2) They can communicate effectively and code to a common standard of thinking and style. Essentially you're finding common ground between all the brains involved. This tends to need to be a lowest common denominator, and the code doesn't come out nearly as fast and isn't nearly as clever, but at least it is maintainable.
I've recently read a book entitled, "The Wisdom of Crowds", which I found very enlightening (I recommend it quite highly) as it challenged my belief that "the lowest common denominator" results from group collaboration.
This turns out not to be the case in many situations. Groups are often able to collectively come up with solutions to problems that are far better (or more accurate if there is an exact answer) than the best individual in the group.
The key ingredient seems to be (as analysis of research suggests) information diversity (as you find in a group that does not get its knowledge from many different sources, and limits the sharing of knowledge to the extent that everyone doesn't end up with the exact same information), and proper aggregation of solutions from the members of the group (i.e. a vote, or some other method of aggregation).
It is important, apparently, to ensure that all members of the group have input into discussions and debates, that polarization is avoided, dissention is never discouraged, and that decisions not be made in advance of discussion by leaders of the group.
It seems to me that teams that have one or two great developers end up deferring to the judgement of the "great" ones, to such a degree that such group dynamics as described above are not able to operate.
In a scenario where developers feel as if they are on equal footing, at least from the point of view of having a valid opinion, they are more likely to be able to discuss and dissent among themselves, encouraging a greater diversity of information.
So, often the aggregation of all information, including wrong information mixed in with correct information - which often balances the solution, by cancelling out error - ends up superior to any other individual solution.
Good point! I did assume quantum communication was involved when it doesn't have to be.:-) And of course you're right about entanglement not requiring encryption.:-(
However, it still leaves the question of how one might jam quantum communication in my mind. Is it even possible?
I just had a thought - not sure how you would do this, but if you made devices just to "look at" transmissions that were quantum encrypted, could you prevent the message from ever being received by the intended recipient?
I know entanglement comes into play here, that is, the message doesn't actually have to travel, so you would have to target the devices that send and or receive the messages.
They are assuming that the enemy would not have quantum computing to perform the encryption/decryption, and that the US would.
This assumption implies that the only people that will be "allowed" to have quantum computers will be the non-terrorists - which means everyone else but the US government, since only "terrorists" would want to do something like encrypt messages that are 100% secure.
I think the biggest roadblock to quantum computing will be getting over this security hurdle, rather than any technological hurdles.
Although what your saying is true, the fact remains that TV doesn't look real. Our mental interpretation of the differences between real-world objects and people on screen and CG object and people on screen is filtered through our understanding of the difference between the screen and reality.
So, there is still plenty of room for improvement in contrast and luminosity, and even the color range on screen in general, until we can't tell the difference between on screen objects and real objects.
Excellent ... now I can maximize my potential ...
on
Generation Wrecked
·
· Score: 1
... while everyone else gives up.
This is just FUD and ignoring it and trying hard to make things work is a much better course of action.
I think Moby would know what tech-savvy is. He makes electronic music and remixes. The tools used to do that can be intimidating even for most techies. So, although he may not code, he knows how to use tools I sure don't know how to use. Just setting up a complex system, like he must have to make tracks, requires tech knowledge.
All of this FUD against OpenSource and Free Software that Microsoft is spewing only seems to be forcing countries to pick sides.
This is destructive to MS, because to making countries' leaders decide whether or not Open Source is "OK" will surely lead to what this type of people know best: legislation.
Since the argument against Open Source is pretty weak, it seems the leaders would choose Open Source as being a wise alternative, economically, educationally and in a host of other ways.
At the very least, no one likes to be bullied with scare tactics to choose one way over another. It breeds rebelliousness.
As long as Microsoft tries to push this angle, I expect more and more countries to offically sanction Open Source and unoffically (and perhaps officially) condemn Microsoft proprietary software.
You almost have it right as well. MCS is compiled by MINT, the Mono Interpreter: it is NOT self-compiling yet on Linux. REPEAT: MCS does NOT self-compile on Linux yet.
The post was wrong. MCS compiles on Linux, but does not compile itself on Linux. That's coming.
Re:.NET good, not evil
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 1
Even if C# was the only language you could use with.NET, it would still be an amazing framework. ASP.NET, ADO.NET and the class libraries are all very well thought out, incredibly intuitive, and full of functionality. It rocks. I wish people would get a little bit educated about the CLR, CTS and C# and help Mono out: If truth lives in you, you have to admit that the.NET Framework class libraries and runtime make programming easier and more fun, or you haven't looked at it.
