Why? Because I also get CourtTV. With that, I get all the coverage of the NFL I need :)

I'm getting a huge kick out of reading all the critiques of this device...considering that nobody who loves or hates it has ever seen one in person.

How about this, guys...let's actually wait until they start selling them to decide how much they rock/suck balls? You know, just an idea...

Actually, the name that would have aligned with their naming scheme...which would be "iHome," was already taken by a purveyor of crappy consumer electronics. And the term "ambulance chasing" refers to people trying to profit off the tragedy of others...I don't think this is that.

But I do give you credit for posting on your account, instead of as an AC :)

"People Are Using Technology to Make the World More Unequal; Only People Can Fix This"

There, fixed that for you.

Technology doesn't do anything by itself. It has no animus of it's own (yet). It's a tool...and like any tool, it can be used in good ways, bad ways, stupid ways and ineffective ways. The difference between the choice of ways is, and always has been, a question of people, not of the technology in question. And addressing problems with bad choices remains, as ever, a people problem.

This is very true, at least for the near future. For some solutions (like infotainment systems in cars) Java ME is heavily in use...but most IoT devices have neither the performance nor the need to do so. They're coded in C++, which means that they can use microprocessor architectures that cost a few dollars instead of dozens of dollars or more.

The simplicity of lower-powered embedded systems benefits you when you have to deal with environmental problems like heat and vibration; you can pot a low-powered system and not worry about it overheating, but if you try to do that with something more sophisticated you run into major issues. And then there are those applications that simply require that things be tiny...not small, but tiny. All of these obviate things like JVMs and interpreted code.

The president of Dice.com says "Right now, Java and Python are really hot. In five years they may not be... jobs are changing all the time, and that's a real pain point for tech professionals."

I think back to situations like steel workers or coal miners whose jobs disappear...and to the combination of where these people live, the lack of variety of the local economy, and the difficulty translating their skills to other industries. These things combine to make it nearly impossible for them to maintain their livelihoods. Conversely, in the tech field, that constant rate of change makes it not only relatively easy to change specialties, it eliminates any stigma that comes from having done so.

Yes, this means that fields and skills sometimes go out of favor...but at least you're not stranded when they do. You have options. Whether or not you exercise those options...that's another thing. I'd rather have options, and have it left up to me whether I fail or succeed.

This is the same HP that hasn't come up with a hit since the bubble jet printer, people. The same HP that pushed a cloud computing solution that was so pig-fucking awful that The Onion mocked them about it. I worked at HP at the time, and I really have to think that The Onion had someone on the inside...because their parody was unbelievably on target. "We have 4G, 5G, 6G...we have all the Gs. We have app." That's literally as bad as what some of the people at HP were about it...it defied belief. This is the same HP that came up with a small microchip that could hold information and push it to your phone...but alas, as good as it sounded to have them talk about it, the phone's receiver had to stay within an inch of the thing, and the data transfer rate was literally as bad as a modem from the late 80s. This is the same HP that couldn't come within billions of dollars of precision as they tried to evaluate the price of another company they bought...and then effectively sued themselves when they realized that they fucked up on the offer they'd made, had accepted, and consummated. HP had to state on their SEC filings that flight of talented people had become a major impediment to their achieving their business goals...starting several years ago. And it hasn't gotten better since. These are stupid motherfucking people.

Oh, in more recent news, this is the same HP whose business-grade laptops (since we're talking HPE here, really) had a keylogger built into the audio driver.

So yeah...I doubt that this "machine" is all that. I'm curious...have they ever actually managed to CONNECT it to 160 terabytes of RAM at once, or is this a theoretical capability? Because they lie like a rug about this kind of silly detail. I can't help but notice that those 160 TB all have to be in a "single bank of memory." Wow, that must be one long-ass DIMM!

I'm not sure how much success constitutes a "degree" to you, but I've never heard of her any my tastes in music range pretty far and wide. And as for ease of transitioning to crowdfunding...if she's terrible and can't keep a record deal, then trading on the coattails of her husband in a crowdfunding model (instead of having to demonstrate her own talents to a record company) would be a lot easier, indeed.

This is a crucial point.

When I see things like "97% accurate" with respect to a diagnostic function, I have to wonder about the definition of "success." Is that just a 3% false-negative rate? If so, what's the false-positive rate...because if it turns out that the watch is wrong half the time when it signals an abnormality, that's bad too. If a diagnostic function cries wolf too often, it gets ignored and becomes useless.

