1. There is no "next" right turn. There is a x degree turn after y meters, where x and y are real numbers. You are applying discrete mathematics on continuous functions.
2. This is not better than taking the steering wheel into one's own hands. It is not really automation at a useful level when it needs such babysitting.
3. It is hugely more inconvenient than instructing a human, with whom words like "yonder" and "just a little bit" work wonders. Incidentally humans fund it much much harder to communicate this way because of millions of years of evolution.
Situation: You are in a rectangular space, 100ft x 200ft. Let us denote the space in x,y coordinates with NWW corner as 0,0. You just entered through an opening NNW. You want it to park with front left tyre at 45ft,62ft , while pointing towards 37 degrees east of the north-south line. In doing this, you do not want to pass a 100 square feet area centered at 30ft,26ft because then you will be seen be your sister from the window whom you've come to surprise. Not all terrain in this 20,000 square feet is appropriate car driving. You do not have a compass or a measuring instrument, so you cannot accurately use the words feet, north, south etc. while communicating.
Robots driving on roads on which humans and OTHER robots are driving IS extreme robotics. Yes, if there were a transit "system", I'd agree that it is well known situation and not extreme robotics. But roads are transit chaos, not transit system.
Parking space costs much more than electricity, but in many places commercial/residential building plans are approved only when appropriate parking space is provided for. Lack of parking space is a genuine reason for not doing business at some place. Because for all practical purposes, otherwise parking would have to be done at public spaces, turning the business place as well as its customers into leeches.
Parking space with free charging spots is not a reasonable expectation. It favors electric car owners with least charged batteries. A business place that charges for electricity to charge cars but not for parking space cannot be termed as a leech for society.
Great, so putting "Kelloggs" , "5% protein", " best before 15 DEC 2015", "made in USA" - they all imply there is something wrong with it?
And mandatory labeling need not be as useless as "contains GMO", it could specify the exact species, strain, GMO identifier or something useful like this.
In posting this, you ended up taking option 4: the straw man argument. Because I'm not interested in taking statements out of context. I do try to keep posts very short because you go off on a tangent using any less important stuff I post which only has a supporting role in my argument.
I don't get this. Facebook always accepts names I randomly generate using a perl script - a judicious mix of consonants and vowels is all they need. Probably it helps that the words don't mean anything.
It's the issue that is the subject of the thread to which you're replying. I don't care if he personally sees it as an issue or not. I'm not talking about that.
Let me get this straight.
1a. People send pull requests to Linus. 1b. Linus didn't ask your advice here.
2a. Linus "complains" about the pull requests. 2b. You "complain" about Linus here.
3a. Yet you say Linus doesn't have a right to "complain" about those pull requests, even if other people initiated the pull requests. 3b. Yet you have every right to "complain" about Linus here, even though Linus is not asking your advice here.
And on top of it, you are defining the issue about *his* behaviour, even if you acknowledge that Linus may not "personally" see it as an issue. So you are the benevolent dictator of Linus Torvalds' life?
HIS GOAL IS TO MANAGE A SOFTWARE PROJECT. THIS IS WHAT HE DOES. IF THAT IS NOT HIS GOAL, THEN HE IS WASTING HIS TIME.
And as his benevolent dictator, a few posts ago you defined his goal to be something to do with bathrobes. Now that you have changed his goal, he will correct his behaviour to be aligned with his goals. Until amicusNYCL changes Linus' goals for him, of course.
Success is of course not an "issue", success can issue out of good management.
the issue is whether or not people want to work with him based on his management style (or lack thereof).
This may or may not be an issue depending on his goals. We can only guess at his goals. If creating great software that touches many users' lives is the goal, people wanting to work with him is an issue only if it interferes with the goal. Since no one attracts much better talent at a lower cost and yet develops a large software product that arguably touches most lives most positively - goal doesn't seem to be interfered with at all.
If his goal were to climb the mount Everest, his coding, ranting , philosophizing etc. is all very bad management of himself, others, and any resources.
