Actually, I'd guess that if this becomes worst-case prevalent (IMO), members of the military would probably be the only people *not* required to have this crap implanted. Think about it for a second. As a tactician, would you really want this easily detectable identification device that can't be removed at any given moment?
I wouldn't... "special forces" are special because they are trained well enough that they *don't* require the kind of support other troops do.
Old-style pacemakers are easily removable too... that series of events is just fucked up.
Re:Just because you _can_ doesn't mean you _wanna_
on
Managing Einsteins
·
· Score: 1
The techies are more often the ones making the empty promises.
I disagree - the people making the promises that have to be broken eventually are people like me.
I have just enough technical knowledge to have a good idea of what is and is not possible given certain generalized conditions, but I'm not qualified to do the actual work.
I have tons of really interesting ideas, and I can visualize and in many cases architect some really beautiful things that abstract from existing projects and will really work for the end-user.
Combine the above point with the fact that for many of these designs to work, a synchronous development process is necessary, there must not be "outside" complications, and that to work out the details of the design I either need to be working on the details myself (with comparatively slow progress) or I need to be hashing them out with people that can both see my vision and serve as a technical sounding board, all without getting frustrated.
I'm just slightly too oriented to doing everything myself to manage well.
The only reason I didn't get involved in some startup is that I absolutely abhor greed, and there was (and is) way too much of it going around here (SF).
These are the people that put the shutdown command in the "start" button, do remember.
I'm getting a little tired of this one, and I'll tell you why.:-)
When you "Start" using the computer, it's more than obvious where to look first, even if you have no idea what you're doing. Even if you've never used Windows before, you'll go push that button. At one extreme end of the menu - right next to the "Start" button in most configurations - is the option to "Shut Down". It may seem silly to put "Shut Down" under "Start", but after you get over that pedantry it's great UI design. You know where it is if you do *anything* with the machine - and if all you want to do is turn the damn thing off, you'll probably look there first, because it's a big shiny (well, gray) widget that says "Start". Not that bad an idea.
Then you have people, such as the palestinians, who expect to just be happy because some book I've never read says they deserve it.
You do realize that the Palestinians, at least as much as any other people on the planet, have been displaced from their homeland, right?
The situation is really complicated. Religion is being used to argue what really amounts to political causes, and vice versa. Yes, I think Israel deserves to exist, and safely and happily at that. I also believe that the Palestinians were grossly mistreated to make way for the Israel that exists today. Nobody won. And nobody will win an outright victory - if we/they keep trying, everybody will lose, unequivocably. And none of this takes into account the probability of Arafat and Sharon being killed by the people they represent if they back down from their positions, regardless of how much each would like to see the other dead.
The Palestinians want - oh yes, I know humans - the opportunity to be happy just as much as anyone else. They've also got little to lose and a lot of motivation... and at this point, yes, a lot of misguided hatred. Don't forget that it only takes one psychotic to get blame placed on all Palestinians, and Arafat in particular. Does that make sense? You talk about the conditions they live in, then blame them entirely for their reaction to it. Why are they there? Who put them there?
They've got to help themselves, too bad for them they don't see it that way.
Please insert obligatory and wrong-headed Holocaust reference here. It's *not ok* to commit human rights violations against people, then assign them all the responsibility for their condition.
The whole thing is really, really fucked up, but it's not going to get unfucked by trying to demonstrate that only one party involved is wrong. Everyone involved in the region is wrong. Everybody's going to have to admit it, or it will not turn out well for anyone
"Back in my country, we did a few things really well. We were willing to invest in unproven technologies so that some of them could become proven technologies. We had a general and strong sense of the power of democracy. Now that I live here, where you have different strengths, I see that perhaps these things I tell you about could make your country, my country, even greater."
It's perfectly acceptable to criticize a country that values free speech when you get there. You like it enough to emigrate, right? It's already that much better than the old country. How else, but by open and public dissent, are we ever going to improve anything?
Some ideas will succeed. Some will fail. If we do this right, the right ones will succeed more often.
While the evidence is not all there, and not all of the complex processes involved are understood, I think it makes sense to follow whichever practice seems to have the lesser impact on our environment. In other words, regardless of the correctness of their assumptions, the environmentalists are pursuing a "least-bad" approach - it is not likely that following environmentally careful practices will cause some great harm.
There's just no good argument against the "what if" of trying to find better ways to do things in the face of the *possibility* of a problem this difficult to handle.