Re:They've released the dev stuff.
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 1
Geez, they released Visual Studio.NET January 14th to MSDN Universal Subscribers, and the.NET Framework RTM on the same day, to everyone for free. The betas have been available since Nov. 2001, and a preview version since July 2001 for developers who went to the PDC. If Slashdot had of posted the bloody news everyone would have known that a long time ago.
You took your qoute from the Christianity.com article completely out of context in order to make it look foolish. The article itself is a valid and thought out arguement. Replace WindowsXP with Linux and Bill Gates with Linus Torvalds, and read it again - not just the single qoute, but the whole article.
Jesus spoke about the angels blowing the trumpet to call the saints, so Paul would know the teaching.
Tribulation is not about punishment, I agree. During the Tribulation the saints undergo the trial of their lives, but those who remain faithful go unharmed; aside from being killed by humans that is - they go unharmed by the plagues and judgements sent by God, etc.... Remember that dying isn't supposed to be a big deal for Christians.
I will also compare the Tribulation with the plagues in Egypt - the Israelites were THERE. They were only taking out AFTER the plagues. So your comparison is accurate for the Tribulation as well.
The idea that there is a pre-tribulation rapture is for scared Christians who don't want to believe that they may have to suffer. There are countless Christians suffering their own tribulation right now in places like Afganistan (remember the missionaries?) and all over the world. They suffer but is it punishment? No. They die for what they believe in, and the way they do it (non-violent, non-coercive, loving, trying to help people, is the important thing (not all are this way, and they are wrong, IMHO)).
I think that Matthew and Luke make it very clear when Jesus speaks about His return, that He meant that the only escape from tribulation (now, in your own personal life, and the Great Trib for mankind) is faith or death.
I used to read those Rapture books and then I read scripture and came to the conclusion that it's just "feel good" preaching. The hard truth is that life involves suffering.
The "twinkling of the eye" is taken out of context. Paul was talking about the transformation of a person's body into a heavenly body, and how it would happen instantly, not the coming of Jesus. Look it up, I can't remember the chapter and verse.
Also Jesus said, "like a thief in the night" when talking about how a person can never know for sure when they will die. Take a look.
That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that there is no "rapture", otherwise how could the Antichrist "wage war against the saints"??
The "rapture" idea is unsupported by scripture. The only place anything like it is mentioned, is by Paul when he says that Christ will come at the "last trumpet" and draw the saints to meet him in the air. If you look at the sequence of events in Matthew when Jesus speaks about coming, he talks about the destruction and tribulation before He returns.
In my mind, this makes the company that wants to implant these chips more terrifying than Bin Laden could ever be, or any and all terrorists ever known.
I would rather a 100 Bin Laden's than to have this become a law or to become anything close to the necessity of a credit card. Bin Laden can be stopped with bombs and guns, but how can you stop the governments of the world from taking away your life? Even if you tried to fight it, you could not win unless everyone everywhere fought back.
Essentially, if this became a law I would be declared a criminal for refusing or if it wasn't criminal, end up starving anyways as I couldn't buy anything.
I think people are seriously underestimating the kind of reaction that people will have against such a device. Governments would indeed have to force people to take these implantations.
This is a great idea for kids to learn about neural networks. It's simple enough that a child (and adult) can understand but complex enough to be challenging.
The best part is the ability to "rewire" the BIOBugs neural network. The process of trying to figure out why the toy responds to stimulae, or how to get it to respond another way would encourage children to learn about a science that doesn't get much attention right now.
If the toy sells well, we may have a generation of people who can produce new and useful neural networks, for AI and other purposes. Robot Wars will become very interesting!
I believe the licensing fee is something in the region of a million dollars per game. I'm sure they make more money off licensing the engine than on direct sales.
If that was true why would anyone ever want to get a license from iD? If iD's own game makes less money than the cost of the license fee, then how could another company make money off of licensing it? The chance of them selling more copies of their game than iD's are slim.
You don't have to use port 80 for SOAP requests. You can use other protocols, eg. FTP. You can make your own protocol if you like, and add whatever security you need.
Smart Tags do NOT insert content, they provide a popup menu that allows you to follow extra links related to the item selected. It's like XLink. The browser inserts the popup, and doesn't alter the content at all, besides underlining the words with a blue dashed underline. There is no copyright violation, because the work isn't being copyrighted or changed.