Business leaders? Why don't you bring up a list of greatest astronauts and show Linus doesn't show up in the list. Or the greatest farmers? Or the fastest runners? People with ears of sharpest hearing? That would have as much relevance as this - which is unknown. Unknown because the goal is not known. If the goal were to become fastest sprinters, he has failed miserably for all I know. If the goal is to be (one of) the greatest business leaders, he has failed according to forbes etc.
So as before you want to tell him his goals, followed by contradicting yourself later to say he can have any goals he wants?
Here's a question for you: if Linus is such a fantastic manager, then why are there so many stories about people getting fed up with the behavior of him and others on the LKML and deciding to leave? Why is the LKML known as an abusive place? Does that sound like the result of a great manager?
Is his goal to minimize the people getting fed up of him?
but I'll challenge you to find him on a list of the best software project managers.
And you hereby order Linus to have this goal of being on a list of the best software project managers?
If his major work goal is working from home in his bathrobe while yelling at people, great, he's going to attract workers who want a boss who works in his bathrobe from home and yells at people
Probably. Or else his goal could be to get great software created and made useful and available to lot of people, in which he is one of the most successful people ever.
I'm not saying he has to change anything, but he also doesn't have any right to complain about the quality of people that he works with.
He has a right to complain about people he gives the opportunity to truthfully write in their resumes about contributing significantly to mainline Linux kernel. Or the opportunity to have their hardware be supported well out-of-the-box on kernel that he personally brands. Note that you have a right to "complain" about him here in spite of not giving him anything comparable to the above 2 things (opportunities) he gives to objects of his "complaints".
Yes, I very well might be a better manager than him.
Awesome, your great contributions to society by your people/self/time/resource management which you wisely keep secret, will inspire generations to come. Until that secret is revealed, unfortunately, Linus will be known as one of the most successful people/self/time/resource "managers" alive in 2015.
You are talking to straw men. No remotely sensible person is saying guns anywhere is a problem. WIDE , EASY availability of guns causes THIS kind of violence. Removing such availability will reduce such violence, but Americans will have to figure out whether it will reduce overall violence at an acceptable cost.
How does it reduce this kind of violence? If guns are easily available outside an area X, banned inside that area X, and border of X is not guarded by better guns/ much better trained and motivated people/ tanks - this causes the guns to be easily carried inside area X. To fix this, you could either make guns available / "carryable" easily inside area X e.g. a coffee shop in Florida, OR make guns difficult to obtain outside area X e.g. Canada schools.
Border between USA and Canada is protected by much stronger protection than can be beaten by typical amateurs, so you don't have to worry that much about guns from USA carried inside Canada schools.
On the other hand, it is dangerous for typical amateurs to start shooting in a Florida coffee shop, because you can get shot by any other customer.
You insist on only the latter kind of protection, but former also works against THIS kind of violence.
Wrong, it's about being able to identify what you need to say and do to a particular person in order to get that person what you need or want them to do
And you are the ultimate authority on what Linus Torvalds needs or wants. Got it.
There is a very good argument to be made that Linus is a very bad manager.
Are you better? Make more difference to the world than Linus did, and you might have a "good argument" to be made that you are better.
Then you will find that there are very few people alive who are better "managers" than Linus. Yet he is a "very bad manager".
CO2 and water are in an equilibrium. One in a thousand CO2 molecules will form carbonic acid with water. If the dissolved CO2 has escaped, the equilibrium has that many less CO2 molecules to play with, so one in a thousand out of much fewer CO2 molecules will form carbonic acid now. The carbonic acid that already exists, will escape after burping (equilibrium, remember?), but it can take a few minutes - equilibrium can be attained within 5 minutes. But this time is insufficient to get the carbonic acid to be absorbed into your bloodstream.
Unless you are a super pressurized container, carbonic acid remaining in your gut is a very small fraction of what you are creating through respiratory/metabolic process when you are "active". 4% of all your exhaled air could be CO2 - a litre of cola pales in comparison.
