'Revolution' is coming. 'I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting.' On July 24, he said he was at a 'great crossroads. As if a storm of destiny is about to pick me up and take me to fight a great battle.' On August 9 he talked about severing heads and told the generals he was coming for them. On August 13, he wrote, 'Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads.' On August 14, Raub wrote, 'The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it.'"
Pretend it's your job to protect the public safety.. question -is he dangerous or isn't he? Seems to me common sense says that this is hyperbole or a manner of speaking in (angry) metaphor and he's not communicating a specific threat. It can't be counted a specific threat that you'd like to" take someone's head off:" or "fight a battle" or even "shoot" someone "I'd like to shoot him".. you know like that.
My family talked like that all the time and so did everyone around me. No one was getting any guns and everyone knew that.
If you're going to deal with the public you have to understand them when they speak. If you can't do that, then you don't belong in a job where you interact with the public.
You criminalizing everyone around you because YOU don't have a practical understanding of the people you're dealing with and jump at every shadow of a comment that strikes you as in any way suspicious is NOT an option.
YOU thinking about your career and deciding you'll play it safe by criminalizing someone's speech so that no one can say you didn't do your job later is NOT an option. Society isn't obligated in any way to make your job easy, or have their utterances pass your nervous Nellie test of political correctness.
I don't like this particular ex-Marine or what he said but at the same time, give me a break.
They tried your idea where nobody wants to make a profit and it failed. Making a ridiculous extremist straw man post doesn't help things.
WoofyGoofy replied:
He. Have a look in the mirror. Where did I say no one should make a profit? You guys are all the same. Binary, thinking is all you're capable of. Either we're maximizing profit under all circumstances or it's Communism.
I know you meant to diminish my post by pointing out what you thought was my straw man. Too bad you had that gun pointing the wrong way.
They tried your idea where nobody wants to make a profit and it failed. Making a ridiculous extremist straw man post doesn't help things.
He. Have a look in the mirror. Where did I say no one should make a profit?
You guys are all the same. Binary, thinking is all you're capable of. Either we're maximizing profit under all circumstances or it's Communism.
I know you meant to diminish my post by pointing out what you thought was my straw man. Too bad you had that gun pointing the wrong way.
Yeah, actually this is 100% stupid. The part of the brain that subtends visual processing is the visual cortex (which itself is broken down into different parts but it's good enough for now) . There has never been shown any relationship between the speed at which it can process visual stimuli (not that that's what's being measured, response times are) and general intelligence. What the researchers are doing is pretending that all "brain stuff" is the same(!!!) and if one part process a particular modality of information fast, then others do also and that speed is what intelligence is.
Jesus there are so many things wrong with this idiotic hypothesis.
For instance, we already know that functionally specific areas of the brain may be more or less independently good at what they do. So someone can have a high level of coordination and fast reaction times but score poorly in reasoning and even reading.
Not only are functionally distinct areas of the brain naturally better or worse at their "jobs" quite independently , but such areas' performance can be enhanced through practice, which enhancement presumably and in some case provably are subtended by an increase in the density of brain cells and connections. So any measurement of performance has to first ask the question- has this area of the brain in this individual been enhanced by the activities of this individual. Failing that,. inter-subject comparisons are meaningful .
Then there's the fact that there's a long long pathway between light being processed in the visual cortex and a response being generated by the subject and there's no reason to suppose that those pathways are all just passively of equal *efficiency* or that the efficiency of those pathways is meaningfully related to intelligence.
To what I am getting at, think how Stephen Hawking would fare in this test of intelligence. We have zero reason to think that pathways negatively effected by ALS are otherwise equally efficient in all individuals, or really, even the same... consider the phenomena of someone who habitually "overthinks" their responses.
Jesus. This is the second "speed = intelligence" article on Slashdot in as many days. Yesterday it was "people are gettting dumber !!!". Do I smell a PR attack with an agenda behind it? IS someone trying to foist the idea that we have a clear and unambiguous way to both define (we don't) and measure (we don't) intelligence so that they can.... profit????
