Oh, sure, if they just wanted to drop the name somewhere in the article as an example of how many popular games and applications use LUA, that would be one thing.
But this is not that thing.
The very title of the Fox article is the ever-so-fair-and-balanced:
Powerful ‘Flame’ cyberweapon tied to popular Angry Birds game
...So I'm going to have to go with "Fox News is Stupid" on this one.
And this has been today's example of why the Geneva conventions should have included a section forbidding free software developers and researchers from ever naming anything.
It's also funny that we spend the first 2-3 decades of life being trained and educated in a deliberate attempt to modify our brains...to the point that any parent who wants their child to exist in a "natural" human state would be sent to prison for child abuse. We pride ourselves on being "civilized", and redefine "human" to mean denying our biological nature. Society is founded on that principle, and while as a people we try to modify ourselves to become more intelligent and compassionate, education-turned-indoctrination can also make us into monsters, and even the most liberal societies train us to accept certain injustices.
So when they say technology can change who we are, I suggest that we have been excelling at changing who we are for thousands of years. Whether a particular technique is "good" or "bad" in a moral sense depends on whether it stirs or stunts our capacity for empathy, and whether it encourages us to grow and diversify or enforces a rigid set of behavior.
Yep, it makes you wonder why we bothered with old technology at all. Why didn't we start using today's computers fifty years ago? Think of all the time and effort it would have saved!
Except that for the mass of astronauts + a crew cabin + life support for a year + fuel to get all of the above back to Earth, you could send up an entire robotic demolition crew complete with RTGs to power them for decades.
I'm not against manned space exploration, but until we have better engine technology it will be a huge waste of resources.
Well, when you've got a billion and a third people, a history of oppressing intellectuals, and a (relatively) immigration-friendly neighbor, these things happen.
Any measuring cup will tell you a number line can be very intuitive. Stacking objects, filling a container; many everyday tasks are perfect physical examples of a number line.
Rulers are another example, though perhaps a bit less physical or intuitive.
Ah, well, that teaches me to re-read before I post; at first I thought the headline was "Newspapers pollute less than e-readers and tablets".
But now the article sounds even sillier; of course it costs less to show text on my screen than to manufacture paper and ink, run them through a printing press, and deliver a physical object to my front door. Sure, electronic news requires servers, routers, and optical fibre, but physical news requires print shops, warehouses, and trucks. The former is far more efficient at transporting information than the latter. Was anyone seriously arguing otherwise?
There's no stopping it, EXCEPT by not giving them the data in the first place. They cannot abuse what they do not have.
And even that will get harder and harder as time goes on. People make tons of "noise" and technology is getting better and better at making sense of it. Regulate government and corporations all you want; it won't matter in twenty years when I can buy a handheld gadget that can spy on you right through your walls.
In fact, mandating privacy will probably hurt us in the long run, because when we hide all our 'ugly' bits it's easy to start assuming they don't exist at all, and overreact when something happens to leak out. The more we hide and the more we polish our images, the more damaging any leak becomes—like having your career ruined because OH MY GOD somebody took a nude photo of you years ago. Privacy is like a suit of armor; it can protect, but it's very restrictive to keep on all the time, you soon feel completely naked and exposed without it, and you live in constant fear of someone finding a chink.
So I agree with Berners-Lee. Keeping everything secret from everybody is not a long-term solution. Responsibility is a long-term solution. We need to stop ourselves from obsessing over details we discover of other peoples' lives. We need to realize that no one is perfect and reject the spotless public images the wealthy and powerful can afford to manufacture. We need to promise to be considerate with the information others reveal to us. And most of all, we need to stigmatize the governments and gossips and paparazzi and anyone who trolls personal information seeking harm or humiliation. Such activity needs to be not simply unlawful but morally reprehensible, regardless of what it might dredge up.
Because in the end, if we can't go about our daily lives without constant fear of those around us, society has failed.
Slashdot Mirror
low resolution displays are the entire reason...helvetica...became popular.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you simply experience the flow of time differently than corporeal beings.
If you're familiar with Java but not web development, it sounds like Grails might be a good place to start.
Oh, sure, if they just wanted to drop the name somewhere in the article as an example of how many popular games and applications use LUA, that would be one thing.
But this is not that thing.
The very title of the Fox article is the ever-so-fair-and-balanced:
Powerful ‘Flame’ cyberweapon tied to popular Angry Birds game
...So I'm going to have to go with "Fox News is Stupid" on this one.
Oh, hey, Zach.
Not that Apple, et. al., are innocent by any means, but WTF has Technicolor contributed to humanity in the past twenty years??
Do they still make those amazing coats?
