I'm anxiously awaiting the improvement of the technology. When real car parts can be printed without much time, expertise, or expense it will have a massive impact.
More than once most or all popular media has agreed on "facts" that are not. When that happens a large number of people accept the claim as truth. This doesn't change for years at a time. Suppression of unpopular truths will be far more effective if people aren't even made aware that there is a dispute.
Aging is a degenerative disease not a law of physics. With better technology he could have lived a great deal longer and done a great deal more even than the impressive feat that was his life.
Clickbaity hype like this doesn't just waste my time, it tends to cause apathy and skepticism of science and engineering in the populace at large. Stop it.
Free speech isn't just an American's right, it's a human right. Protecting it is necessary for prosperity and freedom whether you're in the US or in North Korea. I never said "Reddit shouldn't do this because it's against the constitution."
Reddit shouldn't be doing this because it tends to violate an innate human right and because it will destroy Reddit. And since I see you're inclined to take my words out of context I have to say the following: Your next argument would probably be, "yeah right. Posting revenge nudes is a human right" and my reply is this: As I said in my first post, which particular speech is being threatened is irrelevant.
Censorship is a ball and chain for the soul of man. Whatever the speech in question, the act of censoring it turns the latch that locks the shackle. Whatever the first link, others are added until a great weight is there. And placing that weight on a single family, a forum of millions, or a large and prosperous nation are all immoral.
Reddit's decline started before the censorship of Gamergate. It started before the Something Awful forums invaded SRS and turned it into a joke. It's never was about gender wars. (although some of those events were symptomatic) It was never about politics. (although political vote warring and karma whoring added to the mess.)
Reddit's decline started the first time legal speech that no one liked was censored. It was an unpopular board. It was a popular decision to ban it despite it not violating rules. I'm not going to name the subreddit that was deleted because which sub it started with is irrelevant.Reddit administration banned a board, signaling that any sufficiently unpopular speech could be removed at will by administration. From that moment those seeking to remove various forms of speech started to work toward influencing admins.
Some people will applaud this action, saying that no one should have their private pictures posted without their consent. Some people will call this an issue of right to privacy. Those people are misguided.
When a forum starts to limit legal speech a slowly growing cancer of censorship is inevitable. And don't say, "slippery slope". This has happened over and over and over. It doesn't matter whether people should be posting such pictures. It doesn't matter how distasteful they are. It doesn't matter what intent the poster has. Or how distasteful the poster is. Or the reader. It happened at Digg. It has happened in certain churches. It has happened in Korea. It happened in Russia and China. "It's okay to ban this kind of speech" is never. Never true.
If the indirect effects of limiting freedom leads to suboptimal option availability leads to poor economic performance leads to lower profits... if that convoluted chain somehow ends up resulting in more freedom I'm all for it.
But the perfect world I go to sometimes in my dreams doesn't need that. In that world the government fears and obeys its people.
The problem is how human eyes move. We dart them quickly and unpredictably about. I think re-rendering as the user moves her eyes will take as much processing power as just rendering it all.
I'm not going to complain about "playing god" but this definitely approaches immoral conduct. Change this gene in something with a larger brain and you could create animals smart enough to deserve human rights. At that point the only ethical course of action is to give them said rights. The problem is the lack of a proper legal framework for such. Our science is in the 21st century but our laws are 19th to 20th. It's practically a very small step from this to sheep or monkeys.
We need to start defining legal rights for intelligent, non-human entities immediately.
People being influenced by comments is not a problem. And it certainly isn't a problem best solved by attacking anonymity. The more anonymous comments are, the more they'll be judged by the merits of the arguments of which they consist. The article seems to be calling for every comment section to be turned into a walled garden.
For any large project a good rule of thumb is to double your budget and set aside the extra for inevitable unexpected expenses. If that number isn't available the project will not be finished.
Girls don't want to get into technology. Feminists can't accept that. So we spend millions to distort the market, millions that should be spent on far more vital problems.
A real scientist revises his theory when the data proves him wrong.
For Java, or any other language, removing a lot of boilerplate code would drastically increase the cost of code maintenance. If there's a linked library I already know which functions it includes and I'm free to pick and choose when modifying the code. Furthermore its inclusion allows commonality between code segments.
Of course spaghetti code is bad and plugging in arbitrary lines without understanding them tends to create spaghetti code. But what would be way worse is reducing every program to its core functionality.
