Why do you make this assumption? They may well be finding poor injured rats and repairing their spines to try and provide them with a better life. Would you prefer they simply leave these rats to undoubtedly die from their disability? And if it was some other "evil" scientist who did this to the rat, is it not good that this scientist came along to try and help the rat? Would you tar all scientists with the same brush? Clearly the scientist repairing the rats spine is a saint, and not the devil you make out! And if it was in fact the same scientist in both cases, should the scientist not try and help the rat that he (perhaps unwittingly) injured? Have you never done something that later you regret; lashed out and hurt someone you cared about? Would you judge this repentant man for attempting to right a previous wrong? Where you there? Did you feel his utter anguish at the wrong he committed? His exultant joy as the rat took it's first step from his painstaking work? No! You eat your vegetables and consider yourself superior! This man looked into the darkness of his soul and turned and made a difference! And yet you judge him! Where were you when the rats cried out for justice? Where were you when they laid out the baits?! Hypocrite! For shame I say, for shame!
What nonsense. I claimed that VR had the potential to correct for the limitations in current technology around "broadband" human interaction. Obviously more needs to be done in terms of capturing each persons 3d "image" to project into the VR space and so on. Why you find this offensive is beyond me. (And yes I didn't read the article, this is slashdot after all).
I'm not sure why I'm supposed to prove anything, I thought we were discussing ideas? Where I see the short term use case is in school of the air type environments. It's a long way off, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea. But as I alluded to, I think the commercial environment is where you might see this hit earlier. Games will drive the tech, but economies of scale could see some new and interesting applications.
The point of this, the entire point, is that VR provides the potential to create an immersive experience that will finally allow true broadband human interaction. Having worked in corporate space for many years trying to get cross site teams to function well, I can assure you that chat rooms, phones, even webcams and the like, do not cut it for human interaction. So much is lost in the subtle body language, the eyes, the stance, the arms folded. VR could change all that. If I can finally see you properly, look you in the eye, share a virtual whiteboard, then it will truly no longer matter if we are in the same office. Or classroom.
And why not? This Notch fella sounds like he's just been holding things back.. "No VR because Oculus sold out!" "What's that mega-corp? 2 Billion?". Owned by Microsoft might see rational rather than ego-centric decision making.
Well, if all factors are equal it doesn't vary, otherwise every run on the same machine would vary and it would be useless. The point is that there enough differing variables between machines that it becomes useful for finger printing (and also for identifying specific hardware/driver/os/browser signatures). It would be used in conjunction with other techniques in practise I am sure.
Different drivers, OS's, web browsers, GPU's etc all have slight effects when asked to render something onto the canvas. The trick is that the raw resultant bits can then be captured trivially using getImageData() and then sent back to the tracker site (after hashing or what have you to reduce the size). It'll render the same way every time on your machine, but will differ to someone else's. (Showing my age here), kind of like how you could easily see the difference between the old Voodoo and TNT2 graphics card by how they rendered.
This is a good point. If we ever get to the point of being able to efficiently convert matter into energy with negligible loses, then science fiction becomes far more believable. The "scarcity" of resources equation hard wired into our biology would be irrelevant. The physics is simple, but the engineering is a real bugger.
Don't be put off by the "C++" in the title. Most of the concepts are applicable to any language. It's about the engineering behind large scale software development.
If every university simply taught this book, software development would be called software engineering. Written in 1996, and still we have not learned the lessons.
Flawed.
Wordy.
Partially out of date.
And yet, if you understand and apply the concepts in this book, you will design applications and systems of the standard that everyone actually expects software to be at (rather than where it is).
To be fair, you basically set this kid up for failure. What you describe is a significant engineering challenge, and you gave it to a computer science graduate, with no experience. If you gave this to someone with 10 years under their belt, I'm sure they could create a lovely maintainable package; but as it is, you should start over. You may as well have asked him/her to design the Golden Gate Bridge. Computer science does not teach engineering, there is no way this kid could have had the necessary skills.