You don't burp after drinking soda (club or cola)? Do you have evidence that respiratory and even circulatory system needs to get involved in getting rid of the CO2 , and digestive system is incapable of doing so in its own?
Since I didn't mention grandma, especially every grandma with a computer, my point is not about every grandma with a computer. Every grandma with a computer doesn't claim to be a writer or an author.
You said YOU have not found a better system than X, I pointed out a system which many people have found "better".
I'm an occasional writer who's not good enough to go pro, but I have looked at some authoring tools, and haven't found any I like better than several terminal windows running vim.
This book is quite beautiful - produced completely in emacs org mode.
It was even written collaboratively. Export to docx works well enough in emacs org mode using pandoc. There is a discussion here
Web host cannot be sued (at least morally should not be) because they sold the site owner the space and bandwidth. They didn't cause the site owner to slander. But a site owner can be sued for slander on their web site. For large companies, web host and site owner can be the same, but they are playing these 2 roles.
Yelp here, won't just be a web host. It will be the site owner. It "caused" the slander in a small way be first encouraging "review", then advertised the "peeple" website to publicize the potential slander without verifying. So the reviewer will of course be the primary sue target, but yelp should be a party too.
Well, no one knows what intelligence is, so it is really far fetched to ask the question how would we deal with it. Humans have no clue how to deal with well understood phenomena. Though at one time black slaves had around 66% of a vote?
Tepples should tell us more about equal law and equal justice and things of that sort. I'll eagerly wait.
Slashdot Mirror
1. There is no "next" right turn. There is a x degree turn after y meters, where x and y are real numbers. You are applying discrete mathematics on continuous functions.
2. This is not better than taking the steering wheel into one's own hands. It is not really automation at a useful level when it needs such babysitting.
3. It is hugely more inconvenient than instructing a human, with whom words like "yonder" and "just a little bit" work wonders. Incidentally humans fund it much much harder to communicate this way because of millions of years of evolution.
Situation: You are in a rectangular space, 100ft x 200ft. Let us denote the space in x,y coordinates with NWW corner as 0,0. You just entered through an opening NNW. You want it to park with front left tyre at 45ft,62ft , while pointing towards 37 degrees east of the north-south line. In doing this, you do not want to pass a 100 square feet area centered at 30ft,26ft because then you will be seen be your sister from the window whom you've come to surprise. Not all terrain in this 20,000 square feet is appropriate car driving. You do not have a compass or a measuring instrument, so you cannot accurately use the words feet, north, south etc. while communicating.
How do you tell it easily to your car?
Robots driving on roads on which humans and OTHER robots are driving IS extreme robotics. Yes, if there were a transit "system", I'd agree that it is well known situation and not extreme robotics. But roads are transit chaos, not transit system.
Sensible for whom? The leeches, of course.
Parking space costs much more than electricity, but in many places commercial/residential building plans are approved only when appropriate parking space is provided for. Lack of parking space is a genuine reason for not doing business at some place. Because for all practical purposes, otherwise parking would have to be done at public spaces, turning the business place as well as its customers into leeches.
Parking space with free charging spots is not a reasonable expectation. It favors electric car owners with least charged batteries. A business place that charges for electricity to charge cars but not for parking space cannot be termed as a leech for society.
Specifying strain and/or identifier protects from lunatics with effective* IQ lower than about 120. Which is roughly the universal set of lunatics.
Protection happens by way of unpronounceable technical names of even non-GMO strains, and lunatics' unwillingness to inform themselves.
* by effective IQ I mean IQ multiplied by a coefficient of interest & willingness to learn in the subject.
Then the lunatics imply, not the label.
Great, so putting "Kelloggs" , "5% protein", " best before 15 DEC 2015", "made in USA" - they all imply there is something wrong with it?
And mandatory labeling need not be as useless as "contains GMO", it could specify the exact species, strain, GMO identifier or something useful like this.
In posting this, you ended up taking option 4: the straw man argument. Because I'm not interested in taking statements out of context. I do try to keep posts very short because you go off on a tangent using any less important stuff I post which only has a supporting role in my argument.