Other extra lines of code serve to make a program easier to maintain. Separating functions where you don't really have to, following some expansionary coding rules, and the like create a little inefficiency to avoid creating a good deal more inefficiency for other reasons. Then there are API's, as someone else mentioned, and comments. Good code should contain a large percentage of nonfunctional lines.
Let me summarize this entire thread so we can get back to stuff that matters:
"Men and women are different, deal with it" (rotates between -1 flamebait and +5 interesting)
"That hasn't been proven" (+3 insightful)
"Gamergate is evil" (+3 troll)
"Gamergate is good" (rotates between -1 flamebait and +5 interesting)
"Here's a comprehensive discussion of the merits of this article" (no moderation)
"The patriarchy is real" (+2)
"No it isn't"(+4)
Here's my own input:
Slashdot will you PLEASE stop running the sjw story of the day. You're not fooling anyone and it will never come out the way you want until you start actively censoring comments. And pushing clickbait isn't giving you any points either.
Everyone who holds a gender-based opinion on this: PLEASE take half the time you would otherwise argue about this and review the latest studies, but take into account who funded them and the difference in funding dollars for two conflicting points of view.
Everyone else: I hope you see the obvious agenda-pushing that has been happening these last few months and inoculate yourself against it with knowledge.
Just as Google Maps and friends has saved millions of man-hours and probably hundreds of millions of dollars from people not being lost sufficiently wide adoption and awareness of these advanced features may save an immense amount of temporal and fiscal expense.
Common usage combined with other services can, for example, create self-aware communities, allow public input for city planning, resolve boundary arguments, help individuals planning to, for example, install a swimming pool, and provide data for planning crop layouts.And that's just off the top of my very non-expert head. I think the implications of this are far broader than may be immediately recognized.
Only one thing should count when designing for a form factor: The user. Weight, size, and shape should be selected for the best user experience. Make the last as long as possible whilst conforming to a size that allows a screen big enough to keep people happy and a weight light enough to keep people happy.
When I see a manufacturer touting a metric no one cares about the ads sound to me like "We can't compete so we're going to insult your intelligence instead."
It's very common for groups to mass-flag legitimate posts in an effort to censor conversation. It's also common for internet boards to selectively enforce flagging, such as unflagging nontrolls supporting one side of an argument days before nontrolls supporting the other side.
Metamoderation really helps. In before jokes: For all its sins Slashdot comments tend to be of higher quality than most other places on the internet.
I think an organization with a solid pro-free-speech, pro-neutrality platform could also maintain unbiased comment management but I don't think you can find that in a publicly traded organization. Non-rehtorical question: beyond moderation and metamoderation does anyone know an effective way to raise comment quality?
As for trolls in particular I don't see any reason to deal with them differently from other unhelpful, low-effort posts.
"contributed to" != "caused"
The pilot shouldn't have done that. However it's a mistake to just blame the whole accident on that single error in judgement. Many things have to go wrong for an accident to happen.
That's something a lot of organizations do. It's politically expedient and it's relatively efficient to just find a scapegoat (human or technological) but it ends in not actually fixing the problem.
At a bank I used to work at there was a problem backing up data to an off-site tape storage unit. The problem was complex, involving three sections in five locations. The internal DNS system wasn't passing the right IP to the server initiating the backup, which was set (after a timeout) to ask a different system for an alternate IP, which sometimes worked. The backup site wasn't recognizing any error because from its side it was fulfilling all requests. The server initiating the backup recognized incomplete backups but not the real cause. It took two weeks to find and fix the problem. A manager involved wanted to just blame and change the backup software at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars. It was a popular solution. It (barely) didn't happen simply because a slightly better connected manager wanted to find the real problem.
Here's the thing: Changing the software could have fixed the immediate problem setting it up would have fixed the DNS side of things) but the REAL problem was poor communication between the backup guy and the DNS guy. The solution was very easy and saved a boatload of money over the "scapegoat" solution. A one-sentence addition to the procedure for new hires. Introduce the backup guy to the DNS guy. But finding that solution was politically very hard. The scapegoat solution would have fixed the immediate problem but it would have just pushed the whole mess down the road a bit.
Finding a scapegoat, such as the title of this story suggests, is an almost inevitable mistake. How did the selfie result in an accident? What can be done to prevent that *kind of* judgement lapse from causing an accident in the future? Blaming the pilot will not answer these questions.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm anxiously awaiting the improvement of the technology. When real car parts can be printed without much time, expertise, or expense it will have a massive impact.
You misunderstand. His plane will go down on the way to trial, killing him in a tragic coincidence.
Would someone kindly dumb down the summary a touch?