Basically, even if "on-the-galactic-scale-humans-are-insignificant", on the human scale we're *very* significant, and that scale includes our environment, which includes a lot of other systems. We don't understand them fully. We won't for a while, at least. We need to keep working on it, and it seems wise to *avoid jumping to conclusions*, no matter which side those conclusions are on. If we maintain a healthy skepticism, then we should be able to maintain a cautious interaction with our ecology / resources.
Whatever you do, don't judge the rationality of a way of thinking on the basis of a bunch of irrational slogan-slingers... in any debate.
IBM is talking to computer makers and customers about how it could be used, he said. ``We're trying to understand how people would use it and interact with it,'' Ocheltree said.
I thought IBM had top notch people in usability, market research, laptop design, and so on. It seems strange to hear them say "we have this cool technology, but we're not sure how people would use it."
It may seem strange to hear them say that, but that's because they *are* top-notch people in usability, market research, and industrial design. We need more people saying things like that more often. Good design doesn't come solely from inspiration, and inspiration isn't a wholly creative thing - more like synthesis. And you need good data to support synthesis.
While this device may be woefully underpowered if it's projected forward into a consumer launch, the conclusions they'll be able to draw from the research will be applied elsewhere.
This exists, but I don't have the link handy. Do a search for spam filter -type stuff, and you'll come up with something that's essentially a big set of fairly sophisticated procmail filters (yes, you need a UNIXy shell acct, etc.). One of the functions you can enable will throw a verification mail - which requires a human reply - back at addresses that are not "known good".
HP, Amazon, IBM, know the power of goodwill in the marketplace.
Only too true. Check out what the people trying to survive IBM have to say. IBM's PR is so, so good these days. Good on the OSS front, good in the market, good in little local human affairs sorts of ways (unless you're from Burlington, VT). Finally, miraculously, there's a union forming (CWA, which makes sense).
IBM was the last major tech company to begin major layoffs, and that's because IBM had the balls to wait it out long enough to seem that much stronger than the rest. Big Blue. A wonderful strategic move... especially now, with attention focussed elsewhere. Now it quietly lets thousands go, and no one - except those thousands - seems to notice. These people are treated badly, and they were "IBMers".
IBM propped up its "revenue" by upping the projected interest on its pension fund to 10% (from 5% a year earlier) and simultaneously locked away a large portion of money that would have gone to retirees. This single move, alone, gave IBM enough extra "revenue" - though it's all fantasy - to pull reasonable profit in quarters when everyone else crashed hard.
Do some research and find out how much Lou Gerstner took home last year... and will take home throughout his retirement. Carly is *poor*.
The only reason I haven't signed on with the union already is this: I'm a temp. I've been temping at IBM for 2.5 years now. I will not be hired, though I am repeatedly carrot-led ("but no guarantees"). I am indispensable to the point that I worry about my job - because if I had the authority to rework internal systems, my job would not exist. My reassurance is that management is completely inert|incompetent. Did I mention that I am a Manpower worker? I am. The union does not seem to notice temps, and until they do, I think they're missing the point.... in the same way IBM's extremely well-compensated executives do.
I cannot leave my job, as if I do, I absolutely will have to move. There's no way I could afford my rent. Manpower reps have actually laughed at people coming into the local office looking for "something, anything." There's nothing, outside a few specialized industries.
...And no, I do not work the assembly line. I work in a position where I am constantly berated with how I helped land that last $NN million deal. I get to hear people discussing their bonuses in the bathroom. These people make more than doctors, and they're fucking morons.
It's all very rewarding.
Ah, fuck it. What's the worst that can happen if I don't post anonymously?:-D
listen - you're wrong in focus. re-read the third example, the one about penelope the power-user. i don't think the real benefit or intent of this is "the masses". there are a *lot* of us out there who'd love to be able to spend a while and learn a bunch about linux - enough to make it useful - but simply don't have the [time & interest] to deal with the nuts and bolts of Yet Another System.
i would be running linux on two machines *today* if this tool existed. i'd take the evening and do it. (i know my way around as a user.) as it is, i must gently pester more educated or linux-familiar friends to spend hours helping me set up and optimize the machines so that they're even *usable* for their intended purpose.
i buy them pizza and beer, and hope they don't get bored with my questions - because i *want* to learn, but that's hard to do all at once... when you've got a lot of other work to do.
not everyone wants to be a competent admin - some of us just appreciate those who are, and go about our own specialties.
I find it [OS X] quite easy to use, though not as easy or seamless as the classic interface. The multicolumn directory browser is growing on me. At first, it annoyed me, but it is actually turning out to provide a faster move through directories in depth.
Coming from the Other Two OS's, I find OS X much easier to use than OS<X - there's far less 'intuitive' voodoo involved, and the basic failings of the classic MacOS are gone (locking the system for 5 seconds while mounting CD?).
