I am not aware of an attempt to scientifically approach software engineering generally (though it seems like the type of thing that would have been tried). I have seen some pretty scientific approaches to performance and efficiency. What do you think should be done? Perhaps more peer review. Blinded testing of code complexity and development difficulty for different code systems?
It is interesting how long it has taken for forensics (even just some small aspects) to be approached in a scientific way. It is very disappointing when you consider how many people's lives and livelyhoods depend on forensics. I wonder what other systems depend on anecdotes and apprenticeships for expertise, that really ought to be approached scientifically.
RMS and Jobs seem very similar to me. Both were monomaniacal perfectionists. Both were undiplomatic and unwilling to compromise or cater to unbelievers.
Was that the ips display? IPS is used by graphic designers because it has higher contrast and better color fidelity (and viewing angle). Not sure about screen brightness though, and the response time is less.
Ah, thanks for pointing that out. The sale price is still is an important point that the article doesn't mention, and the discount was active when the article was published. Maybe I've gotten jaded, but when I see a 'limited time major discount' I don't think of the official pre sale price as being the actual price.
The problem with the article he quotes is that it is wrong about the price of the x220. The x220 with default specs on everything except the bluetooth, webcam, ips screen (much nicer than an air btw), 128 GB ssd, and most expensive wifi (includes wimax) is $1290.60 . The ars article claims $1999.
Hmm, in that case they seem to be making a reasonable move: remove to some extent the overhead of Conde Nast. If that's the primary motivation, then I am impressed that Conde Nast can recognize it's limitations, and give reddit a chance to grow outside of their oversight. That being said, my impression was that Conde Nast was remarkably hands off.
Another possible motivation for google suspending the app was that it abused the google plus invitation system. That probably isn't explicitly against the rules of the android market place, but it probably is against the rules or at least intention of google plus, and there has to be some protective bleed over from other google properties.
The actual fundraising bribe is a 6/5/4/3 day release schedule for $0/50000/750000/125000 SIAI donation challenge. Not holding chapters hostage or anything, as I was first afraid of.
200 times GNP? Unlikely. Jared Diamond's book by the same name? That's not very specific if you don't know the name of the book. Is it "Iceland’s ninth century agrarian collapse?" Also she uses million where she probably meant billion (the author is American and she addresses Americans, so American millions should be what she's using). Otherwise, if her facts are correct then it is a very interesting case. I'm particularly curious about the specifics of how they decided on the constitutional drafters.
The research determined that single photons could not move faster than the speed of light (sounds obvious, but quantum scale objects don't necessarily behave). This does not disprove time travel, just one hypothetical phenomena that could have led to time travel.
1GB over a few months? In text? That's ~500000 pages of text. I doubt that the reporters actually received that much email. There's probably something else draining space that they didn't realize (hence Gate's surprise).
>My answer to his challenge is: Yes, larger populations mean we have more of our greatest resource -- ourselves. Our creativity and ingenuity has developed solutions to our greatest problems, but we need true and accurate information so that we make better decisions and work toward a solution.
Exactly. Scientific and technological advancements help everyone (at least potentially) because you don't have to divvy up knowledge. Even better the rate of scientific advancement tends to increase with a larger existing knowledge base. Ultimately more population means (much) more advancement. That's the most exciting aspect of China and India's advancements in recent decades. To play amateur psychologist, I suspect that why this isn't immediately obvious to people like Dr. Bartlett is because they don't think in terms of scientific progress.
Requiring insurance is a significant negative. I have difficulty understanding what liability a competitor in an algorithm design contest could have. Shows how much the medical profession is handtied by excessive liability.
At least RapLeaf is open enough to show this chart. You can edit your data, and opt out. Far from a perfect system, but let's be practical: nearly every other advertising system is doing exactly the same thing, just without telling you what they have. Some sort of an open advertising cookie seems like a good idea to me. Something that people can customise so that they'll see advertisements somewhat interesting to them.
What's unethical? Depends quite a bit on your definition of ethics, even if ground rules like 'killing or hurting people is a bad thing' is agreed upon. The problem is one of balancing the risk and reward. The acceptable ratio varies from person to person, as well as the estimates for each. Collateral damage, for instance, is inevitable in war, and while such damage is clearly wrong, it isn't necessarily unethical. So saying that there is absolutely no justification to engage in unethical behavior is either trivially true, or false.
I happen to agree with your (I presume) belief that the suppressing the secrets in this case will have a higher cost than revealing them, but there is a reasonable argument to the contrary.
It's amazing to watch the increasing habitability of newly discovered extra-solar planets. Remember a few years ago when a super jovian was an exciting discovery? Sure it was an easy assumption: planets ought to be common, if our system had 9 (yes back before poor pluto was demoted). The spector of the anthropic principle was always there though. Now, to see the discoveries mount - as fast and earthlike as our instruments are capable? That's exciting. Hell, 20 light-years? That's not so far away from the planned orion interstellar trip.
I have heard the claim that the "hockey stick" is an artifact of bad methodology repeated a lot, but this is the first time I've seen the actual explanation. I am curious. I feel like the climate scientists who have been defending Mann and his claims probably have a response to this. It makes me more skeptical regardless.
There is a specific exception to this in the gpl. Actually I'm pretty sure he's even being too lax in his explanation of what gpl requires. If you distribute the theme (or any gpl connected code) you must make the source available, and anyone who gets the theme can also distribute it all they want.