Oh, that was Baaaad.
1978 posts • joined 24 Jun 2009
Re: "This will only take a second..."
I recently had a call from my father-in-law, wherein his girlfriend's wifi password had been changed. It seems that her "tech guy" (it might have been her son, I wasn't really paying attention) had set it up, including getting her phone on it, but some time later had been doing configuration, and now nothing could get on the wi-fi.
I told them to call her ISP for support, because I could guess at solutions, and have them poke at things until it either worked, or would never work again; but her ISP would (presumably) know the solution off-hand and if they needed a tech on-site, they would be a lot closer than 4 states away.
I actually got thanked for being helpful, because her tech guy would always tell "Don't call them, I'll fix it."
Facebook blames 'server config change' for 14-hour outage. Someone run that through the universal liar translator
Sure, we've got a problem but we don't really want to spend any money on the tech guy you're sending to fix it
Re: I'm not buying it
You wouldn't be subsidising a weapons system, the military
would will be subsidising your gaming system.
While £10k is a lot of consumer money, it isn't a drop in the bucket compared to military (especially US Military) spend. And money is not the whole of the investment: the army will test, develop extensions, and request features for the AR systems they use. These bug-fixes and features (or watered-down versions thereof) will make their way into consumer products, and the military will have paid for all of the R&D; lowering the price you, as a consumer, will end up paying.
Re: It's Just Pattern Recognition
My theory is that intelligence is pattern recognition. Well, pattern recognition and predictions, several layers deep.
We see a pattern and make a prediction based off of it, we then review the predictions for patterns, and predict our predictions, and note the patterns, and then we alter our future predictions to give a better pattern.
And then we see Jesus in a grilled cheese.
Re: Rich Tax Paradox
What I was proposing is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike what we currently have.
I specified turnover rather than profit so that those complicated structures to obfuscate profits would no longer apply; and I specified median (sort the numbers, and grab the one in the middle), as opposed to mean (add all and divide by the count), so that to shaft the low-end employees, they would need to add more high-paying jobs, not just give the fat cats a raise. I was tempted to suggest that it should be evaluated on the mode (most frequently occurring number), but that could be a later change, once they have figured out how to game the median system.
Re: Rich Tax Paradox
The 70% tax on the rich is fine with me. And up the corporate tax rate as well.Better yet, set the corporate tax rate as a function of turnover vs. median (not mean) employee salary. The lower the median salary compared to turnover, the higher the tax rate. If you want to lower your tax bill, pay your employees better.
If you want to shaft your employees, then prepare to get shafted by the Gov't.
You heard the latest Chinese CRISPRs? They are real: Renegade bio-boffin did genetically modify baby twins
Re: If you're white and male you'll never get it
@AC - I get what the point you are trying to make, but you are being overly pedantic (and this coming from a semi-rabid pedant), and abusing reductio ad absurdum to the point where you have created a strawman.
Yes, one definition of "discrimination" is "(a) Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another." But that is a separate definition from "(b) unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories". Arguing that a==b is what lands you in strawman category.
I'm tempted to compare your argument with equating 'wind' as in "wind the string around the spool" with 'wind' as in moving air; but then I would be guilty of the self-same false equivalency.
Man drives 6,000 miles to prove Uncle Sam's cellphone coverage maps are wrong – and, boy, did he manage it
And the locality would have to maintain it? Jeez Pai, why not just go all out and call it $1/year, and the local gov't would have to send the receipt with a note saying "Thank you Sir, may I have another."
I'm not sure how densely 5G masts can/should be packed, but a municipality would need about 400 cell sites to pay for one tech to maintain 'em (and the tech's boss); and that's only if the maintenance is exclusively remote admin (no hardware or travel costs). In places like NYC or San Francisco, they would need a lot more sites if they want the tech to live within an hour of the city.
FSM help us if their were a city-wide weather event (lightning/ice storm or hurricane), the city would be rolling out 6G before the poor schleb finished replacing the damaged 5G masts.