Sure, maybe IP is *interfering* with scientific research in this case, but so what? If you take down the IP and interfering with corporations maximizing their profit, no one will be motivated to do anything. We'll all just loll around , (if they're people like me) staring at our navel disinterested in the world (if they're people like me)....We'll be like Old Sick Europe . Then where will ALL of science be? Do you think people are motivated by the mere chance to relieve human suffering ? Do my whores fuck me because they love me???? We need REAL motivation !!!!!
What's your value system here? Is science for the betterment of mankind , to save human lives and advance the general welfare of people or is its primary purpose to make money for people with money so they'll go on doing science ?
COIMMUNIST! I SMELL A COMMUNIST!!!! If the IP system is pared back, then all progress will cease.
Does this alleviate Bob's problem of determining whether or not Eve has gotten the plate before it got to Bob or after it got to Bob? Is it not really impenetrable encryption, or does it just move the challenge from "snooping electronically" to "stealing without detection"?
If Eve got a hold of the plate before Bob did could she not even in theory substitute a different plate? Copy the plate? Provably too hard or just too hard as far as we know or doable given resources, which?
Bob would have to destroy / mutate the plate right after use- destroy after reading. Humans are the weak link in that scheme, right? Bob can't be relied to remember much info without the aid of some form of transcription. So good for secure launch codes, the ultimate in "use-once-and-render-irrelevant" , (but what if there's failure to launch? What do you know ? Can you still destroy the glass or do you have to keep it around for forensics examination and what are the security implications there? ) but not so good for ad hoc communication.
And anyways how is this better than the one time pads you can listen to on shortwave radio?
http://www.spynumbers.com/
Or the mysterious Yosemite Sam broadcast coming out of NM?
http://www.spynumbers.com/ys.wav
Which may effectively be a one-time pad where numbers are represented by hard-to-detect changes in the background noise / amplitude of the seemingly same Bugs Bunny excerpt?
There are two types of tech companies. Those who make money by selling you a service or product you pay for directly - an IDE company, a programming company, a game company- and those who sell your personal data to companies =tech and otherwise -who are the first kind of company.
If you didn't pay for it, then you're being sold in some way as a lead . FB, Google, Huffpo, slashdot, all these companies run on some combination of eyeballs (advertising) and personal information selling.
It's true. What I am really talking about is authoritarianism to a degree. The thing about the conservative movement s is it's NOT populated by only authoritarians. There's also people who are effectively oppositional defiant personality types, which is a kind of diseased form of contrarian. These are the so called libertarians. They're going to get theirs and nothing is going to stop them, least of all the thought of future generations. It's a kind of hedonism whereby their value system is a thinly disguised form of primitive self-gratification and their reasoning is nothing more than an ongoing process of rationalization, an ongoing narrative of strung together , disjointed and self contradictory justifications.
I know these people. I have an uncle like this and in the public eye, of Murdoch fits this bill as does Steve Forbes. It's a pure self0-gratification play, a long form process of self seeking without regard to anything- truth, consistency, reality, other people, nothing. These aren't authoritarians. I wish all anti-social behavior came down to a single pathology. What they all are are conservatives.
What people sometimes mix up is the STATED PHILOSOPHY of an authoritarian (or other) personality type with their actual actions. No progressive advocates for mass murder or forced relocation or anything of this nature.
No progressive advocates for coerced anything and notice I am not doing that here- I am saying they should not be created in the first place. .
Mao and Stalin were quite obviously NOT progressives whatever their stated philosophies about "community" and the good of the people. They were both obvious authoritarians- just like the heavy handed science murderers in Canada today.
Ditto all the fascists of the 20th century. Pol Pot hated intellectuals and progressives and used l;language which was eerily similar to that used by conservatives today. He hate progressives and intellectuals like conservatives hate them in America today, and for much the same reasons. He thought intellectuals (professors and "libs" in American conservative talk) had led people away from a "wholesome and natural" existence they were meant to live, which centered around farming and traditional ways ("family values and tradition") and what was needed was to turn the clock back to Day Zero (Tea Party translation - The American Revolution) and start all over again bringing everything back to a time before intellectuals (liberals) had screwed everything up (Tea Party translation - "The Founding Fathers and the American Revolution).
