When comparing modern mortality improvement over the older pre-industrial, pre-modern-medicine regimes, the "most helpful" reductions vary with the age group you're dealing with:

• INFANT (i.e. under 2 years of age) mortality reductions are overwhelmingly due to two things: (1) improvements in reducing childbirth deaths and complications (2) infant vaccinations. Sanitation (but not necessarily clean water) has helped somewhat, but not anywhere near as much as getting the kid out of the mother in good shape, and effective pre- and post-natal care. Vaccines (even though most aren't fully protected until after 2 years of age) have nonetheless stopped cold the huge killers of infants: measles, smallpox, pertussis, etc.
• CHILDHOOD (2-12) mortality reductions are pretty much split between vaccinations and improved clean water/sanitation, maybe with the latter edging out for bigger impact (probably due mostly to reducing malaria, cholera and typhus).
• TEENAGE (13-18) mortality reductions are due to a combination of vaccines (TB, smallpox, polio, and measles being a big here), clean water/sanitation, and trauma medicine.
• ADULT (18-65) reductions are mostly clean water/sanitation, with trauma medicine following up behind. Vaccinations aren't a huge contributor here, since the vast majority of folks died of the major vaccinated diseases before they got to be adults, and thus, a much smaller percentage of people were saved.
• ELDERLY (65+) mortality reductions are heavily improvements in drugs and chronic illness treatments (think cancer and heart disease).

Overall, clean water and sanitation probably win as the single most important advancement in public health, ever, but vaccines are a *very* strong second. Frankly, drugs are at best a distant fourth, behind even improved medical understanding of the human body (enabling more effective trauma and non-drug treatments of common diseases and accidents). Drug improvements really have helped two big categories of people: soldiers at war, and the elderly.

-Erik

That statement from Apple doesn't even pass the laugh test, let alone a sniff test.

I live and work in Silicon Valley, and have a substantial number of friends and former co-workers that either are, or have recently, worked for Apple.

They're collecting data on you. Lots of it. And their "opt out" ways are about as effective as Google's at protecting your data.

iTunes play patterns, and purchase history. Apple Maps. Location data around phone usage. Location usage, period. Apple Store purchase patterns. Every time you visit an Apple Store. Purchase data from the on-line Apple App Store. The list goes on and on.\

Some of it anonymized, but most of it really isn't. Even if you "opt out", there's more than enough metadata being collected to identify you.

So, yeah, Apple's just lying through it's teeth.

Large corporate environments chance at a glacial speed. If anything, they merely add, never subtract - the proportion of Fortune 1000 companies which have mission-critical mainframes is close to 100%, as it has been for the past 50 years. Similarly, pretty much all of them still have a VAX or AS/400 similar mini-computer running something critical. The waves of consultant-pushed fads wash over these institutions with virtually no effect. They all run small "incubator" tech-evalutation groups so they can sort out which of the new tech is likely to produce useful ROI, but the actual adoption rates of these new techs is very slow.

Mid-sized companies are pretty similar, though they're a bit more aggressive with dumping older technology. They don't generally replace it with cutting edge stuff, though, since that's a huge risk they don't want to take. Pretty much every "tech upgrade" I've ever seen in this space is replacing a 30-year-old setup with a design which first showed up a decade before. Mid-sized companies go for solidly-proven tech.

Little companies are where the most change happens, for the good and bad. The bad side is that many small companies don't have the expertise to handle the adoption of new processes and tech properly, and thus screw it all up, and then kill the company. I've seen this happen at both small tech AND non-tech companies, where an insufficiently funded/staffed/knowledgable IT "department" killed the company. Literally. The good is that small companies are where the experimentation happens, and, particularly in tech-oriented ones, it's where the next wave of computing is really prototyped then refined.

The general answer to the article is that any sane company's IT department will look 90% identical to what it is now in 10 years, and even in 50 years will almost certainly still be at least 50% identical. For those able to handle the risk, things will chance on a decade-by-decade basis; but, the reality is, those companies will either have died or turned into mature (and risk adverse) companies by then. So, while the small company space is a place of rapid change in IT, at a specific company, a period of rapid evolution will be followed either by death of the company, or evolution to the long-term stability type.