I hated that columnar browser at first, and then I convinced myself to use it through rational argument.:-) Now I love it, and want it everywhere. The argument is simple and effective: you can see where you are, where you were, and jump to any direct upward relation in one or two clicks, no matter the depth. It's marvellous for making heirarchical organization a natural interface. I only wish the columns would size themselves appropriately when necessary, and that the preview function (rightmost column) worked better.
change your habits. it's worth the effort. if you're using one of those horrid apple "pro" mice (macdaddy?), get something that doesn't require your hand to be constantly tensed. those things suck.
been waiting for your first two points for ages... slightly different (not/. context) on the first, but that would work well here, i think. your second feature should be implemented now.:-) nice one...
Re:256 shades of one color is not impressive
on
Electronic Paper
·
· Score: 1
1. grey is neutral
2. do you want smooth edges, gradients, any subtlety whatsoever? you want 256-shade greyscale.
honestly, i think the most beautiful monitor i've ever used was an old radius full-page greyscale monitor... no eyestrain whatsoever.
Re:Real advance is...Streaming Video ALL OVER
on
Electronic Paper
·
· Score: 1
The thing would have to project different views to different perspectives.
This is probably not as difficult as it seems, at least for 2 dimensions (eg, side to side) - of course, since I'm saying that, it's also far more difficult than *I* expect it to be. Remember those changing pictures, where slices of related pictures are interleaved with each other, then overlayed with a rumpled prismatic surface?
yes... science attempts to form an analogy between a conceptual system of logic and the real system - this analogy *is* scientific understanding, and its qualities are generally judged by the precision and accuracy of the model or correspondance.
also, as a studying mathematician, i do believe that we can proove and disprove things absolutely. to think otherwise is incredibly naive given the relative success of humanity.
as a mathematician, i expect you are well aware of what happens when premisses are incorrect. also as a mathematician, i *hope* you are aware that because it is a logic system - a conceptual entity with no necessary binding to reality - mathematics is capable of 'proof'.
i urge you to take a few *good* classes (bad classes will be a waste of your time, perhaps independent study would be better) in epistemology. it may not change your mind, but it might change your mind.
in any case, i think it's rather naive to believe that our proofs accurately and precisely describe reality. to think otherwise is incredibly optimistic, given the relative success of humanity. (i mean, how hard is it for a species to survive? and how long have we been here? the odds are against us just as much as they are against the cockroach. our "knowledge" does not separate us from our ecology.)
we're trying to build working models of our environment, so that we may predict it with greater success. none of this implies proof, no matter how well it may seem to work.
nice.... I'd hazard a guess that/. is so 'catchy' because it's quite shallow - doesn't take much to realize what's going on here, and doesn't take much to get in at the 'deep end'... and there are a few subtleties from a (relatively) long and thick history that add a bit of interest and charm for the newbie.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I'd guess that if this becomes worst-case prevalent (IMO), members of the military would probably be the only people *not* required to have this crap implanted. Think about it for a second. As a tactician, would you really want this easily detectable identification device that can't be removed at any given moment?
I wouldn't... "special forces" are special because they are trained well enough that they *don't* require the kind of support other troops do.
Of course, I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Old-style pacemakers are easily removable too... that series of events is just fucked up.
I disagree - the people making the promises that have to be broken eventually are people like me.
The only reason I didn't get involved in some startup is that I absolutely abhor greed, and there was (and is) way too much of it going around here (SF).
I'm getting a little tired of this one, and I'll tell you why. :-)
When you "Start" using the computer, it's more than obvious where to look first, even if you have no idea what you're doing. Even if you've never used Windows before, you'll go push that button. At one extreme end of the menu - right next to the "Start" button in most configurations - is the option to "Shut Down". It may seem silly to put "Shut Down" under "Start", but after you get over that pedantry it's great UI design. You know where it is if you do *anything* with the machine - and if all you want to do is turn the damn thing off, you'll probably look there first, because it's a big shiny (well, gray) widget that says "Start". Not that bad an idea.
You do realize that the Palestinians, at least as much as any other people on the planet, have been displaced from their homeland, right?
The situation is really complicated. Religion is being used to argue what really amounts to political causes, and vice versa. Yes, I think Israel deserves to exist, and safely and happily at that. I also believe that the Palestinians were grossly mistreated to make way for the Israel that exists today. Nobody won. And nobody will win an outright victory - if we/they keep trying, everybody will lose, unequivocably. And none of this takes into account the probability of Arafat and Sharon being killed by the people they represent if they back down from their positions, regardless of how much each would like to see the other dead.