More than once most or all popular media has agreed on "facts" that are not. When that happens a large number of people accept the claim as truth. This doesn't change for years at a time. Suppression of unpopular truths will be far more effective if people aren't even made aware that there is a dispute.
Aging is a degenerative disease not a law of physics. With better technology he could have lived a great deal longer and done a great deal more even than the impressive feat that was his life.
Clickbaity hype like this doesn't just waste my time, it tends to cause apathy and skepticism of science and engineering in the populace at large. Stop it.
Free speech isn't just an American's right, it's a human right. Protecting it is necessary for prosperity and freedom whether you're in the US or in North Korea. I never said "Reddit shouldn't do this because it's against the constitution."
Reddit shouldn't be doing this because it tends to violate an innate human right and because it will destroy Reddit. And since I see you're inclined to take my words out of context I have to say the following: Your next argument would probably be, "yeah right. Posting revenge nudes is a human right" and my reply is this: As I said in my first post, which particular speech is being threatened is irrelevant.
Censorship is a ball and chain for the soul of man. Whatever the speech in question, the act of censoring it turns the latch that locks the shackle. Whatever the first link, others are added until a great weight is there. And placing that weight on a single family, a forum of millions, or a large and prosperous nation are all immoral.
Reddit's decline started before the censorship of Gamergate. It started before the Something Awful forums invaded SRS and turned it into a joke. It's never was about gender wars. (although some of those events were symptomatic) It was never about politics. (although political vote warring and karma whoring added to the mess.)
Reddit's decline started the first time legal speech that no one liked was censored. It was an unpopular board. It was a popular decision to ban it despite it not violating rules. I'm not going to name the subreddit that was deleted because which sub it started with is irrelevant.Reddit administration banned a board, signaling that any sufficiently unpopular speech could be removed at will by administration. From that moment those seeking to remove various forms of speech started to work toward influencing admins.
Some people will applaud this action, saying that no one should have their private pictures posted without their consent. Some people will call this an issue of right to privacy. Those people are misguided.
When a forum starts to limit legal speech a slowly growing cancer of censorship is inevitable. And don't say, "slippery slope". This has happened over and over and over. It doesn't matter whether people should be posting such pictures. It doesn't matter how distasteful they are. It doesn't matter what intent the poster has. Or how distasteful the poster is. Or the reader. It happened at Digg. It has happened in certain churches. It has happened in Korea. It happened in Russia and China. "It's okay to ban this kind of speech" is never. Never true.
If the indirect effects of limiting freedom leads to suboptimal option availability leads to poor economic performance leads to lower profits... if that convoluted chain somehow ends up resulting in more freedom I'm all for it. But the perfect world I go to sometimes in my dreams doesn't need that. In that world the government fears and obeys its people.
It should be well worth reading: The Guardian is a foremost expert on spinning narrative.
No, it's being redrawn at that rate, an important distinction. Re-rendering implies passing a good deal of new data into video memory.
The problem is how human eyes move. We dart them quickly and unpredictably about. I think re-rendering as the user moves her eyes will take as much processing power as just rendering it all.
I'm not going to complain about "playing god" but this definitely approaches immoral conduct. Change this gene in something with a larger brain and you could create animals smart enough to deserve human rights. At that point the only ethical course of action is to give them said rights. The problem is the lack of a proper legal framework for such. Our science is in the 21st century but our laws are 19th to 20th. It's practically a very small step from this to sheep or monkeys.
We need to start defining legal rights for intelligent, non-human entities immediately.
Requiring an action as inconvenient as partially dismantling the device in order to not experience undesired operation is a piss-poor design.
You have my vote.
People being influenced by comments is not a problem. And it certainly isn't a problem best solved by attacking anonymity. The more anonymous comments are, the more they'll be judged by the merits of the arguments of which they consist. The article seems to be calling for every comment section to be turned into a walled garden.
For any large project a good rule of thumb is to double your budget and set aside the extra for inevitable unexpected expenses. If that number isn't available the project will not be finished.
Girls don't want to get into technology. Feminists can't accept that. So we spend millions to distort the market, millions that should be spent on far more vital problems.
A real scientist revises his theory when the data proves him wrong.
That's what happens when you melt and refreeze the surface of a foamed polyphasic material. How is this odd?
For Java, or any other language, removing a lot of boilerplate code would drastically increase the cost of code maintenance. If there's a linked library I already know which functions it includes and I'm free to pick and choose when modifying the code. Furthermore its inclusion allows commonality between code segments.