The short of it is: NEVER trust a consultant trying to predict the future for you. Particularly if they're extrapolating on "new" tech.

The short answer to your question is: YES, no matter what subfield of computing you go into (Networking, Systems, Software Engineering, QA, Release, or Project Management) you'll need advanced Maths. Which advanced maths depend on the specific subfield. But the reality is, you're far better off knowing most of the stuff that a 2nd-year Math major has to take.

If you're a Software Engineer (and, to a lesser extent, QA), you'll likely need the Maths which help you describe real-world actions or model real-world happenings. This means Geometry, Trig, Calc, plus Maths common in Physics, plus application-specific stuff, like various Linear Algebra, Complexity, Markov Modeling, Game Theory, etc. Basically, Software Engineering has the biggest demand on Math knowledge, but it varies according to the type of project you're on.

Networking and Systems depend heavily on the Linear Algebra and Discrete Math fields, particularly Set Theory, Game Theory, Complexity/Computability, and Graph Theory. Most of this is not writing down equations, but having an intuitive understanding of the problem being presented because you've had the requisite background. For instance - modeling network traffic flow and determining system load both require Graph Theory and Complexity, but it wouldn't be immediately obvious to the outsider.

Release and Project Management are less Math-intentive, but it's still important to have college-level Maths as a strong foundation. Complexity/Computability, Linear Algebra, and, particularly, Statistics, Graph and Game Theory are cornerstones of these fields.

The reality is that Math is a significant part of any Computer Science degree, and is critical in daily professional use. Outside specific programming positions (e.g. those involved in modeling of some kind), it's not the same use as a Civil Engineer or the like would be using Maths. But you have to be comfortable thinking about Maths, and you need to have significant educational background to be successful.

Personally, beyond Geometry and Trig, I'd think that you'll have to take about 6 semesters of some sort of Math in a reasonably rigorous CompSci program. You'll probably only use 3 of those courses on a regular basis, but you'll never know WHICH 3 you'll be using at, so you need all of them.

If you find Math difficult, tedious, or boring, you need to seriously rethink a CompSci degree (and, by extension, a career in something normally requiring a CompSci degree). Or you need to talk with your Maths professors/teachers, and figure out why you have difficulty or are bored during Math classes. Either way, it's a required skill for the profession.

...I've got a bridge somewhere that needs to be sold that you might be interested in.

Bitcoin does irrefutability (i.e. the ability to prove that a transaction occurred, and occurred only once). I can thus prove that I do, in fact, own all Bitcoin I possess.

It never has been anonymous. There are characteristics that make it more difficult to trace the payer, but the protocol and implementation have never been configured (or designed) to be a strongly anonymous technology.

You (and the +5 poster a thread or two up) misunderstand "transformative" use.

The proper analogy to video gameplay has already been decided on by the courts, and it is written plays (which, also applies to screenwriting).

All three take another work, and produce an interpretation of that work. The original playwright/screenwriter/videogame author still is the owner of the base copyright being used, and the work is classified as a Derivative Work. The performer has also contributed significant copyrightable-product, but the genesis and base of the entire (new) work still rests on the original play/screenplay/game.

Also, just because something is "transformative" doesn't absolve it of the requirements to be of "limited" domain. Using the entirety of a video game (artwork included) in your new LP video is pretty much the definition of "not limited".

I've looked at a couple of those videos, and the amount of content which is copyrightable Nintendo (or whomever the on-screen game author is) is WAAAAAY beyond anything allowable for Fair Use or similar exception.

I'm certainly not in favor of Nintendo or the like suing these folks for copyright infringement. The "unique performance" issue is certainly one which can be discussed, but I liken this to plays - sure, the individual performance of a play is unique, but since you didn't write the script, you can't expect to be profiting from the performance without the author's permission.

Thus, I can't see why the authors of these videos are complaining that Nintendo gets the ad revenue. I think that's an entirely reasonable compromise - Nintendo essentially implicitly licenses the video authors to show those derivative-work videos, in return for the publicity and the ad revenue.