Re: Luddites = Non Sequitur
Speaking of non sequitur, you have you points E and F right next to each other. How can China be plotting a Technological Empire, without inventing or innovating?
I also feel the need to point out that Huawei is slightly ahead of other telecoms equipment providers as far as 5G stuff goes.
Dozens of .gov HTTPS certs expire, webpages offline, FBI on ice, IT security slows... Yup, it's day 20 of Trump's govt shutdown
Considering the Democrats did not take control of the House until January 2019, and the Shutdown started on 11 days prior, it would be wholly inappropriate to blame the shut-down on the Dems. Additionally, Trump has said - on National TV - that this is his shutdown.
So it must be Obama's fault.
Steamer closets, flying cars, robot boxers, smart-mock-cock ban hypocrisy – yes, it's the worst of CES this year
I took no offense at the "tea boy" comment, I simply didn't repeat it in reply. I even accept your use of "tea boy" to indicate mediocre code, they are still way ahead of HR Managers and Accountants who try to write their own "software".
You did not say "that great code is indistinguishable from mediocre code, until a situation where the mediocre code fails and the great code continues to work"; you said that there is no difference. I am pedantic, and whilst the former may have been what you meant, it is not what you said.
I count knowing what hardware you will be using (usually a given or derived requirement) and it's associated capabilities as a "known tolerance". EG: If you are writing embedded software, it will not tolerate using PHP.
Saying that software is not engineered is a bit like saying "we build bridges, we design bridges, but we sure as fuck don't engineer them." Now, one can slap a couple of planks across a stream and have a non-designed, non-engineered bridge, and one can copy pasta from Stack Overflow and create the equivalent software. Or one could research how much weight said bridge will have to carry, how long/wide the bridge must be, is it foot or vehicular traffic, etc and engineer a bridge with the requisite strength, give, and support.
I am not saying that all software is engineered, but you are saying that none of it is, and you are wrong.
Re: Great for this Engineer
Use your handle to replace "known tolerances" with "Given and derived requirements" and "known materials and techniques" with "appropriate languages and algorithms", and see that you're spouting bollocks. Per your argument about scale, I have seen instances where that scale was 1 user; you may as well be saying that if no-one finds a bug/vulnerability, than said bug/vuln doesn't exist.
Re: RE: Getting one over on the boss
The worst ones are where you are writing software to streamline some of the old processes, and show the initial design to be told "No, do it <stupid way> so it's more like our current procedure."
It's a requirement, so you do it their way, and when the application gets to User Acceptance Testing, ALL of the users make a comment like "Why did you do it that way, we don't do it that way. It would be better if it did it <originally designed way>."
A petard is a small breaching charge-named after the French word for flatulence.
One could be hoist by their own petard by getting blown up by their own bomb (see "Scoring an Own-Goal") or by having such an intense discharge of gases that they are raised on a malodorous cloud of their own making.
No not THAT kind of Office Wizard! Roll a diplomacy check to win the election: Vote tie resolved by a D20
Re: ...but may also run afoul of US laws forbidding cruel and unusual punishment
The trick here is that the Constitution prohibits "Cruel and Unusual Punishment". if It's done on a normal day-to-day basis (EG: several years waiting for execution, or loading up the charges so that a minor crime ends up with decades of prison time) then while it may be cruel, it is not also unusual.
This punishment, while unusual, is not particularly cruel; and should pass the sniff test.
Re: The boss owned up? Apologised, even?
A military leader doesn't want to find out that his / her people don't trust them at the time the bullets start flying all around the place..not because the troops may advance to the rear with haste, but because some of the bullets heading toward said office may originate from "friendly" weapons.
Not to mention that live grenades, minus their pins, make for lousy bedfellows.
Military troops can/will take a lot of grief, but if it gets to be too much, they tend to lodge their complaints ballistically.