This is why conservatives are always talking about "2nd amendment remedies" and implying violence against "libs" . Pol Pot's "second amendment remedies" consisted of luring the intellectuals back to Cambodia, then gunning them down right on the tarmac as they debarked from the plane at the airport.
Conservatives will merrily take this earth and all it inhabitants down the road to total ruin, denying science and attacking scientists every step of the way, at first denying that AGW is going to happen, then blaming it on liberals, then finally deciding it was all foretold in the Bible.
You can't reason with them because they explicitly distrust reason science and evidentiary based reasoning, the later they see as a liberal trick and can never be used to serve their personal greed. When you have a group of people who are attempting to engage in policies which our best science has explicitly stated will destroy the world and who cannot be reasoned with , then that's where civilization ends and war begins.
The most humane thing to do is to quietly stop creating this class of people. To use science to improve humanity instead of just humanity's tools, which at this point is just giving the worst kinds of people more and more power.
So, you're an evolutionary psychologist. How do Bronze Age notions make it from the Bronze Age, which would now be anywhere from two to five thousand years old now, and survive to the present day, and yet so obviously imperil the survival of humanity? Should not these Bronze Age notions have caused the extinction of humanity in the millennia since?
You're leaving out the force multiplier that is modern technology. It's what Einstein said- the bomb has changed everything but our thinking.
If Hitler had had the bomb, the world would have been destroyed via nuclear winter before they could have figured out what was happening . It's just an accident of history- not a form of historical inevitability- that Hitler didn't get the bomb first and starting using it.
You're making the same mistake in thinking that people who cite the improbability of life itself as evidence of divine creation. The fact is, if we weren't here - by accident- then we wouldn't be talking about why we're here. Being here- for whatever reason including just chance- is a prerequisite to talking about why we're here.
So also with our lucky continued existence under the influence of Bronze Age ideas of God and Heaven and Hell and the supremacy of Biblical and Islamic or Hebrew law which is, how many people in the world live and evaluate morality still to this day, especially in America where half of all people reject evolution in favor of creationism and vote that way. If we had gotten unlucky in, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Being here to talk about itself proves nothing about the current efficacy of those ideas.
So today we are facing a timebomb called global warming. It's going to go off, it IS going off and once it reaches past a certain point - a point which may be as close as 20 years hence, then there will be no turning it back, no magic technology is going to save us. 20 years is not enough time to change a conservative's "mind". We need to have started acting in a concerted manner yesterday. So this is how the conservative mind represents a clear and present danger not just to the US but to everyone in the world. It's the intersection of the rapid pace of change and the magnitude of change that technology confers on us and conservatism being conservatism.
Another way conservatism threatens humanity is the threat of conservatives in other nations getting a hold of something more deadly and far reaching than just airplanes. As nanotechnology progresses, as home fabrication becomes a reality, as our command over nature increases on the genetic level and microscopic level, as higher education spreads it increases the probability that well integrated, seemingly intelligent fundamentalists will appear in labs, in positions of power in research institutions and next time it won't be pressure cookers at marathons but germ warfare everywhere or worse.
None of this is taking into account the heedless, reckless actions of non-terrorists within our society who are motivated by pure greed and hubris who may accidentally release a pathogen or a genetically mutated organism which kills hundreds of millions before we can even understand what's happening. Or something more pervasive like the destruction of the ozone layer, which has the power to wipe out the bottom of the food web through over exposure to UV. In fact, that almost happened.
The conservative / insanely greedy and selfish mind and modern society are fundamentally incompatible. We cannot continue to permit the greedy and the religious head cases loaded down with sociopathic indifference to others to continue to exist on this earth. Full stop. Those are genetically mediate traits and it's at the level of genetics where;we need to acquire knowledge in order to eliminate them.
Exactly. Altermeyer shows that authoritarians, which in the UIS are conservatives, literally do not process information like other people. They reliably take longer to recognize ambiguous stimuli , they can reliably be counted on to not live according to the dictates of reason. When put in charge of an army in a game of conflict / negotiation, they implement policies that lead to a nuclear holocaust.
