That's well overstating a weak case. If you merely want to state the weak case, you might argue that an average IQ of 100 within a society is almost by definition ideal.
Unfortunately, we cannot legislate against dishonesty or stupidity in a general sense.
But we can and should legislate full disclosure for practically any substance that people are selling. Why are MSDS not available for things you ingest? (The obvious answer -- that they should be perfectly safe anyway, is obviously wrong, once you find that it is entirely possible to OD on a wide range of foodstuffs, and that's even before you get into common and not-so-common allergies.)
Anyway, in a perfect world, everybody would have their own tricorder, and know exactly how to interpret the results. In this world, all we can do is try to educate ourselves and others on result interpretation, and demand that we have good factual data from the people selling us the goods.
Yes, and people are dying because we don't know how to compensate for this yet. So much for knowing what we're doing.
> you have this notion that transfer of genes between species is some weird thing humans just invented
It's obviously not, or weeds wouldn't be growing resistant to Monsanto's herbicides at what must be an alarming rate to them. Nonetheless, there's a probabilistic thing here -- the rate at which RoundupReady is spreading is obviously partly caused by the huge attempted corn monoculture, and the vast amount of glyphosate sloshing around the environment (making this gene eminently useful in the current environment). Most genes don't propagate across multicellular species anywhere near this quickly, or we probably would have noticed by now.
>agay, you have this bizarre irrational fear
I think you're responding to someone else now, but I'm sure that doesn't matter to you, because you still have this (unfortunately not bizarre) general asshole-ness and superiority complex. Work on it.
Being able to make more changes faster is not a good thing.
Being able to make more changes faster to a system that is not fully understood may be a terrible thing.
Being able to make more changes faster that then get propagated to unwanted species as well as anything in Jurassic Park is not only not a good idea, but ultimately self-defeating.
Being able to make changes that only exist to allow more use of glyphosate, being able to insert fish genes into plants, being able to play god in the same manner as the boy next door in Toy Story, yeah, that might ultimately be a bad thing, too.
Personally, I try to eat older foods, less sweet fruits, etc.
"because we do in the lab intelligently"
Give me a fucking break. Our understanding of biologic systems is still in its infancy.
"what we have been doing informally for thousands of years"
And slowly -- don't ever forget slowly.
" is threatening to you"
I hope it doesn't threaten anybody. But the evidence is still out. Glyphosate on wheat and gluten intolerance? Maybe.
"sign of your ignorance and science illiteracy."
Ahh, now I remember why I come to slashdot. The ability to interact with incompetent know-it-all assholes outside a work setting.
Well, I don't know about him but I have javascript in my browser, and won't turn it on for random websites, and also have a tv, and won't turn it on for random shows.
There are a lot of free designs and sites supporting them out there. Open source hardware is a thing. Even "free" (according to RMS) hardware is a thing.
I've seen people buy the 'best' musical instruments thinking it will help them play better, it doesn't. Know what does? Practice,experience,time...
I play an instrument. I now play a lot better, because I practice a lot more, because the instrument I bought two years ago is a joy to play and listen to compared to the one I had before.
Different people prefer different instruments, just as different people prefer different languages. Your plea to stop creating/using new ones sounds suspiciously like the argument that everything has already been invented.
The only women that will marry the loser geeks are batshit insane, and the geeks have made the perfectly valid mental calculation that they are more apt to pass on their genes if they have kids and don't vaccinate them than if they fail to have kids altogether.
The "rounded corners" were not a utility patent -- it was a design patent, and only one element of it.
Yes, it was included in a design patent, but it shouldn't have been -- at least not in a way that allowed Apple to beat up Samsung over rounded corners. Rounded corners on a device you slip in your pocket are purely functional.
that the other political party in the US doesn't really believe in forgiveness?
Whether you believe in punishment by the state or by a higher being, whether you believe in the death penalty for chewing gum, or don't believe in it for murder -- it doesn't make sense to not kill somebody, to let him out of jail, and then to make it impossible for him to earn a decent living.
They discuss prior studies that looked at development effort, but hand-waved away the fact that dynamic languages take less development effort.
This may well be because their study cannot discern the amount of programmer effort per check-in, but it is a fatal flaw. Open development methods mean that a lot of dirty laundry gets checked into repositories. If dynamic languages have more bugs per check-in, but require significantly less work per check-in, then measuring bugs per check-in without measuring effort per check-in is meaningless, and that's before you even get to the functionality provided by the checked-in code.