The whole point of this, the whole point, is to make specialized idiot-proof diagnostic tools. Did you watch the Ted talk? It's short and informative. If you see the vid, you'll see that many of these places have a fancy microscope already that no one can use. With this thing they can create a specialized single use malaria detector for example. Very little training is required to insert slide, look at image, malaria? Yes/No. That's the point of this, that's what they are trying to achieve. It's a good idea, and it could transform diagnosis in the third world.
It seems to me that you delight in being wrong. Australian aboriginals worked, on average, 6 hours per day. Australian history is quite recent, this statement is not in dispute. I'm not trying to suggest that this was the case for any other hunter-gatherer society (I'm quite ignorant outside of this area), but the idea that Australian aboriginals had a relatively easy life is neither minority view nor controversial.
On the "life span" topic, you seem to indicate that people are uniformly dropping off in their 30's, which was simply not the case. You were quite likely to die in childhood (particularly infancy), but if you got through that, quite likely to creek on past 50. Why present this as if people are dying in their 30's, ground down by poor diet and harsh conditions? Simple nonsense.
More ignorance. Life spans were not in the "low 30's" for indigenous or Europeans. Average life expectancy was predominantly impacted by infant mortality rates. Once out of childhood, you could reasonably expect to hit late 50's or 60 odd. Leisure time is again something you are simply wrong about. From all evidence, including first person accounts from early explorers; life was easy. In fact, there is a reasonable argument to be made that this is why such little advancement was made over 40000 years. If life is easy and food is plentiful, why do anything different? But continue on, I'm interested in what other sweeping statements you will make inspite of all evidence to the contrary.
How and when people died in pre-contact populations is pretty well established, and we can determine it from skeletons.
Ignoring your ridiculous attempts to paint me with various motivations or political leanings, this is about the only comment you have made that is not completely wrong. If you can be bothered to find the studies, you'll find that the life expectancy and general health of Australian aboriginals prior to colonization was better than that of the average European at the time. But never let bothersome facts get in the way of good uninformed diatribe.
Your response is uninformed nonsense. Yes Aboriginals today have a shorter and rougher life on aggregate, but this was simply not the case prior to colonization. Go read a little history before you spout such drivel.
Under ideal conditions that is true: a stable habitat with abundant resources and low population densities. But under such conditions, populations grow and people get pushed out into more and more marginal habitats.
Not true! Or at least, not universally true. Take the Australian Aboriginals as example; nice stable culture for 30000 years. Practised birth control via a combination of penile splitting and other methods I'll allow you to look up. The point is that humans have long understood how increased population causes problems; and have sometimes found ways around the issue.
... why are mission critical devices connected to the internet
sure we know that the weakest link is the meatware, not the hardware, but still...
They aren't, at least, not directly. They are however generally connected at various points to the "business" network which is connected to the Internet (people gotta email). The literal air gap is largely fiction. The business network is hacked, then some vulnerability exploited in the bridge points or routers (it's a network of networks!). Why connect the SCADA to the business network at all? To get the data out to do reports, send email alarms etc. in theory this data exporting should be secure.
Problem is that who is hacking your SCADA system? It's not the usual suspects; there is no money in it and the barrier of entry is too high for the script kiddies. It's other countries wanting to perform espionage. How the hell do you protect against that? Look at stuxnet, I mean really look at how that took down the centrifuges. Governments have resources that the average hacking group simply doesn't (or SCADA group). They also have no reason to reveal a compromised system. There could be sleeper, targeted, custom malware sitting on every SCADA server in the US, just waiting for the a time where it will be useful to activate. It's a brave new world!
Linux is small. And it's just source code. Storing binaries happens a lot for a lot of reasons. You might have binaries for a third party library, you might have various art assets, compiled CHM files for help, installers for dependencies, etc etc. Git was designed for a particular problem space, in which binaries were not considered a big issue. Other groups have different requirements.
Slashdot Mirror
They severed the spinal cord of a rat?