Nintendo, of course, could be much less tone-deaf about saying the preceding, of course.

But, in the end, those videos are derivative-works under copyright law, and they can't be shown without some sort of license.

MoveOn.org isn't solely a 503(c).4 organization. They're very explicitly split into two branches: the main site, which engages in all the permissible organizational and democratic (small 'd') stuff, and the MoveOn PAC, which explicitly is a registered PAC and does promote candidates and specific issues. Their books are separate, and open, and the sections of the web site where PAC vs 503 stuff goes on is clearly demarked. Donations are also clearly marked as to whether you're giving to the PAC or the 503.

The problem with many of the newer 503(c).4 organizations is that they:

(a) don't file the appropriate paperwork, so it's hard to see if they're complying with the reporting and transparency requirements

(b) Engage in activities that are, at best, grey advocacy, and at worst, outright political support of individuals and issues.

I do agree that we need more auditing, and that the selection of who to target was wrong. But that doesn't mean there isn't a serious problem on the Right around this, particularly since there's been a whole lot more money poured into Right Wing 503(c).4 orgs in the past 4 years, and also because the vast majority of these organizations seem to be very heavily politicized, and much less socially-oriented.

FYI - laws say it's fine for a 503(c).4 to advocate certain general positions (i.e. "Clean Water", "Less Coal, more Wind", and do what used to be called "Community Organizing"), so long as they did not promote specific candidates or parties or legislation/initiatives. The problem has been that may 503(c).4 orgs aren't obeying those restrictions. That is, you see a lot of Left-Wing 503(c) doing general voter registration and promoting Big Causes. Recent Right Wing stuff has heavily been oriented around "Defeat taxation" and "Stop Immigration" and the like, which leads (or is intended) to be mostly legislative lobbying, which is NOT OK for a 503(c).4

First off, I do think it was politically motivated, at least in the extent that someone decided to do something that would be looked favorably on the higher-ups. That's not OK, and people should get fired for it.

However, do note that what they are discussing here is auditing 503(c).4 organizations, to make sure they were complying with the regulations.

That is, these organizations are supposed to be engaging in NON-POLITICAL activities, for which we give them the benefit of being non-profit (and, making donations to them tax deductible).

There's been an explosion of 503(c).4 organizations over the past 4 years (after the Citizen's United decision), and a large number of them have been funded from "right-wing" sources. These organizations have been very lax about filing the proper paperwork about their donors, and in fact, have been downright secretive. And many of them are engaging in activities that very much skirt the line (if not cross it entirely) of political advocacy. The quantity of money (and number of organizations) engaged in this kind of shadowy advocacy/political support is very seriously tilted towards right-wing sources.

The fact is this: if you want to engage in political activity, then fine. Government can and should not have any say about your content. But if you want to get tax-free benefits, then there's a certain set of rules that you MUST play by, and claiming that this is suppressing Free Speech because we won't give you the benefit while you violate the rules is sophistry.

All 503(c).4 organizations need more scrutiny. I'm pretty sure that the IRS was engaging in the equivalent of racial profiling here, with the added notion of pleasing some political higher-ups. But at the end of the day, if those 503(c).4 organizations were breaking the law, then it's hard to say the IRS wasn't doing it's job by auditing them.

OK, first off, tracking such objects is a useful exercise, for many reasons, not just for the OMG, WE'RE GONNA GET HIT, crowd.

Unfortunately, it's practically useless for the purpose it's being touted for. That is, to give short notice warning of an impending impact.

Firstly, given the design criteria, we're looking at 48 hours notice, maximum, before an impact. Note that at the outer edge of this prediction envelope, it's a predicted impact - that is, one with a significant change of impact, but not a certainty of one. Now, hopefully, people would take this as seriously as we now do Tsunami Warnings. But think about it one more step:

Secondly, the impact area simply can't be computed until relatively shortly before impact. That is, if we detect the incoming meteor 48 hours ahead of time, it will take a couple of hours to compute a rough impact zone (meaning, just which part of the GLOBE it will hit), and likely you won't have a decent small error probability zone (meaning, something less than 100 miles across) until 12 hours or less before impact.