The browser is a tool to view a web page, and if the browser renders certain markup a certain way, the content makers may complain, but they can't tell the browser makers that it's a violation of copyright.
This is far less troublesome than that - it has nothing to do with rendering content other than the line, that users choose whether or not to enable.
Everyone is freaking out for no reason other than it's Microsoft. If anyone else was doing this, you would all think it was cool, and helpful.
Sorry, but you have to read the Smart Tag documentation before you make this kind of determination. In fact, even in the article Microsoft stated that you can indeed make up your own hyperlinks and recognizers to insert Smart Tags. Microsoft's would be only one option - the default for sure, but why not? They are making it possible, but other people can easily make up their own.
My brother died of Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy when he was 20 - 3 years ago. I know what he lived like. For most of his life, people not only treated him like a cripple, but talked to him as if he were mentally disabled.
One day, he said, "I am not disabled. The world disables me." And he is right. He was a brilliant student who not only struggled with Duchenne's but also with dyslexia. When he overcame his learning disability, he excelled in his education (everything but math, actually). He was a smart guy, but most people, who didn't get to know him, treated him as if his mind was as useless and frail as his body.
The point of all this is that Joel was two people. One was a disable person, who was treated a certain way by people who didn't understand his condition, as if he was not capable of offering anything of value to society - they disrespected him because of his disabilities. The other was Espy, and people respected him for his abilities, and understood that he offered value to the world.
I am not speaking for Espy, but I think he would be satisfied knowing that people care about him, and understood him for who he really was inside. The internet offered that opportunity to him, he took it, and excelled in a way he would never have been able to as Joel, in the "real" world.
I cannot say absolutely, but I think Espy is Joel's REAL name, for it represents his talents and abilities, and not his disabilities.
I didn't know Espy. I wish I had known him. But then, I wouldn't have known he had Duchenne's, and I would have treated him like everyone else. Just what my brother always wanted, and just what I think Espy wanted. Now his name will be honored as Joel "Espy" Klecker... where both aspects of him meet and tell the real story of who he was as a human being.
Just my 2 cents, and I apologize if people feelI am assuming too much about Espy's life.
Sorry, but this is completely wrong. Electrons are waves and particles like any other electromagnetic wave, including light, which is a wave and a particle. It makes no difference if it's an electron or electromagnetic wave (they are the SAME thing - it's called wave-particle duality, and I am pretty sure they teach that in grade 10 science class).
Slashdot Mirror
They are NOT "pumping cold water from the bottom to the top" - please RTFA and web site.
2) They can communicate effectively and code to a common standard of thinking and style. Essentially you're finding common ground between all the brains involved. This tends to need to be a lowest common denominator, and the code doesn't come out nearly as fast and isn't nearly as clever, but at least it is maintainable.
I've recently read a book entitled, "The Wisdom of Crowds", which I found very enlightening (I recommend it quite highly) as it challenged my belief that "the lowest common denominator" results from group collaboration. This turns out not to be the case in many situations. Groups are often able to collectively come up with solutions to problems that are far better (or more accurate if there is an exact answer) than the best individual in the group.
The key ingredient seems to be (as analysis of research suggests) information diversity (as you find in a group that does not get its knowledge from many different sources, and limits the sharing of knowledge to the extent that everyone doesn't end up with the exact same information), and proper aggregation of solutions from the members of the group (i.e. a vote, or some other method of aggregation).
It is important, apparently, to ensure that all members of the group have input into discussions and debates, that polarization is avoided, dissention is never discouraged, and that decisions not be made in advance of discussion by leaders of the group.
It seems to me that teams that have one or two great developers end up deferring to the judgement of the "great" ones, to such a degree that such group dynamics as described above are not able to operate.
In a scenario where developers feel as if they are on equal footing, at least from the point of view of having a valid opinion, they are more likely to be able to discuss and dissent among themselves, encouraging a greater diversity of information.
So, often the aggregation of all information, including wrong information mixed in with correct information - which often balances the solution, by cancelling out error - ends up superior to any other individual solution.
Good point! I did assume quantum communication was involved when it doesn't have to be. :-) And of course you're right about entanglement not requiring encryption. :-(
However, it still leaves the question of how one might jam quantum communication in my mind. Is it even possible?
I just had a thought - not sure how you would do this, but if you made devices just to "look at" transmissions that were quantum encrypted, could you prevent the message from ever being received by the intended recipient?
I know entanglement comes into play here, that is, the message doesn't actually have to travel, so you would have to target the devices that send and or receive the messages.
Any thoughts?