Wirelessly streamed data from the lead vehicle tells each car when to accelerate, break and turn, all in real-world traffic conditions.
The trust issues sound... problematic.
It's the next big thing: Streisand marketing.
TACK key
TACK key
TACK keys
TACK key
TACK key
And this has been today's example of why the Geneva conventions should have included a section forbidding free software developers and researchers from ever naming anything.
It's also funny that we spend the first 2-3 decades of life being trained and educated in a deliberate attempt to modify our brains...to the point that any parent who wants their child to exist in a "natural" human state would be sent to prison for child abuse. We pride ourselves on being "civilized", and redefine "human" to mean denying our biological nature. Society is founded on that principle, and while as a people we try to modify ourselves to become more intelligent and compassionate, education-turned-indoctrination can also make us into monsters, and even the most liberal societies train us to accept certain injustices.
So when they say technology can change who we are, I suggest that we have been excelling at changing who we are for thousands of years. Whether a particular technique is "good" or "bad" in a moral sense depends on whether it stirs or stunts our capacity for empathy, and whether it encourages us to grow and diversify or enforces a rigid set of behavior.
Yep, it makes you wonder why we bothered with old technology at all. Why didn't we start using today's computers fifty years ago? Think of all the time and effort it would have saved!
Except that for the mass of astronauts + a crew cabin + life support for a year + fuel to get all of the above back to Earth, you could send up an entire robotic demolition crew complete with RTGs to power them for decades.
I'm not against manned space exploration, but until we have better engine technology it will be a huge waste of resources.
Great work, guys! Now, do you have a suggestion on how to put several trillion tiny diamond presses inside my SSD "within about five years"?
Well, when you've got a billion and a third people, a history of oppressing intellectuals, and a (relatively) immigration-friendly neighbor, these things happen.
Axe Cop, anyone?
Ask Slashdot: What's your favorite Sci-Fi apocalypse?
Any measuring cup will tell you a number line can be very intuitive. Stacking objects, filling a container; many everyday tasks are perfect physical examples of a number line.
Rulers are another example, though perhaps a bit less physical or intuitive.
They've released a few screenshots demonstrating the cleaner, lighter typeface and refined iconography.
I wouldn't worry. After seeing the results, the researchers said they'll be extremely careful when they actually perform the experiment.
Or they could just call it a "large MPV".
Gah, replied to the wrong post, sorry!
I think you might want to invest in a better-than-average brain.
Ah, well, that teaches me to re-read before I post; at first I thought the headline was "Newspapers pollute less than e-readers and tablets".
But now the article sounds even sillier; of course it costs less to show text on my screen than to manufacture paper and ink, run them through a printing press, and deliver a physical object to my front door. Sure, electronic news requires servers, routers, and optical fibre, but physical news requires print shops, warehouses, and trucks. The former is far more efficient at transporting information than the latter. Was anyone seriously arguing otherwise?
assuming that all the GHG emissions associated with producing and operating e-readers or tablet computers are ascribed to reading newspapers
Also, my PC makes a very inefficient desk lamp, assuming I only use my PC as a desk lamp.
There's no stopping it, EXCEPT by not giving them the data in the first place. They cannot abuse what they do not have.
And even that will get harder and harder as time goes on. People make tons of "noise" and technology is getting better and better at making sense of it. Regulate government and corporations all you want; it won't matter in twenty years when I can buy a handheld gadget that can spy on you right through your walls.
In fact, mandating privacy will probably hurt us in the long run, because when we hide all our 'ugly' bits it's easy to start assuming they don't exist at all, and overreact when something happens to leak out. The more we hide and the more we polish our images, the more damaging any leak becomes—like having your career ruined because OH MY GOD somebody took a nude photo of you years ago. Privacy is like a suit of armor; it can protect, but it's very restrictive to keep on all the time, you soon feel completely naked and exposed without it, and you live in constant fear of someone finding a chink.
So I agree with Berners-Lee. Keeping everything secret from everybody is not a long-term solution. Responsibility is a long-term solution. We need to stop ourselves from obsessing over details we discover of other peoples' lives. We need to realize that no one is perfect and reject the spotless public images the wealthy and powerful can afford to manufacture. We need to promise to be considerate with the information others reveal to us. And most of all, we need to stigmatize the governments and gossips and paparazzi and anyone who trolls personal information seeking harm or humiliation. Such activity needs to be not simply unlawful but morally reprehensible, regardless of what it might dredge up.
Because in the end, if we can't go about our daily lives without constant fear of those around us, society has failed.
Furthermore, you are sending this message from the 1880s via your amazing printing time-telegraph.