Why do you make this assumption? They may well be finding poor injured rats and repairing their spines to try and provide them with a better life. Would you prefer they simply leave these rats to undoubtedly die from their disability? And if it was some other "evil" scientist who did this to the rat, is it not good that this scientist came along to try and help the rat? Would you tar all scientists with the same brush? Clearly the scientist repairing the rats spine is a saint, and not the devil you make out! And if it was in fact the same scientist in both cases, should the scientist not try and help the rat that he (perhaps unwittingly) injured? Have you never done something that later you regret; lashed out and hurt someone you cared about? Would you judge this repentant man for attempting to right a previous wrong? Where you there? Did you feel his utter anguish at the wrong he committed? His exultant joy as the rat took it's first step from his painstaking work? No! You eat your vegetables and consider yourself superior! This man looked into the darkness of his soul and turned and made a difference! And yet you judge him! Where were you when the rats cried out for justice? Where were you when they laid out the baits?! Hypocrite! For shame I say, for shame!
You need to look up how Kant is actually pronounced. And you should listen to this Kant.
I would get all huffy about your post except for the fact that your username is the most awesome in the world. Carry on brave squid lips, carry on!
What nonsense. I claimed that VR had the potential to correct for the limitations in current technology around "broadband" human interaction. Obviously more needs to be done in terms of capturing each persons 3d "image" to project into the VR space and so on. Why you find this offensive is beyond me. (And yes I didn't read the article, this is slashdot after all).
I'm not sure why I'm supposed to prove anything, I thought we were discussing ideas? Where I see the short term use case is in school of the air type environments. It's a long way off, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea. But as I alluded to, I think the commercial environment is where you might see this hit earlier. Games will drive the tech, but economies of scale could see some new and interesting applications.
The point of this, the entire point, is that VR provides the potential to create an immersive experience that will finally allow true broadband human interaction. Having worked in corporate space for many years trying to get cross site teams to function well, I can assure you that chat rooms, phones, even webcams and the like, do not cut it for human interaction. So much is lost in the subtle body language, the eyes, the stance, the arms folded. VR could change all that. If I can finally see you properly, look you in the eye, share a virtual whiteboard, then it will truly no longer matter if we are in the same office. Or classroom.
And why not? This Notch fella sounds like he's just been holding things back.. "No VR because Oculus sold out!" "What's that mega-corp? 2 Billion?". Owned by Microsoft might see rational rather than ego-centric decision making.
Well, if all factors are equal it doesn't vary, otherwise every run on the same machine would vary and it would be useless. The point is that there enough differing variables between machines that it becomes useful for finger printing (and also for identifying specific hardware/driver/os/browser signatures). It would be used in conjunction with other techniques in practise I am sure.
Different drivers, OS's, web browsers, GPU's etc all have slight effects when asked to render something onto the canvas. The trick is that the raw resultant bits can then be captured trivially using getImageData() and then sent back to the tracker site (after hashing or what have you to reduce the size). It'll render the same way every time on your machine, but will differ to someone else's. (Showing my age here), kind of like how you could easily see the difference between the old Voodoo and TNT2 graphics card by how they rendered.
An insightful post, I'd love to hear if you had an ideas on how the system could be improved?
Please mod this up and GP down. +5 Ignorant.
This is a good point. If we ever get to the point of being able to efficiently convert matter into energy with negligible loses, then science fiction becomes far more believable. The "scarcity" of resources equation hard wired into our biology would be irrelevant. The physics is simple, but the engineering is a real bugger.
Don't be put off by the "C++" in the title. Most of the concepts are applicable to any language. It's about the engineering behind large scale software development.
If every university simply taught this book, software development would be called software engineering. Written in 1996, and still we have not learned the lessons. Flawed. Wordy. Partially out of date. And yet, if you understand and apply the concepts in this book, you will design applications and systems of the standard that everyone actually expects software to be at (rather than where it is).
To be fair, you basically set this kid up for failure. What you describe is a significant engineering challenge, and you gave it to a computer science graduate, with no experience. If you gave this to someone with 10 years under their belt, I'm sure they could create a lovely maintainable package; but as it is, you should start over. You may as well have asked him/her to design the Golden Gate Bridge. Computer science does not teach engineering, there is no way this kid could have had the necessary skills.
