Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Race baiters (Score 1) 474

A little hint: "GottMitUns" is German and translates to "GodWithUs". Which just so happens to be the motto of the German military army (and a few other groups) until the end of WW2. Generally, it's fairly safe to assume that someone still sporting that motto has some serious hang-ups with German military and groups from 1900s to 1945.

Comment: Re: It's still reacting carbon and oxygen... (Score 1) 142

by NeutronCowboy (#48434091) Attached to: Coal Plants Get New Lease On Life With Natural Gas

Do I also get to make sweeping generalizations about conservatives because you don't like government interference except to:
- control what I do in my bedroom
- control my social life
- control what I talk about
- control who I do business with
- control where I go
- control what I believe
- control what business I'm allowed to engage in

Just asking whether the "idiots are everywhere" and "generalizations are fun" rules can be abused in the other direction as well.

Comment: Re:This article is useless (Score 3, Insightful) 91

by NeutronCowboy (#48401891) Attached to: Facebook Planning Office Version To Rival LinkedIn, Google

you need active champions, community managers, and a strategy to nurture the community continuously.

Spot on. Every single failure I've seen of an internal communications tool that wasn't Email or IM failed because of a lack of one of the three things you mentioned. They are tools, but they need to much more help to grow than something that everyone has to use, like a case system or a CRM.

Comment: Re:Nope (Score 1) 91

by NeutronCowboy (#48401883) Attached to: Facebook Planning Office Version To Rival LinkedIn, Google

I worked in the past at a company that did something similar to a "Facebook at work". The number one rule to get people to use it: never, EVER call it "Facebook for work". Call it "Shining Communications Turd", "Chainsaw through productivity", "Free Crack", just don't call it "Facebook for work".

I think Facebook might have a bigger uphill battle here than it thinks.

We've had people walked out, fired, for using Evernote in meetings.

Where did you work, the NSA?

Comment: Re:Algorithms Can Be Patented (Score 1) 164

by NeutronCowboy (#48301579) Attached to: Disney Patents a Piracy Free Search Engine

Erm, what? I know how PageRank works because I read about it as a technical paper in a Computing Journal in 1998, before Google was started as a company. That said, I don't know what came first - the paper or the patent. Pretty sure though that the paper came first, or was at least simultaneous to the patent filing. Finally, most of the stuff in the Google ranking mechanism is as much an algorithm as a kernel is an algorithm. It's a host of ranking modules, tweaks, weights, heuristics, clean-up jobs, maintenance jobs, spider jobs, and a whole crap-load of IT work to make it hum like it does.

Comment: Re:As many have pointed out... (Score 2) 257

it could easily apply the same to personal data to be flagged

Please do enlighten us how it could easily apply algorithms to categorize data to distinguish between personal, protected data, and data of public records that belong to someone else. Just for shits and grins, please create an algorithm that would distinguish between the Washington Post article and the original bankruptcy article.

It's perfectly possible to have both- no one is expecting perfection, but ultimately just because Google may never get it perfectly right doesn't mean they should be freed from the law altogether.

Wow. So that means that now laws that cannot be followed every time are a good idea? In the case of Google, it means a perpetual fine that cannot be escaped, is completely arbitrary, and applies only to Google.

Everything you posted so far is a damning indictment of exactly why this law is terrible: it's not possible to fully comply, it's arbitrary, it's open to abuse from all sides, and its target is also completely arbitrary.

Technically, you are accurate in your description of why Google needs to follow the law as it is written. However, the discussion we're having is about whether the law should exist in the first law. On that, you're digging your own hole.

Comment: Re:congratulations america, theyre still winning. (Score 2) 339

by NeutronCowboy (#48250901) Attached to: LAX To London Flight Delayed Over "Al-Quida" Wi-Fi Name

Considering the over-reaction we're getting from a lot of people around Ebola - and that includes people who laugh about bureaucrats' overreaction to blinking lights in Chicago and WiFi network names - I'm going to guess that most people are just scared shitless of stuff they don't understand and willing to sacrifice everything to feel safe again.

That doesn't make it any better, but it gives us a better shot at fixing the issue (educate people) than the conspiracy theory approach.

Comment: Re:Well... (Score 1) 425

by NeutronCowboy (#48083261) Attached to: Former Department of Defense Chief Expects "30 Year War"

His duty is to the president, not the public. I have a lot of respect for him that he gave the president his opinion, the president disagreed with him, and he kept his mouth shut in public. I also have a lot of respect for him that he isn't just bashing Obama, but merely strongly disagreeing with him on some decisions the president made. On others, he is actually openly agreeing with him (see his position on "Enhanced Interrogation") - or at least, showing far more agreement than a standard republican would.

Yeah, Panetta was a republican, through and through. He was a security hawk, and never made any bones about it. At the same time, he fully supported the president while he was in office. Just for that, he deserves respect.

Comment: Re:Systemd (Score 1) 993

> lots of great software that a lot of people simply do not like.

Yeah and I am really famous but a lot of people don't know that.

I am also a fantastic cook but many people don't the taste of my cooking.

But you sound like an idiot, you judge a product on its technical merits, not whether it has any use or value. Your the kind of idiot who would implement an idea because it sounds noble and fuck whether it has actually does anything useful.

Comment: Re:please no (Score 1) 423

by NeutronCowboy (#48073335) Attached to: Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

Meanwhile the assertion that models fit past events is near irrelevant since that is data which is already known and it is expected that the models would have been adjusted in the first place to fit that data). For example, I can construct an interpolation of any temperature (or other numerical) data to perfect precision using an even degree polynomial of sufficiently high degree, yet it'll be completely irrelevant once I attempt any sort of extrapolation into the future (odds are good, about 50% I'd say, that it'll predict temperatures far below absolute zero by 2100).

Shockingly, scientists are aware of that issue, and have developed methods to test models against existing data. They do that by training on one chunk of the available data, and testing against another.

You're making two more mistakes in your analysis.
One, you complain that models that fit old data perfectly are wrong because all they do is fit data. Then you complain that the models don't fit the data perfectly - precisely because they don't just fit data. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Two, you think that we have direct measurements for everything. We don't. We'd like to, but we don't. And even the direct measurements we have need to be transformed into data that can be compared across measurements. All of that is subject to being wrong.

This profound inability to admit error is why I don't trust current climate models or the doomsday predictions they spawn in the least. That's why I'm going to wait a few decades and see what happens. If it genuinely is as bad as claimed, then we'll see something by then.

Unfortunately, that inability to admit error is only in your head. The models have been changed countless times over the last decades, and have gotten better in response. Lastly, if you wait a few decades, it'll be too late to head off any meaningful changes. As the joke goes: what if we'd make changes for a better planet when it's not necessary?

Comment: Re:Not just college applications (Score 1) 389

by NeutronCowboy (#48073251) Attached to: Is It Time To Throw Out the College Application System?

If you're applying for a programming job, that will never come into contact with customers, why the hell should you need to demonstrate an ability to sell stuff?

You're always selling something even if you're programming. During the interview, you're selling yourself. While working, you're selling your ideas and proposals (even if it is just prioritizing features and putting time and numbers to them).

Sales is part of life in general. And this is coming from someone who has tried to stay away from sales as much as possible.

Vitamin C deficiency is apauling.