That seems an awfully low threshold for disrupting air traffic, since wireless access points can be had for just a few dollars these days.
Parent:
If our threshold for fear has become so low that some kid's not-so-funny practical joke can now result in several hours of delays to long distance transportation,
Me:
Don't scare the horses.
Seriously. Even before 9/11, any joking about a bomb in an airport would be problematic. You can't expect everybody in a position of power to be intelligent, so don't frighten the ones at the airport.
Now, you can argue it shouldn't be that way, and you may well be right. That's just like arguing you ought to be able to walk anywhere in Chicago any time of the day or night. True, but immaterial to reality.
If a bank were to make a claim that their credit card is perfectly secure, they would be claiming that you can actually use it as you expect, and even if you buy something at a bad merchant, or a merchant that has been hacked, you are protected.
Even though they disclaimed it in the fine print, Snapchat's entire premise was that you could send you pictures to people, and they could only see them once, for a little bit.
The analogy about the cash is off-point -- the entire reason people use credit cards instead of cash is security; same as the reason they use snapchat instead of email.
The difference between the bank and snapchat is this: with the bank, although they didn't promise and you didn't expect perfect security, they will make you whole financially by refund money taken due to fraud, while snapchat is completely the opposite -- they effectively promised better security than they delivered, and none of their users will be made whole.
I'm not sure if this has always been the case, or was added later, but for a very long time now, at least the Play Store's description has included:
Yeah but that's like the really fast voice at the end of the drug commercial talking about death.
So nobody should have been under the illusion that it was, in fact, impossible to save these images even if they lived a sheltered life and never imagined the analog loophole.
Snapchat's entire premise when it started out was that things were transient. Everybody told the founders it was a stupid idea, because, well, it's a stupid idea. But the people saying it was a stupid idea were making those statements based on impossibility, that the concept was akin to founding a company that would rent out genies that could give out wishes to people.
Obviously, the founders have the last laugh, because one way to make a lot of money is to rely on a gullible public and ignore the laws of reality. They aren't the first, and won't be the last, to make fortunes based on snake oil.
No, it's like a bank telling you that it's not their fault when you make a check out to "cash" and someone other then who you intend cashes it.
I don't think that analogy is right at all; OTOH, I think I can improve mine a bit: it's like the bank telling you to use their credit card for all your transactions because it's safer than any other banks' credit card (never mind cash), but then disclaiming all liability when there is a hack that makes that not true.
Slashdot Mirror
That's well overstating a weak case. If you merely want to state the weak case, you might argue that an average IQ of 100 within a society is almost by definition ideal.
Classic ADHD. I was just diagnosed myself, a few months ago, and I'm 54.
But we can and should legislate full disclosure for practically any substance that people are selling. Why are MSDS not available for things you ingest? (The obvious answer -- that they should be perfectly safe anyway, is obviously wrong, once you find that it is entirely possible to OD on a wide range of foodstuffs, and that's even before you get into common and not-so-common allergies.)
Anyway, in a perfect world, everybody would have their own tricorder, and know exactly how to interpret the results. In this world, all we can do is try to educate ourselves and others on result interpretation, and demand that we have good factual data from the people selling us the goods.
Yes, and people are dying because we don't know how to compensate for this yet. So much for knowing what we're doing.
> you have this notion that transfer of genes between species is some weird thing humans just invented
It's obviously not, or weeds wouldn't be growing resistant to Monsanto's herbicides at what must be an alarming rate to them. Nonetheless, there's a probabilistic thing here -- the rate at which RoundupReady is spreading is obviously partly caused by the huge attempted corn monoculture, and the vast amount of glyphosate sloshing around the environment (making this gene eminently useful in the current environment). Most genes don't propagate across multicellular species anywhere near this quickly, or we probably would have noticed by now.
>agay, you have this bizarre irrational fear
I think you're responding to someone else now, but I'm sure that doesn't matter to you, because you still have this (unfortunately not bizarre) general asshole-ness and superiority complex. Work on it.
Being able to make more changes faster to a system that is not fully understood may be a terrible thing.
Being able to make more changes faster that then get propagated to unwanted species as well as anything in Jurassic Park is not only not a good idea, but ultimately self-defeating.
Being able to make changes that only exist to allow more use of glyphosate, being able to insert fish genes into plants, being able to play god in the same manner as the boy next door in Toy Story, yeah, that might ultimately be a bad thing, too.