Does anyone think that a 12 hour warning of an impact can have any actual damage mitigation effect? Sure, if the area being hit has (a) a relatively low population, AND (b) a very good transportation system. But virtually all places on the Earth fail at one of those. There's simply no way to effectively evacuate even a mid-size city in time, and it's not like you can put everyone into blast shelters like the old Nuclear War scenarios wanted us to do.

So, spend the money on ATLAS, and get ourselves some great astrometric data for future use. It just won't be any sort of useful in terms of damage avoidance.

-Erik

This is interesting, since all the scientific data I've seen says that ultimately, Venus is far better than Mars as a target for Terraforming, yet this research is claiming that Venus is far outside the habitable zone, while Mars is smack in the middle of it.

Mars simply lacks two things: (1) the ability to generate a good strong magnetic field (too small, and no molten iron core), so it gets constantly bombarded with far more solar radiation than terrestrial life can stand outdoors, and (b) its much smaller mass and lack of magnetic field make is impossible for Mars to hold an atmosphere that's much more than it has now. So the result is that, while Mars superficially seems a better place for life now, there's no good way for us to transplant onto Mars without having to either live underground or under thick domes.

Venus, on the other hand, already generates a good magnetic field, and has no problem holding a significant atmosphere. It's just too hot and toxic. But a couple thousand tons of bacteria into the upper atmosphere will solve that problem, so Venus is actually the best candidate to turn into an Earth-like place.

I guess we'll have to look for two criteria: (1) which planets are most likely to have Earth-like indigenous life on them, and (2) which planets are best suited to be terraformed for occupation by us.

Like I said, interesting...

-Erik

You forget the place that Java has had the most success: Enterprise computing.

I'll agree that the sum total of the Java Plugin + JDK Libraries + JVM provides too much opportunity to attack on the desktop / web app space. There's simply too many flaws in the plugin and libraries. The JVM itself, though, is very solid (fewer than 10 major flaws over 15 years).

However, Java as a middleware platform is simply far better than any of the alternatives, and that's where I expect it to remain. Insulated from the types of attacks that render Java dangerous on the desktop, middleware app servers play directly to Java's big strengths: speed, ease of development, and massive library support, plus a framework which helps discourage the types of coding flaws that hurt middleware computing the most. Java will likely remain king of middlewhere for a long time, and deservedly so.

On the desktop or as a downloadable app, well, yes, Java is simply never going to measure up to the better cross-platform alternatives.

-Erik

To a certain extent, you're correct.

However, part of the social contract that exists to support Copyright, is the implicit agreement that "We (society) allow you to protect your item, and in return you make more of them so we can use them". Failure to live up to that implicit contract (i.e. sequestering I.P.) on the content provider's end voids the social contract (i.e. consumer's promise to respect Copyright).

I'm not a big fan of many of the justifications for copyright infringement, but in cases of "lost" authorship or abandonware or failure to publish or deliberate removal of a product from market, the I.P. author has effectively forfeited any rights they have.

Simple:

• Oracle completely screwed up the acquisition, and made major changes to the Java division. Management was completely redone, and the release/bug process was made much worse (not that it was great under Sun).
• All the old Sun personnel got pissed off at Oracle, for a variety of reasons. Less than 25% of those there in 2008 are still in the Java division; and, that's from an organization where people averaged 10+ years of work at Sun. Oracle hasn't been able to replace this brain drain, and is unlikely to ever succeed in restaffing to an acceptable level. The JDK codebase is incredibly complex - far worse than practically anything else I can think of, including the Linux kernel. The number of people on the planet who are good VM coders numbers maybe a hundred or two. That's it. And the rest of the organization has been decimated, too.

I worked at Sun for 6 years in the JVM group before the acquisition. I stayed on for another 1.5 years before I left. I only know a handful of people there anymore, and they're staying simply to ride it out to retirement (all are in their 50s). Over three dozen people I used to work with are gone, and there's no decent replacements.

Basically, people used to working "the Sun Way" detested the new "Oracle Way" and decamped en masse between 2009 and 2011. The whole Java division is a shadow of itself, and won't ever recover.