If you want to read a book by a research psychologist whose studies and conclusions which will change your mind about your fellow human is capable of and what they will do if given the chance,, then read The Authoritarians- it's a life changing event.
I should say that Altermeyer does not assert that conservatism is genetic in its genesis.. That's coming form ethnobioology and sociobiology.
Sorry but you're talking to a hard core evolutionary psychologist so i agree, evolution does make people selfish and therefore we have no reason to wonder *why* conservatives are selfish. But like any other normally distributed trait, some some people are MORE selfish than others, and some people are so selfish that their innate impulses are maladaptive, given their environment.
Thus, we agree, the selfish conservatives are a genetic phenomena.
The fact is that conservatives cannot cope with the rate of change that technology is delivering. Just like they cannot cope with equality for women.. Or equality for the races. Or economic equality. Or any other egalitarian notion.
But the world cannot survive by oppressing most of the people for the benefit of the few. Society can't survive by appealing to Bronze Age notions of reality and morality.
Once a long long time ago it was adaptive to bash your neighbor's brains out, take his stuff, enslave your enemies and live to gain power in a power hierarchy, all the while controlling others by appealing to a Sky God and indeed believing in that Sky God yourself. That kept things going, if only miserably but it kept societies together, which was better than being conquered or eaten .
Those times are gone.
Now conservatives are completely maladaptive in their appeal to ancient Sky Gods and their endless appetite to advance themselves and their genetically mediated indifference to the suffering of people not in their tribe or, in the case of global warming, their generation.
No you fucking moron,t he parts that deal with stopping climate change are NOTHING but anti-science and anti-reality. The only political bias here is in your fucking head, you know, where you've convinced yourself that AGW is still not settled.
It has to become the defacto mission of all science to find the conservative gene(s) and prevent their future expression in humans. All scientists have to consider that THIS is their most pressing goal.
The problems we face, the serious ones like global warming, religious extremism or the so called "clash of civilizations", gigantic disparities in wealth distribution and the follow on problems of crime, war and civil unrest,aren't fundamentally problems with technology or the lack of basic science needed to address the issues. They're the result of the actions of conservatives, of non-egalitarian greedheads and religious fanatics all of whom are the conservatives within their respective societies.
Conservatism isn't a "point of view". It's a disease. It's a sickness that causes your ability to reason, to impartially process evidence, to effectively short circuit if such evidence would otherwise lead you to change one of your beliefs.
And about those beliefs. Anti-egalitarian, hierarchical, authoritarian, unempathetic to the point of sociopathy and concerned only with immediate and personal gratification. It's what John Kenneth Galbraith said :
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
looking back it's never been any different. They go after science, historically via religion but lately they've dropped that facade and admit it's just for money, for centuries. Centuries.
In the West they opposed *every* *single* *advancement* in civil society, equality and anything tending towards egalitarian outcomes for centuries and int he East, they stil do that.
They fly buildings into planes, try to get a hold of nuclear weapons for the purpose of wage war on civilians populations, in India and Pakistan they set fire to and behead their opponents, in America they bomb buildings , shoot doctors, lie about climate change, decimate the environment for all future generations and rape the economy .
When is enough enough? When will scientists finally admit that we don't have technological problems, we have problems with the behavior and proclivities and thinking of conservatives and begin to look at it like the engineering problem it is. The conservative gene is a dangerous anachronism which, if left unaddressed will extinguish civilization through one means or another.
This is why we decided not to integrate with any Google services or software. They throw shit over the wall and abandon it. They have a working service and change everything about it. They do this all the time. In fact, ditching XMPP after ten years represents a new dimension along which you can't trust them. Not only can't you trust the new shit to be around longer than 18 months, but now you can't trust anything under, apparently, 10 years stay around either.
Yeah. Integrate with Google's offerings.. I think not.