Personally, I try to eat older foods, less sweet fruits, etc.
"because we do in the lab intelligently"
Give me a fucking break. Our understanding of biologic systems is still in its infancy.
"what we have been doing informally for thousands of years"
And slowly -- don't ever forget slowly.
" is threatening to you"
I hope it doesn't threaten anybody. But the evidence is still out. Glyphosate on wheat and gluten intolerance? Maybe.
"sign of your ignorance and science illiteracy."
Ahh, now I remember why I come to slashdot. The ability to interact with incompetent know-it-all assholes outside a work setting.
Sorry but whether you believe GMOs are a good thing or a bad thing, it is NOT a principled stand to be against truth in food labelling.
Well, I don't know about him but I have javascript in my browser, and won't turn it on for random websites, and also have a tv, and won't turn it on for random shows.
That's the stupidest thing I've read today, and that's saying a lot.
(Of course, if they did that, they might lose half a dozen attendees.)
Is there some new point to this?
I play an instrument. I now play a lot better, because I practice a lot more, because the instrument I bought two years ago is a joy to play and listen to compared to the one I had before.
Different people prefer different instruments, just as different people prefer different languages. Your plea to stop creating/using new ones sounds suspiciously like the argument that everything has already been invented.
The only women that will marry the loser geeks are batshit insane, and the geeks have made the perfectly valid mental calculation that they are more apt to pass on their genes if they have kids and don't vaccinate them than if they fail to have kids altogether.
Too small and the phone will be more snaggy.
Too big, and the available rectangular screen real estate shrinks.
Sure, there is an acceptable window, and this isn't rocket science, but it isn't pure art, either.
How is it self-serving? Samsung isn't paying me anything.
So, from the hotel's perspective, it's an extra revenue stream they aren't paying anything for.
According to the wikipedia page on wayport, AT&T now operates 45,000 hotspots.
Yes, it was included in a design patent, but it shouldn't have been -- at least not in a way that allowed Apple to beat up Samsung over rounded corners. Rounded corners on a device you slip in your pocket are purely functional.
Exactly how the fuck do you blame labor unions for protectionist laws in Texas?
Whether you believe in punishment by the state or by a higher being, whether you believe in the death penalty for chewing gum, or don't believe in it for murder -- it doesn't make sense to not kill somebody, to let him out of jail, and then to make it impossible for him to earn a decent living.
Dynamic languages don't have to be dynamically typed.
This may well be because their study cannot discern the amount of programmer effort per check-in, but it is a fatal flaw. Open development methods mean that a lot of dirty laundry gets checked into repositories. If dynamic languages have more bugs per check-in, but require significantly less work per check-in, then measuring bugs per check-in without measuring effort per check-in is meaningless, and that's before you even get to the functionality provided by the checked-in code.
Parent:
Me:
Seriously. Even before 9/11, any joking about a bomb in an airport would be problematic. You can't expect everybody in a position of power to be intelligent, so don't frighten the ones at the airport.
Now, you can argue it shouldn't be that way, and you may well be right. That's just like arguing you ought to be able to walk anywhere in Chicago any time of the day or night. True, but immaterial to reality.
Even though they disclaimed it in the fine print, Snapchat's entire premise was that you could send you pictures to people, and they could only see them once, for a little bit.
The analogy about the cash is off-point -- the entire reason people use credit cards instead of cash is security; same as the reason they use snapchat instead of email.
The difference between the bank and snapchat is this: with the bank, although they didn't promise and you didn't expect perfect security, they will make you whole financially by refund money taken due to fraud, while snapchat is completely the opposite -- they effectively promised better security than they delivered, and none of their users will be made whole.
Excellent post. Much better than the one about burning books on TV.
Yeah but that's like the really fast voice at the end of the drug commercial talking about death.
Snapchat's entire premise when it started out was that things were transient. Everybody told the founders it was a stupid idea, because, well, it's a stupid idea. But the people saying it was a stupid idea were making those statements based on impossibility, that the concept was akin to founding a company that would rent out genies that could give out wishes to people.
Obviously, the founders have the last laugh, because one way to make a lot of money is to rely on a gullible public and ignore the laws of reality. They aren't the first, and won't be the last, to make fortunes based on snake oil.
I don't think that analogy is right at all; OTOH, I think I can improve mine a bit: it's like the bank telling you to use their credit card for all your transactions because it's safer than any other banks' credit card (never mind cash), but then disclaiming all liability when there is a hack that makes that not true.