cutting and automation demands. I work for an organization that's done a lot of manual vetting, fact-checking, reminders, warnings, follow-ups, massaging and approving of data.
Basically some people expect us to screen everything for junk and what comes out in the other end should be as complete and correct as reasonably possible.
Apparently HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars have been spent on the broadband map. This does not include any of the source data all of which is provided by third parties using a data exchange format of FCC's choosing.
Socialism at its root is the concept that no one should own anything personally, really. Business should be owned by - effectively - society at large, and rewards/benefits should be shared by all. Taxing accumulated wealth is another form of taxation. If you save and build up a nice nest egg, you don't get to keep it - you have to share it with others. Even though you paid taxes on all of it at the beginning.
Is it your assertion any taxation IS socialism? If not what differentiates a tax that is socialism from one that is not?
My income is taxed. I am taxed again when spending money I already paid taxes on purchase something. Is sales tax socialism?
Is paying property tax on value of physical property owned every year socialism?
When it penalizes success, and the person pushing the breakup demands a chunk of your savings - even after you've paid tax on the income to build that savings in the first place (her wealth tax).
What do your opinions about taxation have to do with socialism?
Don't be too successful or the Government will cut you down...
You got that right. Nothing sucks more on tax day than just making it to the next tax bracket.
How it is even possible for FCC to fail basic sanity checking of deployment data.
Given the number of small shops submitting data one would think FCC would be spending a significant amount of effort cross checking data.
Simply overlaying providers broadband subscription with deployment for certain fixed access technologies would have instantaneously keyed FCC on to a problem. Claims of total state wide FTTP deployment of all things would be absolutely trivial to spot.
Ah. Right. So you're one of the antisemitic left who won't admit that you're antisemitic and are hoping that code words will mask it.
US public support for Israel is an outlier in the world. A problem now starting to unwind itself in earnest. This is really pissing off pro Israel crowds.
More people are seeing policies and actions of the Israeli government for what they are and speaking out against them accordingly.
Trying to mask unacceptable outrageous behavior by shouting anti-Semite to everyone who complains about Israel no longer works.
You don't see the contradiction in your statement?
No, can you give me a hint?
Smaller businesses can't compete with Chinese state-sponsored companies.
This is exactly what farmers in many countries are saying about agricultural subsidies handed out by the US government.
The idea of government intervention to strategically bolster a specific sector for national self interest is an interesting one with lots of political views. I just don't see the relevance to the issue at hand.
If you are arguing allowing monopolies to flourish as a cheap way to counter foreign state subsidies industries ... I would tend to disagree as a political policy matter given my belief that monopolies have a proven track record of promoting laziness and stifling innovation.
Apple is successful, but it doesn't have a monopoly position by far. Even in their strongest branch, phones and tablets, they don't even remotely hold half of the market.
They have a monopoly on software distribution for captive iThing users. Hopefully pending Apple v Pepper decision in the supreme court will bring some much needed sanity to this domain.
Russia and China would absolutely love if the US government shot their only remaining economic golden goose in the head in a fit of raging populism.
Russia is irrelevant economically so there is no point in even mentioning it.
The unfalsifiable China talking point is getting old. Either you believe capitalism and freedom produces better outcomes than dictatorships and socialism or you don't.
Allowing monopolies to run amok isn't capitalism. Without competition it's just a sign of market failure.
The CCP right now only wishes that it could get Americans using QQ for their searches, filtering every scrap of information through Beijing for monitoring and indexing. The government obliterating Google would be their pathway to do that.
Russia has the economy of Spain. What CCP thinks is irrelevant.
Collecting data from the web requires a massive infrastructure to do it right and it seems inevitable that most companies will narrow their focus here, prioritizing only the biggest websites, in order to save some cash.
The Internet archive has a budget of something on the order of $10 million/year and they retain a lot more data for a lot longer than would be useful for any search engine.
Organizing the raw data into something searchable is extremely complicated and technical; Google has spent a fortune building the technology to do this well and it is difficult for a smaller search engine to compete with them.
Was the Google of 10 years ago (Minus Wikipedia integration) any better at finding shit than the Google of today?
Page rank is old hat. The biggest drain on search engines these days is countering legions of opportunists seeking to dilute and exploit the index and its users for personal financial gain. Part of that is caused by Google's business model itself. Specifically the affiliate network system is a cesspool of fraud.
So if the US Government wanted to encourage competition in the search engine field, a straightforward approach would be to force Google to sell search data to 3rd parties who could then index it and display it as they will.
Again crawling the web is no big deal in the grand scheme of things. Lots of companies that are not Google are doing it for lots of different reasons. Figuring out what is most useful to human users is the challenge.
Should be "Elizabeth Warren seeks to see relevant to any voters in 2020, tries to out-socialist all other candidates".