How about you deal with the consequences of what you post ?
1.
he also doesn't have any right to complain about the quality of people that he works with
Is not compatible with
2.
IF his behavior drives off good developers who don't want to be yelled at, THEN he can't really complain about not having good developer
While both arguments are weak, pick one of the above and then I'll address it.
Then why doesn't Linus have a right to complain about contributers to Linux kernel?
I don't get this. Facebook always accepts names I randomly generate using a perl script - a judicious mix of consonants and vowels is all they need. Probably it helps that the words don't mean anything.
Why do you have a right to complain about Linus?
It's the issue that is the subject of the thread to which you're replying. I don't care if he personally sees it as an issue or not. I'm not talking about that.
Let me get this straight.
1a. People send pull requests to Linus.
1b. Linus didn't ask your advice here.
2a. Linus "complains" about the pull requests.
2b. You "complain" about Linus here.
3a. Yet you say Linus doesn't have a right to "complain" about those pull requests, even if other people initiated the pull requests.
3b. Yet you have every right to "complain" about Linus here, even though Linus is not asking your advice here.
And on top of it, you are defining the issue about *his* behaviour, even if you acknowledge that Linus may not "personally" see it as an issue. So you are the benevolent dictator of Linus Torvalds' life?
HIS GOAL IS TO MANAGE A SOFTWARE PROJECT. THIS IS WHAT HE DOES. IF THAT IS NOT HIS GOAL, THEN HE IS WASTING HIS TIME.
And as his benevolent dictator, a few posts ago you defined his goal to be something to do with bathrobes. Now that you have changed his goal, he will correct his behaviour to be aligned with his goals. Until amicusNYCL changes Linus' goals for him, of course.
The issue is not whether or not he is successful
Success is of course not an "issue", success can issue out of good management.
the issue is whether or not people want to work with him based on his management style (or lack thereof).
This may or may not be an issue depending on his goals. We can only guess at his goals. If creating great software that touches many users' lives is the goal, people wanting to work with him is an issue only if it interferes with the goal. Since no one attracts much better talent at a lower cost and yet develops a large software product that arguably touches most lives most positively - goal doesn't seem to be interfered with at all.
If his goal were to climb the mount Everest, his coding, ranting , philosophizing etc. is all very bad management of himself, others, and any resources.
100% of that statement is your opinion.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/da...
http://www.business-management...
Business leaders? Why don't you bring up a list of greatest astronauts and show Linus doesn't show up in the list. Or the greatest farmers? Or the fastest runners? People with ears of sharpest hearing? That would have as much relevance as this - which is unknown. Unknown because the goal is not known. If the goal were to become fastest sprinters, he has failed miserably for all I know. If the goal is to be (one of) the greatest business leaders, he has failed according to forbes etc.
So as before you want to tell him his goals, followed by contradicting yourself later to say he can have any goals he wants?
Here's a question for you: if Linus is such a fantastic manager, then why are there so many stories about people getting fed up with the behavior of him and others on the LKML and deciding to leave? Why is the LKML known as an abusive place? Does that sound like the result of a great manager?
Is his goal to minimize the people getting fed up of him?
but I'll challenge you to find him on a list of the best software project managers.
And you hereby order Linus to have this goal of being on a list of the best software project managers?
If his major work goal is working from home in his bathrobe while yelling at people, great, he's going to attract workers who want a boss who works in his bathrobe from home and yells at people
Probably. Or else his goal could be to get great software created and made useful and available to lot of people, in which he is one of the most successful people ever.
I'm not saying he has to change anything, but he also doesn't have any right to complain about the quality of people that he works with.
He has a right to complain about people he gives the opportunity to truthfully write in their resumes about contributing significantly to mainline Linux kernel. Or the opportunity to have their hardware be supported well out-of-the-box on kernel that he personally brands. Note that you have a right to "complain" about him here in spite of not giving him anything comparable to the above 2 things (opportunities) he gives to objects of his "complaints".
Yes, I very well might be a better manager than him.
