Just women trying to disprove some ancient prejudice about women sucking at math and science. You just continue to fail at trying to reprogram society to turn girls into boy clones. I have no idea if there's fundamentally any difference between us that makes one sex better at technical work than another. But I'm just not interesting in your political crusade to prove your point anymore. It just doesn't matter to me. Please stop trying to blame the whole fucking thing on men. Women utterly dominate the industry of raising children, and they still haven't managed to reprogram girls....I--as a man--am not causing this.
Improvise. Fix broken equipment. Locate places where interesting data might be acquired. Run thousands of different experiments.
Yes, you could send thousands of rovers and pretty much do all that. But one person can literally do the job of thousands of robots. And Each of those robots has to be designed and built and delivered by a small army of people. Yes, it takes a lot of money to put a person there compared to a robot. But the human is so much more versatile.
Until someone makes an AI that is as good as a human at being human, yeah, humans will take that job one day. Of course, AI might progress faster toward being human than humans progress toward landing on Mars.
Assuming your not kidding: AI is good at performing well known tasks, in very specific ways, with very specific tools. That's the complete opposite of planetary exploration.
Alternatively we could launch a new Mars Rover every two years for decades and learn far more about Mars for far less money and without putting lives at risk.
Please stop spreading the idea that a couple of robotic rovers can somehow collect more data than even one lightly trained human with a camera, a chemistry set, and vehicle. That's ridiculous.
300 degree temperature swing? No, you are misinformed. Maybe it's a 300 degree (F) temperature swing between equatorial day and polar night, but no one region experiences that kind of swing even in a year.
As for breathing and pressure, you are completely missing my point. Early hominids had to develop technology in order to make the migration possible. They couldn't do it without animal flesh, shelter, food, and the various technologies they created to facilitate that. They died without that technology. They didn't know how to survive in the north. They didn't even know what the conditions were like in the north.
Today, we know what conditions are like on Mars. We have the technology to breath on Mars. We have the technology to live there. It is simply costly to transport it there, but it can be done.
How many millennia were hominids walking North only to die off due to insufficient knowledge of the area, and the technological knowledge to live there.
In light of this, it appears to me that it's actually easier for us to go to Mars than it is for early hominids to migrate out of Africa. We already have everything we need to live there. Early hominids did not....it took hundreds of thousands of years....evolutionary time scales to move out of Africa. It was most definitely NOT just a matter of walking there.
You fell into the common trap: since one thing is possible, all things must be possible.
And you fell into the common trap thinking that moving into Eurasia was not certain death for technologically unprepared hominids. You underestimate the undertaking. Those humans without adequately advanced hunting technologies and techniques, or shelter building technology, or fire building knowledge, die. They die. The migration was not easier. It was harder than us going to Mars because they had no idea what they were getting into. In comparison, we know exactly what we're getting into when we go to Mars. We know exactly how to accomplish it too.
Argument overheard several tens of thousands of years ago:
Enough with this migrating to Asia thing. We cannot live in Asia. Ever. The difference in temperature will guarantee that. You can't fix biology and evolution. And don't say "take the skins off animals" or "build fires". Give us all a break.
Are you saying professional programmers never need help? I've been a professional for 20 years, and coding for 30 years. I still find stack overflow extremely useful. I don't understand the hate.
At this level of play, legality and jurisdiction are not barriers. You taunt the big dog, you get mauled. This has always been the case despite the illusion of safety created by US propaganda.
No, he said candidates fresh out of school couldn't write "working code" (less minor syntax problems) without a compiler. This test tests how well the candidate has memorized the language. If you want to test how well they can follow a program mentally without a debugger, then disable their ability to run the code. But don't deprive them of an IDE and reference material for the language.
Probably just a troll, but I know there are actually people holding opinions like this lurking on slashdot who think if you need anything more than a text editor to do your job, then you're inferior. I write code in several languages each with their own libraries, syntax, and peculiarities. No, I don't think I could write anything more than a simple program that's compilable without a compiler to run it through, and perhaps an internet connection to remember framework/library function names. I haven't had to do that sort of thing since my turbo pascal days over 25 years ago. I'm just not used to working/thinking that way. If you think that makes me a shitty programmer, well, then you're an idiot.
I propose the verb we use to describe someone using this device should be "mem". He memmed on the icon. He's memming a thank you letter. Don't mem that email attachment, it's a virus!
WTF? Arrival, the Martian and Interstellar were all successful science fiction movies made within the last ten years. They met the criteria perfectly, why by condescending?
It seems more like GM wants their piece of the pie if electronic cars take off, but they don't want to influence the market. Prudence, yes. Vision, no.
Slashdot Mirror
Just the beginning? No, it's just more of the same. This stuff has never stopped happening since the stone age.
Definitely inappropriate for broadcast TV...but...who the hell watches broadcast TV anymore?
Just women trying to disprove some ancient prejudice about women sucking at math and science. You just continue to fail at trying to reprogram society to turn girls into boy clones. I have no idea if there's fundamentally any difference between us that makes one sex better at technical work than another. But I'm just not interesting in your political crusade to prove your point anymore. It just doesn't matter to me. Please stop trying to blame the whole fucking thing on men. Women utterly dominate the industry of raising children, and they still haven't managed to reprogram girls....I--as a man--am not causing this.