This has a funny smell to it. Everyone knows all of America's IT companies use a variety of techniques (double dutch etc.) to avoid being good corporate citizens of the US. So why is Apple being singled out.
one theory goes Apple would not play ball with the Feds in some security relate way- think CALLEA. The game is, all tech companies cheat massively on their taxes and in exchange for those ill gotten billions, Uncle Sam expects them to step up to the plate when the Feds come knocking for back doors etc . Any company who doesn't play ball gets paraded before Congress and the American public and threatened with having their criminal tax dodge taken away.
Google is as guilty as Apple. So it IBM HP Oracle and every single other IT company. So why is Apple having it's drawers dropped over a barrel like this?
if he doesn't want to be sued for making false statements regarding his company's outlook, since Infosys is a public company and no one, including Infosys is going to do for IT what manufacturing did for the assembly line.
Programs (robots ) can't write bespoke programs or even troubleshoot existing ones better than say LINT and realistically are as far away from that goal as human-level general cognition type AI has always been, which is to say a it's still a mere pipe dream.
It's not like there aren't teams who periodically assemble with some new way of automatically composing programs from, say, existing components, or from VERY descriptive descriptions - little languages- of the program to be written or within some VERY VERY limited domain. In fact, there is always a new run at this being made somewhere and while it's sucked up more than it's fair share of VC fumes , it's never delivered on jack squat.
So if this jackofff is thinking he's making a credible threat to Congress in response to being told he can't dump (crappy, underpaid ) labor on the UIS market, then please, Congress, rest assured this is the very emptiest of all empty threats.
If this slumdog-millionaire style greasy-haired dirtbag is thinking he's making a forward looking statement to investors then he's going to want to avoid a possible shareholder lawsuit by accurately qualify his statement with just how many decades- and that would be no less than ten- before anything like "IT robots" amount to more than
I think the post is believable and certainly comports with what I've seen,. Abusive, assholes in power positions ruin projects all the time. I don't think to screen swipe my exchanges with assholes because I don't feel the need to *prove* anything to someone else. People take me at my word and my word is good. You're trying to issue some requirement on everyone else for believability. Pics or it didn't happen is OK for nuclear arms verification treaties. People sharing their personal experiences in an online forum? Uh,... no./
Thinking on unit testing is dominated by a small group of gurus who have been effective at establishing a few articles of faith on the topic and most programmers reflexively agree with those opinions in order to make a public demonstration that they *understand* unit testing and can be taken seriously.
Article of Faith #1 - don't write unit tests for private methods. It's ridiculous and wrongheaded to never test private methods. There is nothing about a private method that makes it any less complex, any less prone to error or any less worthy of being tested than the public API. It's not hard to see that SOME private methods will only be invoked in rare circumstances which you won't easily think to test for when viewing the program from the POV of/the public API . This is even more true if private methods call private methods. Five deep, throw in some case logic in each and you've got a combinatorial explosion of test cases at the API level one of which recommend themselves naturally. Sure, in theory it can be done, but in theory, you need not make mistakes in the first place and have no need for unit testing.
Article of Faith #2: Another thing that makes unit testing an exercise in checkbox punching is the idea that you should never write a line of code before the unit test is written. The person who came up with this idea does not program things which are not already clear cut. I know my methods will be refactored, I know my classes will come and go. i know what I think is my driving use case will change utterly as I iterative discover what REALLY needs to be done. Writing millions of unit test cases that will ultimately be thrown away is a literal waste of time.
There's more but it's enough. Unit tests are often useless because it's just an exercise in confirming your expected input, not *really* thinking about how things can go wrong.
Because economics which says wages rise when there is s shortage of labor and falls when their is a surplus is for the Little People ; when you're a multi-national, Special Reverse Economics are applied.
Yeah you fucking moron, not all papers in the fucking discipline of climatology are examining whether AGW is real. A lot of them are just doing the basic science in their field which is where the evidence that AGW is real. In fact, a lot of papers specfically set their research goals to prove or disprove some hypothesis directly related to AGW without actually saying IN THAT VERY PAPER that AGW is real. AGW is real the way evolution is real. All the papers that deal with some aspect of evolution don't come out and say "evolution is real!" because they're not writing for the army of fucktards who think it's not.