Awesome, your great contributions to society by your people/self/time/resource management which you wisely keep secret, will inspire generations to come. Until that secret is revealed, unfortunately, Linus will be known as one of the most successful people/self/time/resource "managers" alive in 2015.
You are talking to straw men. No remotely sensible person is saying guns anywhere is a problem. WIDE , EASY availability of guns causes THIS kind of violence. Removing such availability will reduce such violence, but Americans will have to figure out whether it will reduce overall violence at an acceptable cost.
How does it reduce this kind of violence? If guns are easily available outside an area X, banned inside that area X, and border of X is not guarded by better guns/ much better trained and motivated people/ tanks - this causes the guns to be easily carried inside area X. To fix this, you could either make guns available / "carryable" easily inside area X e.g. a coffee shop in Florida, OR make guns difficult to obtain outside area X e.g. Canada schools.
Border between USA and Canada is protected by much stronger protection than can be beaten by typical amateurs, so you don't have to worry that much about guns from USA carried inside Canada schools.
On the other hand, it is dangerous for typical amateurs to start shooting in a Florida coffee shop, because you can get shot by any other customer.
You insist on only the latter kind of protection, but former also works against THIS kind of violence.
Wrong, it's about being able to identify what you need to say and do to a particular person in order to get that person what you need or want them to do
And you are the ultimate authority on what Linus Torvalds needs or wants. Got it.
There is a very good argument to be made that Linus is a very bad manager.
Are you better? Make more difference to the world than Linus did, and you might have a "good argument" to be made that you are better.
Then you will find that there are very few people alive who are better "managers" than Linus. Yet he is a "very bad manager".
CO2 and water are in an equilibrium. One in a thousand CO2 molecules will form carbonic acid with water. If the dissolved CO2 has escaped, the equilibrium has that many less CO2 molecules to play with, so one in a thousand out of much fewer CO2 molecules will form carbonic acid now. The carbonic acid that already exists, will escape after burping (equilibrium, remember?), but it can take a few minutes - equilibrium can be attained within 5 minutes. But this time is insufficient to get the carbonic acid to be absorbed into your bloodstream.
Unless you are a super pressurized container, carbonic acid remaining in your gut is a very small fraction of what you are creating through respiratory/metabolic process when you are "active". 4% of all your exhaled air could be CO2 - a litre of cola pales in comparison.
You don't burp after drinking soda (club or cola)? Do you have evidence that respiratory and even circulatory system needs to get involved in getting rid of the CO2 , and digestive system is incapable of doing so in its own?
No, reference implementation changes do not mean all implementations have to change. Only format changes mean all implementations have to change.
Since I didn't mention grandma, especially every grandma with a computer, my point is not about every grandma with a computer. Every grandma with a computer doesn't claim to be a writer or an author.
You said YOU have not found a better system than X, I pointed out a system which many people have found "better".
You are welcome.
Do you think your this post disagrees with any of my points? Or relevant as a reply to me rather than to tepples?
I'm an occasional writer who's not good enough to go pro, but I have looked at some authoring tools, and haven't found any I like better than several terminal windows running vim.
This book is quite beautiful - produced completely in emacs org mode.
It was even written collaboratively. Export to docx works well enough in emacs org mode using pandoc. There is a discussion here
Web host cannot be sued (at least morally should not be) because they sold the site owner the space and bandwidth. They didn't cause the site owner to slander. But a site owner can be sued for slander on their web site. For large companies, web host and site owner can be the same, but they are playing these 2 roles.
Yelp here, won't just be a web host. It will be the site owner. It "caused" the slander in a small way be first encouraging "review", then advertised the "peeple" website to publicize the potential slander without verifying. So the reviewer will of course be the primary sue target, but yelp should be a party too.
Well, no one knows what intelligence is, so it is really far fetched to ask the question how would we deal with it. Humans have no clue how to deal with well understood phenomena. Though at one time black slaves had around 66% of a vote?
Tepples should tell us more about equal law and equal justice and things of that sort. I'll eagerly wait.