Since when did working to increase competition become socialism?
Internet neutrality is poorly understood by Washington, and there would be throngs of salivating international competitors for the void created if the US government handicaps their domestic tech industry.
The opposite is true. The point of competition is promoting a health industry. The US is only handicapping itself in the long run by failing to insist on a competitive market.
Seriously, that's her plan "break up the monopolies" ... and give the market to the Chinese who have a vested interest in maintain control of the world's infrastructure and who have demonstrated the ability to exploit a totalitarian surveillance state? This is JV level retarded, not something that should be seriously endorsed by a reasonable statesman.
When giving advantage to Chinese is proffered as an excuse for a position safe bet the underlying argument is "JV level retarded".
Nothing is being given away to the Chinese or anyone else. Companies are simply being prevented from leveraging their positions.
Sure, programming is all about managing complexity, and it's possible to scale up to systems which can deal with extremely complex requirements of legacy customers and very old APIs and hardware and all that. But all of those considerations come with costs attached. Costs in time, money, resources of all kinds.
This is an unfalsifiable concept. Everything costs something. I hear these arguments all the time. They don't communicate any objectively useful information.
So where are these resources going to come from and how shall they be justified?
It provides value to users.
It is easy for customers, or users, or devs to sit back and demand a quality product that meets all our needs, that's delivered on time, that's well-supported, and doesn't cost US an arm and a leg, but those are all held in tension, and in the Real World, you simply can't have all four at the same time, so prepare to make some trade-offs and compromises.
Demanding isn't the issue. Delivering is. If you can't someone else will. As technology matures and dependencies skyrocket the appetite for customers tolerating change without commensurate provision of value will continue to trend down. Find a way to deal with it or someone else will.
Q: Why use lambdas? A: You give a name to something when it has proven important enough to give a name to.
This isn't a reason it's utter gibberish.
Lambda expressions are awesome and a long overdue language feature.
That neither you nor the PP understand this means you have something new to learn. Go for it.
Lambda expressions are crack for undisciplined lazy coders.
Factually incorrect as every Win10 box comes with a decent AV installed and running by default. It is actually much harder to infect a Windows 10 system than a Windows 7 box.
AV has been around since the beginning of time. Microsoft's is far from the best and all only protect against known malicious software in its database.
Unless you are willing to lock the system to approved apps blessed by the king it's trivial for a human adversary to bypass.
Say what you like about their Fischer Price looking OS but they have come a very long way in the security department, especially on Enterprise versions with Credential Guard enabled.
Given neither myself nor any other normal user is even able to purchase Enterprise version even if we wanted to it isn't clear why this version matters?
I find lambda expressions infuriating.
Never understood this. Why would anyone intentionally give up the opportunity to compartmentalize code that for all they know might be nice to reuse later into a separate real function? Seems like the worst kind of tradeoff you could make coding any non-trivial system.
However, if the program is likely to be running a minute or more, than a well written Java program will most likely out perform a well written C program. Because in Java, the code parts that are executed intensely, will be compiled into native machine code optimized for that run time profile by the Just-in-Time Java compiler that is part of the JVM. The JIT can even in-line code that is at the end of a long pointer chain.
Where is this software? Does it exist in the real world or is this simply an abstract theory? Every Java program I've ever used has two things in common:
1. Poor performance relative to native version of substantially similar software.
2. Requires insane amounts of ram
Hell even popular Java native IDEs (e.g. Eclipse) are painfully slow to the point people with nice hardware are constantly whining about it.
For years I've been hearing these and similar claims. What I've yet to see is a real world software product written in Java at all competitive with native variant of substantially similar software. Do you know of any?
If Microsoft was smart they would make LTSC avaliable to the masses to replace their Windows 7 fleets. But Microsoft will probably let hundreds of millons of Windows 7 machines flounder and we will see more wannacrys instead.
Ransomware is installed by end users just as easily on Windows 10 as it is on Windows 7.
My personal view is asking the world to change their ways because you are too lazy to provide a proper mechanism for managing change is unacceptable.
The argument often peddled is of the unfalsifiable objective evidence challenged variety which asserts progress / improvement necessitates breakage or some sob story about how dealing with old crap slows down development or requires too many resources.
I don't share this view. Managing complexity is what programming is all about. Having a long term robust workable plan to manage change and maintain compatibility has ever increasing value in a world of growing user base, dependency trees and maturing technology.
If you have problems it's not because everyone else doesn't want to waste their time on unnecessary hoops it's because you failed fundamentally to design your systems to accommodate change.
It's ironic how the people who complain the most about any effort to examine or quantify the gender wage gap, are also the first to demand it gets fixed when men are on the losing end.
Nobody here was demanding anything get fixed. They are providing antidotal evidence to support premise underlying narrative is BULLSHIT based on occurrence of the reverse happening at Google.