A single core is not equivalent to a hexa core so I think PVU's make more sense in today's world. What I would like from them is to be more transparent with the requirement to use ILMT.
Not to mention the fact that he had a copy of Office Preview. Stuff can still get changed in the software until the final version, and from my personal experience with Microsoft products it almost always fixes these kind of bugs.
good question. BoA is designing their system internally since 1997 at least.
The newest version ate up $12MM and is very cool! One of the things I like is that when you create an internal ticket that something is broken, IT Dept has access to all your computer activity; no more screen shoots, error descriptions, etc, everything is recorded on the fly. They can rewind your PC activity 10 minutes (or whatever) prior and see exactly all the steps you took for the error to occur. Very time saving troubleshooting approach.
Edit: ok I meant they can rewind and play your interaction with the intranet systems per say, not the computer alone. But they are locked down pretty much anyways.
That sounds like a horrible to place to work in... I'd feel uncomfortable doing anything other then work, and any coder here can tell you that you need to do SOMETHING other then work every now and then or you burn out very quickly in the day.
I don't think that they are talking about recording what developer workstations are doing. They are talking about recording customer sessions in a replay-able format, so that they can see how the customer caused an error condition.
Well, its a some sort of an Internet Explorer plugin that records IE session, all the clicks, even mouse movement. Within BoA you can use Chrome browsers for your personal browsing, but as you can imagine, most of the websites are cut off. But Google works! :)
A lot of stubborn poorly run corporate giants cannot move on from IE 6 or 7 because of massive internal red-tape and costs! ( testing, upgrading windows and admin access to pc's for staff, so on ) To be fair Microsoft have ended support for IE7 and are aware its full of security holes. Microsoft recommend you keep up with the world of technology.
That doesn't seem likely. This person didn't reveal any personally identifiable information to the public. Have there been other (IMO, frivolous) lawsuits going after people who have identified holes in banking software?
In that particular case, the person was a security expert who spent time hacking (by way of URL) their system to expose information. And they threatened legal action but never went through with it (as they had no case).
In this particular case with Bank of America, a user did nothing out of the ordinary to expose information and reported it proper.
If I had 5 cents for every time I've read an article on someone going after the person reporting the hole in their software...I'd probably have at least enough to go get a soda from the company vending machine.
The sad state of affairs is that a lot of companies are more interested in security via cheap obscurity, and will gladly go after the person who dared to publicize their security holes.
The difference here, is that unlike URL-hacking, or some-such, they would have a hard time arguing that a user using their product exactly as intended was doing something against the law.
And the museum refused to fund an expedition for finding this? And the Scientist waited a year until the photographer went back there. It doesn't look to me that it was hard to find (especially since thy had an uncataloged specimen). I see that in this case the Scientist didn't want to be bothered very much with it. Furthermore he named the specie after his daughter and not the finder.
When has the exitement for discovery got so casual?
> I wonder if a machine learning algorithm could spot new species from flickr photos...
You have to be careful with those things. My alma mater has a tale of a student 7 or 8 years ago who built a neural net to detect lizards in photos. He fed the system a bunch of pictures to teach it what lizards look like. When it came time to test he got remarkable results: it was 100% effective in positively identifying lizards. Then he fed it a picture of empty ground and the net happily confirmed that this picture contained a lizard as well! Turns out, if all of your training data is positive the computer just learns "everything is a lizard".
Of course, real-life researchers would never dare make such a mistake but this tale always amuses me so I couldn't resist :)
I wouldn't say that. I've always seen it like a physicist dropping a negative: he understands and when he sees the result he immediately knows what he did wrong but a little careless thought at the time led to a silly mistake.
My university background is in Machine Learning. Sounds like this person did not understand ML. Was he new at this? You should learn about false positives, false negatives and plotting ROC curves from the first experiments with simple artificial random point cloud datasets (toy problems) before you even bother stepping up to image recognition.
When a ML researcher gets a 100% accuracy rate, they go look for the bug in their program, not think "oh awesome, it must be very good then"--it's a bit of an embarassing mistake if it turns out it's because your training set only contains examples for one of your two classes ("has a lizard" vs "does not have a lizard").
I mentioned he was a student for a reason. What do you think? This was a project for a class and even still he immediately recognised the error when he tested it.
Similar to as I mentioned in reply to a child comment, you kind of sound like someone chastising a physicist for dropping a negative somewhere in their calculations. It doesn't betray a fundamental lack of understanding such that they should be lectured to go back to first grade and learn how to do arithmetic; it just demonstrates that at some point they were acting somewhat careless in what they were doing.
And, yes, it is a bit of an embarrassing mistake. That's what makes it such a fun story!
There is recent work along these lines for birds specifically, e.g., [1]. It's not anywhere near human accuracy and I think it's only a couple hundred species but it does kind of work.
I don't think vision/ML techniques will be a viable option for quite a while. These algorithms have a hard enough time correctly classifying dozens of classes, let alone 8.7 million species of animals. This is especially true given that many of these species only have a small number of images.
Discovering something completely new still is a big deal - do a search for "new species" and then any recent year and you'll find numerous articles (usually written around December) about all the weird and wonderful creatures discovered that year.
But this was a lacewing with an unusual colouration and thousands of new insect species are discovered every year. If biologists and museums got all worked up and dropped everything they were doing over each one, they'd never have the time or money to do anything else.
I see Dad's advice as going for something that can have more meaning to you and for which you need balls then for the safe/low risk model.
It's not about stress, it's about the need of the individual to make a difference. Doing something that has been done before it's not that exciting for a 20-ish year old. But someone older will take comfort in it.
The assumption implicit in that is that starting a hedge fund is "safe/low risk" - which, having started a hedge fund, is just wrong. It is as risky as starting any business. In fact, in some ways it is much, much harder because to gain any size in the hedge business you have to have either come from a very well-known shop or have a very good, audited track record. Even given all of that, count on 2-3 years of managing a small amount of money that doesn't cover your costs. And pray you don't have a large drawdown and have to watch that fast fund-of-fund money disappear.
She really lost me with the stuff about raising $200m - I'm sorry, but that's very, very, very unlikely to happen with an unproven manager with no track record - unless her family name is so strong she could just ride on that. But even given that, I don't know anybody that is giving out $200m to a 25 year old who hasn't run money before. Maybe that happened 5 years ago - I don't think that is happening now.
Lastly - I think it is an interesting idea to audit shipping records to decide on a position (macro I'm assuming), but there was also no discussion of whether she had even tested this and if it even worked.
Like an earlier poster, I frankly found this post insulting.
I am a 20-ish year old and despite "what I do" has been done before, the "way I do it" never has -- and that is plenty "exciting." There is nothing safe or low-risk about starting a hedge fund.
I get your point about "having more meaning" -- but I'd argue that is true for any business endeavor, not just tech startups. If what I was doing didn't have truly personal meaning for me, there is no way I could stomach the stress.
Maybe I'm overly sensitive because the article seemed to compare the easy hedge fund life to the tough tech start-up life, which I think is a gross over exaggeration in the divergent profile: I believe that they are tremendously similar.
I think you're reading into it too much, and you're taking it too far away from the context between Dad and Daughter. This is, and will be, their own personal experiences. For some starting a hedge fund can be seen as high-risk, when for someone that has run one for years (Dad's case) or for someone that's been around one for years (Daughter's case) it can be seen as low-risk.
If Dad was an MD he would've said don't become a surgeon, do research and try to change current procedures. At least that's my take on the blog.
Thanks for pointing that out. Is that a robot on the other end (which deletes the account if it contains "delete" or so etching like that in the subject field), or you have to talk to a human and ask them to delete it?