They are assuming that the enemy would not have quantum computing to perform the encryption/decryption, and that the US would.
This assumption implies that the only people that will be "allowed" to have quantum computers will be the non-terrorists - which means everyone else but the US government, since only "terrorists" would want to do something like encrypt messages that are 100% secure.
I think the biggest roadblock to quantum computing will be getting over this security hurdle, rather than any technological hurdles.
Although what your saying is true, the fact remains that TV doesn't look real. Our mental interpretation of the differences between real-world objects and people on screen and CG object and people on screen is filtered through our understanding of the difference between the screen and reality.
So, there is still plenty of room for improvement in contrast and luminosity, and even the color range on screen in general, until we can't tell the difference between on screen objects and real objects.
... while everyone else gives up.
This is just FUD and ignoring it and trying hard to make things work is a much better course of action.
Cool :)
I think Moby would know what tech-savvy is. He makes electronic music and remixes. The tools used to do that can be intimidating even for most techies. So, although he may not code, he knows how to use tools I sure don't know how to use. Just setting up a complex system, like he must have to make tracks, requires tech knowledge.
All of this FUD against OpenSource and Free Software that Microsoft is spewing only seems to be forcing countries to pick sides.
This is destructive to MS, because to making countries' leaders decide whether or not Open Source is "OK" will surely lead to what this type of people know best: legislation.Since the argument against Open Source is pretty weak, it seems the leaders would choose Open Source as being a wise alternative, economically, educationally and in a host of other ways.
At the very least, no one likes to be bullied with scare tactics to choose one way over another. It breeds rebelliousness.
As long as Microsoft tries to push this angle, I expect more and more countries to offically sanction Open Source and unoffically (and perhaps officially) condemn Microsoft proprietary software.
Just my two cents.You almost have it right as well. MCS is compiled by MINT, the Mono Interpreter: it is NOT self-compiling yet on Linux.
REPEAT: MCS does NOT self-compile on Linux yet.
The post was wrong. MCS compiles on Linux, but does not compile itself on Linux. That's coming.
Even if C# was the only language you could use with .NET, it would still be an amazing framework. ASP.NET, ADO.NET and the class libraries are all very well thought out, incredibly intuitive, and full of functionality. It rocks. I wish people would get a little bit educated about the CLR, CTS and C# and help Mono out: If truth lives in you, you have to admit that the .NET Framework class libraries and runtime make programming easier and more fun, or you haven't looked at it.
Geez, they released Visual Studio.NET January 14th to MSDN Universal Subscribers, and the .NET Framework RTM on the same day, to everyone for free. The betas have been available since Nov. 2001, and a preview version since July 2001 for developers who went to the PDC. If Slashdot had of posted the bloody news everyone would have known that a long time ago.
You took your qoute from the Christianity.com article completely out of context in order to make it look foolish. The article itself is a valid and thought out arguement. Replace WindowsXP with Linux and Bill Gates with Linus Torvalds, and read it again - not just the single qoute, but the whole article.
Jesus spoke about the angels blowing the trumpet to call the saints, so Paul would know the teaching.
.... Remember that dying isn't supposed to be a big deal for Christians.
Tribulation is not about punishment, I agree. During the Tribulation the saints undergo the trial of their lives, but those who remain faithful go unharmed; aside from being killed by humans that is - they go unharmed by the plagues and judgements sent by God, etc
I will also compare the Tribulation with the plagues in Egypt - the Israelites were THERE. They were only taking out AFTER the plagues. So your comparison is accurate for the Tribulation as well.
The idea that there is a pre-tribulation rapture is for scared Christians who don't want to believe that they may have to suffer. There are countless Christians suffering their own tribulation right now in places like Afganistan (remember the missionaries?) and all over the world. They suffer but is it punishment? No. They die for what they believe in, and the way they do it (non-violent, non-coercive, loving, trying to help people, is the important thing (not all are this way, and they are wrong, IMHO)).
I think that Matthew and Luke make it very clear when Jesus speaks about His return, that He meant that the only escape from tribulation (now, in your own personal life, and the Great Trib for mankind) is faith or death.
I used to read those Rapture books and then I read scripture and came to the conclusion that it's just "feel good" preaching. The hard truth is that life involves suffering.
The "twinkling of the eye" is taken out of context. Paul was talking about the transformation of a person's body into a heavenly body, and how it would happen instantly, not the coming of Jesus. Look it up, I can't remember the chapter and verse.
Also Jesus said, "like a thief in the night" when talking about how a person can never know for sure when they will die. Take a look.