Of course spaghetti code is bad and plugging in arbitrary lines without understanding them tends to create spaghetti code. But what would be way worse is reducing every program to its core functionality.
Other extra lines of code serve to make a program easier to maintain. Separating functions where you don't really have to, following some expansionary coding rules, and the like create a little inefficiency to avoid creating a good deal more inefficiency for other reasons. Then there are API's, as someone else mentioned, and comments. Good code should contain a large percentage of nonfunctional lines.
Let me summarize this entire thread so we can get back to stuff that matters:
"Men and women are different, deal with it" (rotates between -1 flamebait and +5 interesting)
"That hasn't been proven" (+3 insightful)
"Gamergate is evil" (+3 troll)
"Gamergate is good" (rotates between -1 flamebait and +5 interesting)
"Here's a comprehensive discussion of the merits of this article" (no moderation)
"The patriarchy is real" (+2) "No it isn't"(+4)
Here's my own input:
Slashdot will you PLEASE stop running the sjw story of the day. You're not fooling anyone and it will never come out the way you want until you start actively censoring comments. And pushing clickbait isn't giving you any points either.
Everyone who holds a gender-based opinion on this: PLEASE take half the time you would otherwise argue about this and review the latest studies, but take into account who funded them and the difference in funding dollars for two conflicting points of view.
Everyone else: I hope you see the obvious agenda-pushing that has been happening these last few months and inoculate yourself against it with knowledge.
Just as Google Maps and friends has saved millions of man-hours and probably hundreds of millions of dollars from people not being lost sufficiently wide adoption and awareness of these advanced features may save an immense amount of temporal and fiscal expense.
Common usage combined with other services can, for example, create self-aware communities, allow public input for city planning, resolve boundary arguments, help individuals planning to, for example, install a swimming pool, and provide data for planning crop layouts.And that's just off the top of my very non-expert head. I think the implications of this are far broader than may be immediately recognized.
Only one thing should count when designing for a form factor: The user. Weight, size, and shape should be selected for the best user experience. Make the last as long as possible whilst conforming to a size that allows a screen big enough to keep people happy and a weight light enough to keep people happy.
When I see a manufacturer touting a metric no one cares about the ads sound to me like "We can't compete so we're going to insult your intelligence instead."
It's very common for groups to mass-flag legitimate posts in an effort to censor conversation. It's also common for internet boards to selectively enforce flagging, such as unflagging nontrolls supporting one side of an argument days before nontrolls supporting the other side.
Metamoderation really helps. In before jokes: For all its sins Slashdot comments tend to be of higher quality than most other places on the internet.
I think an organization with a solid pro-free-speech, pro-neutrality platform could also maintain unbiased comment management but I don't think you can find that in a publicly traded organization. Non-rehtorical question: beyond moderation and metamoderation does anyone know an effective way to raise comment quality?
As for trolls in particular I don't see any reason to deal with them differently from other unhelpful, low-effort posts.
"contributed to" != "caused" The pilot shouldn't have done that. However it's a mistake to just blame the whole accident on that single error in judgement. Many things have to go wrong for an accident to happen.
That's something a lot of organizations do. It's politically expedient and it's relatively efficient to just find a scapegoat (human or technological) but it ends in not actually fixing the problem.
At a bank I used to work at there was a problem backing up data to an off-site tape storage unit. The problem was complex, involving three sections in five locations. The internal DNS system wasn't passing the right IP to the server initiating the backup, which was set (after a timeout) to ask a different system for an alternate IP, which sometimes worked. The backup site wasn't recognizing any error because from its side it was fulfilling all requests. The server initiating the backup recognized incomplete backups but not the real cause. It took two weeks to find and fix the problem. A manager involved wanted to just blame and change the backup software at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars. It was a popular solution. It (barely) didn't happen simply because a slightly better connected manager wanted to find the real problem.
Here's the thing: Changing the software could have fixed the immediate problem setting it up would have fixed the DNS side of things) but the REAL problem was poor communication between the backup guy and the DNS guy. The solution was very easy and saved a boatload of money over the "scapegoat" solution. A one-sentence addition to the procedure for new hires. Introduce the backup guy to the DNS guy. But finding that solution was politically very hard. The scapegoat solution would have fixed the immediate problem but it would have just pushed the whole mess down the road a bit.
Finding a scapegoat, such as the title of this story suggests, is an almost inevitable mistake. How did the selfie result in an accident? What can be done to prevent that *kind of* judgement lapse from causing an accident in the future? Blaming the pilot will not answer these questions.