If, on the other hand, the 97% accuracy rate covers both false positives and false negatives...then all of a sudden you have a really useful diagnostic tool that would be free for the millions of people who have this watch, and an approach which can probably be applied to a lot of other wearable devices on the market today as well.

Yeah...because this is how it's done when it's done professionally. You have one coder...the guy who wrote the change...and then another coder...the one who tests it.

This happens in non-code places too, like journalism. One person writes the article, and another proofreads it. (Due to the acceleration of the news cycle, this has been going away...with predictably-bad results.) Consulting? Yes, you have quality control (another person reading and checking the deliverable..every line of it) before it goes to the client. Engineering? One engineer builds the spec, and another has to approve it; this is actually mandated by law for a lot of things, in fact, where permitting is involved (like construction).

Fundamentally, the question is "how to you keep code from being pushed to the public before it's tested." You seemed to miss that in your reply, because the very point of the question requires two people...people who must understand what their reading (and thus, are coders)...to look at the code. Also, your reply seems to imply that a code change requires reading ALL of the code, not just the new or changed code, and this is simply not true.

Burger King's ad campaigns have been the laughing stock of the advertising world forever. I was studying marketing back in the 80s, in college, and had a subscription to Advertising Age (the leading trade publication of the industry). At that time, Burger King's campaign revolved around the phrase, "Burger King. Sometimes you just gotta break the rules." It was considered so ridiculous that Advertising Age held a contest to see if anyone could come up with anything even more insane. Finalists in the top-5 included "Long John Silver's, for the seafood lover that is Allah"...and, of course because someone submitted it, "Burger King. Sometimes you just gotta break the rules." This was about three decades ago.

Then there was their whole "chicken fries" campaign, back in the...was that the 90s? I have no idea what the fuck that was all about, though the "band" that was prominently featured there openly admitted that they did the ads because they realized they weren't going to make it as real musicians so they may as well sell out. And this admission wasn't on some interview or a website off to the side...it was featured front-and-center on the official website that Burger King stood up for the ad campaign.

So, at least Burger King is keeping up with the times, finding new and innovative ways to blow dead goats with their ad campaigns.

Yes, of course...because we all know that in "real" production code, the comments are ubiquitous, diligent, and comprehensive :)

You know, it only seems to take one line in a Slashdot post, out of context, to drive people batty here. I'm seeing a long stream of posts that seem to believe that GM just took all of these robots and plugged them directly into a cablemodem without any firewalling or other security, making it effortless for some dork to simply go fuck with the production lines.

Okay. So, there's "connected to the Internet" as in you have a connection to the Internet...like I am using to post this. I'm behind a firewall, with both ingress and egress filtering. But if I weren't connected, I wouldn't be able to send/receive email, I wouldn't be able to browse the web...you get the picture. I am connected, but it doesn't mean that people can just lay into my computer with wild abandon and hack me. Then there's "CONNECTED to tha' motherfucking INTERNET," without security, without security monitoring, etc. That's bad...and yes, if GM had done that then all kinds of bad things would happen because few automation systems are particularly robust from a security perspective. But that's not what GM has done. Connected securely or connected insecurely...both are actually a state of being 'connected to the Internet.'

The protections needed are more than just civil in nature.

So, let's look at it this way...overlook the fact that W3C has no power to enforce a contract simply with a standard, or that someone can use most of the standard and leave a few bits out so as to avoid being bound by your proposed language. (While you're at it, overlook the fact that this would cause massive fracturing of exactly the sort that W3C is really trying to reverse, not make worse.)

So now you have no option for anyone to sue security researchers over copyright infringement when all they are doing is security testing. Okay. What will happen is that large industry groups will instead push for criminal law to come to bear instead, and you'll get what happened in Germany years ago. Under that situation, not only will security researchers testing DRM come under fire...ALL security research becomes dangerous to do without the express permission of the organization whose solution is being tested.

When you have an angry neanderthal waving a medium-sized stick around at you, and you break his stick...he picks up a bigger one. He doesn't just sit down and call it a day, and he doesn't reach for a twig.

Actual quote:
"We believe this is a devastating blow to manatees," Patrick Rose, Executive Director for Save the Manatee Club, said in a statement. "A federal reclassification at this time will seriously undermine the chances of securing the manatee's long- term survival."

Translated for clarity and accuracy:
"We believe this is a devastating blow to my career," Patrick Rose, Executive Director for Save the Manatee Club, said in a statement. "A federal reclassification at this time will seriously undermine my chances of maintaining long-term employment."