That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that there is no "rapture", otherwise how could the Antichrist "wage war against the saints"??
The "rapture" idea is unsupported by scripture. The only place anything like it is mentioned, is by Paul when he says that Christ will come at the "last trumpet" and draw the saints to meet him in the air. If you look at the sequence of events in Matthew when Jesus speaks about coming, he talks about the destruction and tribulation before He returns.
In my mind, this makes the company that wants to implant these chips more terrifying than Bin Laden could ever be, or any and all terrorists ever known.
I would rather a 100 Bin Laden's than to have this become a law or to become anything close to the necessity of a credit card. Bin Laden can be stopped with bombs and guns, but how can you stop the governments of the world from taking away your life? Even if you tried to fight it, you could not win unless everyone everywhere fought back.
Essentially, if this became a law I would be declared a criminal for refusing or if it wasn't criminal, end up starving anyways as I couldn't buy anything.
I think people are seriously underestimating the kind of reaction that people will have against such a device. Governments would indeed have to force people to take these implantations.
This is a great idea for kids to learn about neural networks. It's simple enough that a child (and adult) can understand but complex enough to be challenging.
The best part is the ability to "rewire" the BIOBugs neural network. The process of trying to figure out why the toy responds to stimulae, or how to get it to respond another way would encourage children to learn about a science that doesn't get much attention right now.
If the toy sells well, we may have a generation of people who can produce new and useful neural networks, for AI and other purposes. Robot Wars will become very interesting!
I believe the licensing fee is something in the region of a million dollars per game. I'm sure they make more money off licensing the engine than on direct sales.
If that was true why would anyone ever want to get a license from iD? If iD's own game makes less money than the cost of the license fee, then how could another company make money off of licensing it? The chance of them selling more copies of their game than iD's are slim.
You don't have to use port 80 for SOAP requests. You can use other protocols, eg. FTP. You can make your own protocol if you like, and add whatever security you need.
Smart Tags do NOT insert content, they provide a popup menu that allows you to follow extra links related to the item selected. It's like XLink. The browser inserts the popup, and doesn't alter the content at all, besides underlining the words with a blue dashed underline. There is no copyright violation, because the work isn't being copyrighted or changed.
The browser is a tool to view a web page, and if the browser renders certain markup a certain way, the content makers may complain, but they can't tell the browser makers that it's a violation of copyright.
This is far less troublesome than that - it has nothing to do with rendering content other than the line, that users choose whether or not to enable.
Everyone is freaking out for no reason other than it's Microsoft. If anyone else was doing this, you would all think it was cool, and helpful.
Sorry, but you have to read the Smart Tag documentation before you make this kind of determination. In fact, even in the article Microsoft stated that you can indeed make up your own hyperlinks and recognizers to insert Smart Tags. Microsoft's would be only one option - the default for sure, but why not? They are making it possible, but other people can easily make up their own.
One day, he said, "I am not disabled. The world disables me." And he is right. He was a brilliant student who not only struggled with Duchenne's but also with dyslexia. When he overcame his learning disability, he excelled in his education (everything but math, actually). He was a smart guy, but most people, who didn't get to know him, treated him as if his mind was as useless and frail as his body.
The point of all this is that Joel was two people. One was a disable person, who was treated a certain way by people who didn't understand his condition, as if he was not capable of offering anything of value to society - they disrespected him because of his disabilities. The other was Espy, and people respected him for his abilities, and understood that he offered value to the world.
I am not speaking for Espy, but I think he would be satisfied knowing that people care about him, and understood him for who he really was inside. The internet offered that opportunity to him, he took it, and excelled in a way he would never have been able to as Joel, in the "real" world.
I cannot say absolutely, but I think Espy is Joel's REAL name, for it represents his talents and abilities, and not his disabilities.
I didn't know Espy. I wish I had known him. But then, I wouldn't have known he had Duchenne's, and I would have treated him like everyone else. Just what my brother always wanted, and just what I think Espy wanted. Now his name will be honored as Joel "Espy" Klecker ... where both aspects of him meet and tell the real story of who he was as a human being.
Just my 2 cents, and I apologize if people feelI am assuming too much about Espy's life.
Sorry, but this is completely wrong. Electrons are waves and particles like any other electromagnetic wave, including light, which is a wave and a particle. It makes no difference if it's an electron or electromagnetic wave (they are the SAME thing - it's called wave-particle duality, and I am pretty sure they teach that in grade 10 science class).