They would immediately tell Intel, Microsoft, and Mr Torvalds exactly what flaws they are exploiting so they could be closed. Instead, being the evil assholes they are, they won't tell anyone. Cuz we all know the NSA is smarter than the Chinese, Russians, and random hacker groups who exploit the same holes.
I guess it's a difference of philosophy. I want my computing to be as secure as possible. The NSA wants to hack anyone's system at anytime.
My philosophy is comment sense, the NSA's is pure evil considering it lessens my security.
Wrong. The government is ordering to put the flaw in!! If Snowden is correct under the American Patriot Act they can arrest those who do not comply making their products with backdoors so the government doesn't have to get a court order.
To me that is pure evil. You think Apple and Android LOVE putting in hidden apps that secret turn your phones into recording devices that send the GPS and conversations wihtout you knowing while appearing off?
Reason being is Salesforce is kind of scaring me as too powerful and a threat to I.T. jobs.
If it is cross platform which MS is heading too we can put down the hate on MS like its 1999 still. From what I gather is it is not ads, but rather MS won the desktop wars by integrating and doing proprietary tricks to link stuff together ALA Visual Basic COM objects. You had everything tie together.
Today in 2017 Windows is not longer the guerala. But MS is hardly dead in the workplace. So instead of integrating components and doing proprietary standards they are doing open standards with TypeScript,
So MS is doing the data and service integration instead. If the company owner, your employees, and yourself all use LinkedIn, Yammer, and other tools which run on multiplatforms it gets rid of a reason to use Salesforce.com.
MS maybe getting too powerful in this area but Office 365 is rapidly getting more apps and mobile programs like Dwell, PowerBI, etc. LinkedIN is the glue that ties this together to keep business to business relationships on the ecosystem
Cultural ethics won't allow
Also, how about living a work-free life on your savings or investments? The idea of basic income is really an extended version of that.
I would suspect that this will be used for some sort of priority same-hour delivery service where the receiver is actively waiting on site for the package, similar to what they planned for their drones:
Like in the video you're waiting and get a text message or app alert saying the car is a couple of minutes out, go get ready to meet it on the street. Once it's there, they'll probably have some sort of array of boxes on the rear of the vehicle like at the Amazon drop centers in malls, you type in the PIN given to you by the delivery alert and the appropriate box unlocks and opens, you retrieve your stuff, close the door and the vehicle departs.
The problem is that in the past there has always been some new job to shift to. Blue collar work to white collar work. NOW the automation is hitting all across the board. In 30 years many of these jobs will be gone with nothing to replace them as AI will do the new jobs too. Comparing what is coming to what's happened before is useless because the old ways of automation were task specific and took considerable capital to set up. What's coming up is general purpose AI that can be trained to do a task in a vastly shorter time period and will wreak havoc on employment as a result.
> Yes, and this is a *much bigger* problem than "climate change" upon which trillions are being spent for very little demonstrable benefit.
Uh huh. Wanna show where these "trillions" are being spent?
And no, half the human race being unemployed is not worse than climate change at the extreme. 100,000 years ago primitive man had no 401k at all and was just fine, but if climate change killed off all his food he hunted and gathered he'd be in a far worse state than not having an employment contract.
> humans are incapable of driving cars without getting intoxicated first and even if not, they kill thousands more than robots would.
Maybe if you can't get in a car without getting intoxicated first and kill thousands all the time, maybe you just shouldn't drive...
Unless of course you meant SOME humans, not all of them.
the free software idealism has lost and will never win
It's becoming more popular in the biology / medical research community, as people start to understand the importance of reproducible and open research.
I though the whole idea of science was reproducible and open research. Also, having more of a natural science than CS background, I've always viewed FOSS as the application of scientific principles to software. Unfortunately, I've come across closed software in fields such as molecular modelling and fluid dynamics. It's an interesting turnaround if scientists have to learn the basics again from software guys.
* Make sure your networking is good
* Update your resume
* Put in applications
Hacking your employer and spying on internal documents/connections... that's just idiotic. In that case you might as well add another one:
* Buy some soap on a rope
Oh, so that carrier group really was near North Korea after all!
So if regular programmers who form the bulk of the workforce can't grok them, the languages need to be fixed, not people.
I know what you're saying, but there's a real danger here that the industry will find itself caught in a local extremum. An engineer of 1880 could easily have said that if regular engineers who form the bulk of the workforce can't understand this "electricity", then it needs to be fixed to conform to the world of steam.
The worst thing we can do as an industry is think we know what we're doing. And in a sense, we're already there.
Asking whether you like functional programming is like asking whether you like phillips head screwdrivers.
I do not. Give me JIS screwdrivers any day.
If one is well versed in category theory or has spent a significant amount of time working with functor spaces, monoids, and monads, then it's much easier to understand a non-trivial application written in Haskell than the equivalent object hierarchy in an object-oriented language. The up-front cost is greater in terms of study and learning the semantics, but the end result is significantly more powerful.
I strongly suspect (but can't yet prove) that the supposed up-front cost in understanding Milner-esque functional languages is just the same as the up-front costs for Simula-style object oriented languages. The difference is that in the case of Simula-style object oriented languages, most of the up-front cost has already been largely paid by the time you come to them.
If it's any help, consider that there seems to be a significant learning cost in wrapping your brain around "real" object-oriented languages such as Smalltalk when coming from "broken Simula" object-oriented languages such as Python or C++.
We teach set/function theory and basic logic to high school students. It shouldn't be that much harder to make the very small amount of generalisation to explain the fundamentals of a modern logic-based type system.
I don't want to be young again, I just don't want to get any older.