Mod parent up!
The whole point of this, the whole point, is to make specialized idiot-proof diagnostic tools. Did you watch the Ted talk? It's short and informative. If you see the vid, you'll see that many of these places have a fancy microscope already that no one can use. With this thing they can create a specialized single use malaria detector for example. Very little training is required to insert slide, look at image, malaria? Yes/No. That's the point of this, that's what they are trying to achieve. It's a good idea, and it could transform diagnosis in the third world.
It seems to me that you delight in being wrong. Australian aboriginals worked, on average, 6 hours per day. Australian history is quite recent, this statement is not in dispute. I'm not trying to suggest that this was the case for any other hunter-gatherer society (I'm quite ignorant outside of this area), but the idea that Australian aboriginals had a relatively easy life is neither minority view nor controversial.
On the "life span" topic, you seem to indicate that people are uniformly dropping off in their 30's, which was simply not the case. You were quite likely to die in childhood (particularly infancy), but if you got through that, quite likely to creek on past 50. Why present this as if people are dying in their 30's, ground down by poor diet and harsh conditions? Simple nonsense.
More ignorance. Life spans were not in the "low 30's" for indigenous or Europeans. Average life expectancy was predominantly impacted by infant mortality rates. Once out of childhood, you could reasonably expect to hit late 50's or 60 odd. Leisure time is again something you are simply wrong about. From all evidence, including first person accounts from early explorers; life was easy. In fact, there is a reasonable argument to be made that this is why such little advancement was made over 40000 years. If life is easy and food is plentiful, why do anything different? But continue on, I'm interested in what other sweeping statements you will make inspite of all evidence to the contrary.
How and when people died in pre-contact populations is pretty well established, and we can determine it from skeletons.
Ignoring your ridiculous attempts to paint me with various motivations or political leanings, this is about the only comment you have made that is not completely wrong. If you can be bothered to find the studies, you'll find that the life expectancy and general health of Australian aboriginals prior to colonization was better than that of the average European at the time. But never let bothersome facts get in the way of good uninformed diatribe.
Your response is uninformed nonsense. Yes Aboriginals today have a shorter and rougher life on aggregate, but this was simply not the case prior to colonization. Go read a little history before you spout such drivel.
Under ideal conditions that is true: a stable habitat with abundant resources and low population densities. But under such conditions, populations grow and people get pushed out into more and more marginal habitats.
Not true! Or at least, not universally true. Take the Australian Aboriginals as example; nice stable culture for 30000 years. Practised birth control via a combination of penile splitting and other methods I'll allow you to look up. The point is that humans have long understood how increased population causes problems; and have sometimes found ways around the issue.
Ants are actually incredibly clean. Your bench will be slightly cleaner after an ant has walked across it. Use a better analogy, and love your ants!
... why are mission critical devices connected to the internet
sure we know that the weakest link is the meatware, not the hardware, but still...
They aren't, at least, not directly. They are however generally connected at various points to the "business" network which is connected to the Internet (people gotta email). The literal air gap is largely fiction. The business network is hacked, then some vulnerability exploited in the bridge points or routers (it's a network of networks!). Why connect the SCADA to the business network at all? To get the data out to do reports, send email alarms etc. in theory this data exporting should be secure. Problem is that who is hacking your SCADA system? It's not the usual suspects; there is no money in it and the barrier of entry is too high for the script kiddies. It's other countries wanting to perform espionage. How the hell do you protect against that? Look at stuxnet, I mean really look at how that took down the centrifuges. Governments have resources that the average hacking group simply doesn't (or SCADA group). They also have no reason to reveal a compromised system. There could be sleeper, targeted, custom malware sitting on every SCADA server in the US, just waiting for the a time where it will be useful to activate. It's a brave new world!
Linux is small. And it's just source code. Storing binaries happens a lot for a lot of reasons. You might have binaries for a third party library, you might have various art assets, compiled CHM files for help, installers for dependencies, etc etc. Git was designed for a particular problem space, in which binaries were not considered a big issue. Other groups have different requirements.