The Palestinians want - oh yes, I know humans - the opportunity to be happy just as much as anyone else. They've also got little to lose and a lot of motivation... and at this point, yes, a lot of misguided hatred. Don't forget that it only takes one psychotic to get blame placed on all Palestinians, and Arafat in particular. Does that make sense? You talk about the conditions they live in, then blame them entirely for their reaction to it. Why are they there? Who put them there?
Please insert obligatory and wrong-headed Holocaust reference here. It's *not ok* to commit human rights violations against people, then assign them all the responsibility for their condition.
The whole thing is really, really fucked up, but it's not going to get unfucked by trying to demonstrate that only one party involved is wrong. Everyone involved in the region is wrong. Everybody's going to have to admit it, or it will not turn out well for anyone
Simple answer: no compromise, no end in sight.
"Back in my country, we did a few things really well. We were willing to invest in unproven technologies so that some of them could become proven technologies. We had a general and strong sense of the power of democracy. Now that I live here, where you have different strengths, I see that perhaps these things I tell you about could make your country, my country, even greater."
It's perfectly acceptable to criticize a country that values free speech when you get there. You like it enough to emigrate, right? It's already that much better than the old country. How else, but by open and public dissent, are we ever going to improve anything?
Some ideas will succeed. Some will fail. If we do this right, the right ones will succeed more often.
While the evidence is not all there, and not all of the complex processes involved are understood, I think it makes sense to follow whichever practice seems to have the lesser impact on our environment. In other words, regardless of the correctness of their assumptions, the environmentalists are pursuing a "least-bad" approach - it is not likely that following environmentally careful practices will cause some great harm.
There's just no good argument against the "what if" of trying to find better ways to do things in the face of the *possibility* of a problem this difficult to handle.
Basically, even if "on-the-galactic-scale-humans-are-insignificant", on the human scale we're *very* significant, and that scale includes our environment, which includes a lot of other systems. We don't understand them fully. We won't for a while, at least. We need to keep working on it, and it seems wise to *avoid jumping to conclusions*, no matter which side those conclusions are on. If we maintain a healthy skepticism, then we should be able to maintain a cautious interaction with our ecology / resources.
Whatever you do, don't judge the rationality of a way of thinking on the basis of a bunch of irrational slogan-slingers... in any debate.
It may seem strange to hear them say that, but that's because they *are* top-notch people in usability, market research, and industrial design. We need more people saying things like that more often. Good design doesn't come solely from inspiration, and inspiration isn't a wholly creative thing - more like synthesis. And you need good data to support synthesis.
While this device may be woefully underpowered if it's projected forward into a consumer launch, the conclusions they'll be able to draw from the research will be applied elsewhere.
This exists, but I don't have the link handy. Do a search for spam filter -type stuff, and you'll come up with something that's essentially a big set of fairly sophisticated procmail filters (yes, you need a UNIXy shell acct, etc.). One of the functions you can enable will throw a verification mail - which requires a human reply - back at addresses that are not "known good".
Only too true. Check out what the people trying to survive IBM have to say. IBM's PR is so, so good these days. Good on the OSS front, good in the market, good in little local human affairs sorts of ways (unless you're from Burlington, VT). Finally, miraculously, there's a union forming (CWA, which makes sense).
IBM was the last major tech company to begin major layoffs, and that's because IBM had the balls to wait it out long enough to seem that much stronger than the rest. Big Blue. A wonderful strategic move... especially now, with attention focussed elsewhere. Now it quietly lets thousands go, and no one - except those thousands - seems to notice. These people are treated badly, and they were "IBMers".
IBM propped up its "revenue" by upping the projected interest on its pension fund to 10% (from 5% a year earlier) and simultaneously locked away a large portion of money that would have gone to retirees. This single move, alone, gave IBM enough extra "revenue" - though it's all fantasy - to pull reasonable profit in quarters when everyone else crashed hard.
Do some research and find out how much Lou Gerstner took home last year... and will take home throughout his retirement. Carly is *poor*.
The only reason I haven't signed on with the union already is this: I'm a temp. I've been temping at IBM for 2.5 years now. I will not be hired, though I am repeatedly carrot-led ("but no guarantees"). I am indispensable to the point that I worry about my job - because if I had the authority to rework internal systems, my job would not exist. My reassurance is that management is completely inert|incompetent. Did I mention that I am a Manpower worker? I am. The union does not seem to notice temps, and until they do, I think they're missing the point.... in the same way IBM's extremely well-compensated executives do.