Improvise. Fix broken equipment. Locate places where interesting data might be acquired. Run thousands of different experiments.
Yes, you could send thousands of rovers and pretty much do all that. But one person can literally do the job of thousands of robots. And Each of those robots has to be designed and built and delivered by a small army of people. Yes, it takes a lot of money to put a person there compared to a robot. But the human is so much more versatile.
Until someone makes an AI that is as good as a human at being human, yeah, humans will take that job one day. Of course, AI might progress faster toward being human than humans progress toward landing on Mars.
Assuming your not kidding: AI is good at performing well known tasks, in very specific ways, with very specific tools. That's the complete opposite of planetary exploration.
Alternatively we could launch a new Mars Rover every two years for decades and learn far more about Mars for far less money and without putting lives at risk.
Please stop spreading the idea that a couple of robotic rovers can somehow collect more data than even one lightly trained human with a camera, a chemistry set, and vehicle. That's ridiculous.
300 degree temperature swing? No, you are misinformed. Maybe it's a 300 degree (F) temperature swing between equatorial day and polar night, but no one region experiences that kind of swing even in a year.
As for breathing and pressure, you are completely missing my point. Early hominids had to develop technology in order to make the migration possible. They couldn't do it without animal flesh, shelter, food, and the various technologies they created to facilitate that. They died without that technology. They didn't know how to survive in the north. They didn't even know what the conditions were like in the north.
Today, we know what conditions are like on Mars. We have the technology to breath on Mars. We have the technology to live there. It is simply costly to transport it there, but it can be done.
How many millennia were hominids walking North only to die off due to insufficient knowledge of the area, and the technological knowledge to live there.
In light of this, it appears to me that it's actually easier for us to go to Mars than it is for early hominids to migrate out of Africa. We already have everything we need to live there. Early hominids did not....it took hundreds of thousands of years....evolutionary time scales to move out of Africa. It was most definitely NOT just a matter of walking there.
My contention isn't the fact that it's happening, but at the rate the poster claimed.
You fell into the common trap: since one thing is possible, all things must be possible.
And you fell into the common trap thinking that moving into Eurasia was not certain death for technologically unprepared hominids. You underestimate the undertaking. Those humans without adequately advanced hunting technologies and techniques, or shelter building technology, or fire building knowledge, die. They die. The migration was not easier. It was harder than us going to Mars because they had no idea what they were getting into. In comparison, we know exactly what we're getting into when we go to Mars. We know exactly how to accomplish it too.
it would get eroded away just as quickly as it was generated.
Citation needed. Mars had liquid oceans at one point. Clearly it once had a much denser atmosphere that lasted for geological time spans.
Argument overheard several tens of thousands of years ago:
Enough with this migrating to Asia thing. We cannot live in Asia. Ever. The difference in temperature will guarantee that. You can't fix biology and evolution. And don't say "take the skins off animals" or "build fires". Give us all a break.
Are you saying professional programmers never need help? I've been a professional for 20 years, and coding for 30 years. I still find stack overflow extremely useful. I don't understand the hate.
At this level of play, legality and jurisdiction are not barriers. You taunt the big dog, you get mauled. This has always been the case despite the illusion of safety created by US propaganda.
No, he said candidates fresh out of school couldn't write "working code" (less minor syntax problems) without a compiler. This test tests how well the candidate has memorized the language. If you want to test how well they can follow a program mentally without a debugger, then disable their ability to run the code. But don't deprive them of an IDE and reference material for the language.
Probably just a troll, but I know there are actually people holding opinions like this lurking on slashdot who think if you need anything more than a text editor to do your job, then you're inferior. I write code in several languages each with their own libraries, syntax, and peculiarities. No, I don't think I could write anything more than a simple program that's compilable without a compiler to run it through, and perhaps an internet connection to remember framework/library function names. I haven't had to do that sort of thing since my turbo pascal days over 25 years ago. I'm just not used to working/thinking that way. If you think that makes me a shitty programmer, well, then you're an idiot.
We had a lower than 20% success rate at candidates writing working code (even ignoring syntax problems and semicolons, and just looking at logic flow)
This statement makes me believe that your candidates were asked to write program without a compiler handy. That's not really a useful test.
I propose the verb we use to describe someone using this device should be "mem". He memmed on the icon. He's memming a thank you letter. Don't mem that email attachment, it's a virus!
WTF? Arrival, the Martian and Interstellar were all successful science fiction movies made within the last ten years. They met the criteria perfectly, why by condescending?
1581 was the 3.5 drive.
That's not going to happen. You can't be that naive.
Probably yes. But let's be honest, browsers are ridiculous resource hogs these days. It wouldn't be hard to humiliate Chrome.
Wow, you've already lasted a year there? Your boss sounds like a nightmare.
It seems more like GM wants their piece of the pie if electronic cars take off, but they don't want to influence the market. Prudence, yes. Vision, no.
Don't post as AC and it'll be that much harder to get modded -1.