I cannot leave my job, as if I do, I absolutely will have to move. There's no way I could afford my rent. Manpower reps have actually laughed at people coming into the local office looking for "something, anything." There's nothing, outside a few specialized industries.
...And no, I do not work the assembly line. I work in a position where I am constantly berated with how I helped land that last $NN million deal. I get to hear people discussing their bonuses in the bathroom. These people make more than doctors, and they're fucking morons.
It's all very rewarding.
Ah, fuck it. What's the worst that can happen if I don't post anonymously? :-D
no shit. explain that one to the historical advancement of technology... or Science, whichever you prefer.
listen - you're wrong in focus. re-read the third example, the one about penelope the power-user. i don't think the real benefit or intent of this is "the masses". there are a *lot* of us out there who'd love to be able to spend a while and learn a bunch about linux - enough to make it useful - but simply don't have the [time & interest] to deal with the nuts and bolts of Yet Another System.
i would be running linux on two machines *today* if this tool existed. i'd take the evening and do it. (i know my way around as a user.) as it is, i must gently pester more educated or linux-familiar friends to spend hours helping me set up and optimize the machines so that they're even *usable* for their intended purpose.
i buy them pizza and beer, and hope they don't get bored with my questions - because i *want* to learn, but that's hard to do all at once... when you've got a lot of other work to do.
not everyone wants to be a competent admin - some of us just appreciate those who are, and go about our own specialties.
I don't see any reason why the unwashed masses who sit and drool in front of the TV now won't be sitting and drooling in front of the web.
You mean.... like me?
Noooo...
Please look up the word "hyperbole." Thank you.
Coming from the Other Two OS's, I find OS X much easier to use than OS<X - there's far less 'intuitive' voodoo involved, and the basic failings of the classic MacOS are gone (locking the system for 5 seconds while mounting CD?).
I hated that columnar browser at first, and then I convinced myself to use it through rational argument. :-) Now I love it, and want it everywhere. The argument is simple and effective: you can see where you are, where you were, and jump to any direct upward relation in one or two clicks, no matter the depth. It's marvellous for making heirarchical organization a natural interface. I only wish the columns would size themselves appropriately when necessary, and that the preview function (rightmost column) worked better.
change your habits. it's worth the effort. if you're using one of those horrid apple "pro" mice (macdaddy?), get something that doesn't require your hand to be constantly tensed. those things suck.
been waiting for your first two points for ages... slightly different (not /. context) on the first, but that would work well here, i think. your second feature should be implemented now. :-) nice one...
...or one more reason the USA is not as pleasant a place as it should be.
Ignorance sucks.
you don't think that this sort of computing model might have some relevance to this *other* computing model, do you? :-)
i'm willing to stake a prediction point on fpga (or *physically based*) GAs as being a superb analogue to genetic structure, physical structure, etc.
language, by the way, is a form of pattern matching, as is every abstraction.
hey, remember the file manager from windows 3.x?
1. grey is neutral
2. do you want smooth edges, gradients, any subtlety whatsoever? you want 256-shade greyscale.
honestly, i think the most beautiful monitor i've ever used was an old radius full-page greyscale monitor... no eyestrain whatsoever.
This is probably not as difficult as it seems, at least for 2 dimensions (eg, side to side) - of course, since I'm saying that, it's also far more difficult than *I* expect it to be. Remember those changing pictures, where slices of related pictures are interleaved with each other, then overlayed with a rumpled prismatic surface?
yes... science attempts to form an analogy between a conceptual system of logic and the real system - this analogy *is* scientific understanding, and its qualities are generally judged by the precision and accuracy of the model or correspondance.
as a mathematician, i expect you are well aware of what happens when premisses are incorrect. also as a mathematician, i *hope* you are aware that because it is a logic system - a conceptual entity with no necessary binding to reality - mathematics is capable of 'proof'.
i urge you to take a few *good* classes (bad classes will be a waste of your time, perhaps independent study would be better) in epistemology. it may not change your mind, but it might change your mind.
in any case, i think it's rather naive to believe that our proofs accurately and precisely describe reality. to think otherwise is incredibly optimistic, given the relative success of humanity. (i mean, how hard is it for a species to survive? and how long have we been here? the odds are against us just as much as they are against the cockroach. our "knowledge" does not separate us from our ecology.)
we're trying to build working models of our environment, so that we may predict it with greater success. none of this implies proof, no matter how well it may seem to work.
nice.... I'd hazard a guess that /. is so 'catchy' because it's quite shallow - doesn't take much to realize what's going on here, and doesn't take much to get in at the 'deep end'... and there are a few subtleties from a (relatively) long and thick history that add a bit of interest and charm for the newbie.