Slashdot Mirror
From this guy:
'Revolution' is coming. 'I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting.' On July 24, he said he was at a 'great crossroads. As if a storm of destiny is about to pick me up and take me to fight a great battle.' On August 9 he talked about severing heads and told the generals he was coming for them. On August 13, he wrote, 'Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads.' On August 14, Raub wrote, 'The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it.'"
Pretend it's your job to protect the public safety.. question -is he dangerous or isn't he? Seems to me common sense says that this is hyperbole or a manner of speaking in (angry) metaphor and he's not communicating a specific threat. It can't be counted a specific threat that you'd like to" take someone's head off :" or "fight a battle" or even "shoot" someone "I'd like to shoot him".. you know like that.
My family talked like that all the time and so did everyone around me. No one was getting any guns and everyone knew that.
If you're going to deal with the public you have to understand them when they speak. If you can't do that, then you don't belong in a job where you interact with the public.
You criminalizing everyone around you because YOU don't have a practical understanding of the people you're dealing with and jump at every shadow of a comment that strikes you as in any way suspicious is NOT an option.
YOU thinking about your career and deciding you'll play it safe by criminalizing someone's speech so that no one can say you didn't do your job later is NOT an option. Society isn't obligated in any way to make your job easy, or have their utterances pass your nervous Nellie test of political correctness.
I don't like this particular ex-Marine or what he said but at the same time, give me a break.
DNS-andBIND said:
They tried your idea where nobody wants to make a profit and it failed. Making a ridiculous extremist straw man post doesn't help things.
WoofyGoofy replied:
He. Have a look in the mirror. Where did I say no one should make a profit? You guys are all the same. Binary, thinking is all you're capable of. Either we're maximizing profit under all circumstances or it's Communism.
I know you meant to diminish my post by pointing out what you thought was my straw man. Too bad you had that gun pointing the wrong way.
Google Discontinues Glass Factory System Image in 5 ...4...3...2..
Because an Intel monopoly is the worst of all possible outcomes
They tried your idea where nobody wants to make a profit and it failed. Making a ridiculous extremist straw man post doesn't help things. He. Have a look in the mirror. Where did I say no one should make a profit? You guys are all the same. Binary, thinking is all you're capable of. Either we're maximizing profit under all circumstances or it's Communism. I know you meant to diminish my post by pointing out what you thought was my straw man. Too bad you had that gun pointing the wrong way.
Just sop we're perfectly clear, my original post was 100% sarcastic and I actually hold the exact opposite views as those I posted there...
cheers.
Yeah, actually this is 100% stupid. The part of the brain that subtends visual processing is the visual cortex (which itself is broken down into different parts but it's good enough for now) . There has never been shown any relationship between the speed at which it can process visual stimuli (not that that's what's being measured, response times are) and general intelligence. What the researchers are doing is pretending that all "brain stuff" is the same(!!!) and if one part process a particular modality of information fast, then others do also and that speed is what intelligence is.
Jesus there are so many things wrong with this idiotic hypothesis.
For instance, we already know that functionally specific areas of the brain may be more or less independently good at what they do. So someone can have a high level of coordination and fast reaction times but score poorly in reasoning and even reading.
Not only are functionally distinct areas of the brain naturally better or worse at their "jobs" quite independently , but such areas' performance can be enhanced through practice, which enhancement presumably and in some case provably are subtended by an increase in the density of brain cells and connections. So any measurement of performance has to first ask the question- has this area of the brain in this individual been enhanced by the activities of this individual. Failing that,. inter-subject comparisons are meaningful .
Then there's the fact that there's a long long pathway between light being processed in the visual cortex and a response being generated by the subject and there's no reason to suppose that those pathways are all just passively of equal *efficiency* or that the efficiency of those pathways is meaningfully related to intelligence.
To what I am getting at, think how Stephen Hawking would fare in this test of intelligence. We have zero reason to think that pathways negatively effected by ALS are otherwise equally efficient in all individuals, or really, even the same... consider the phenomena of someone who habitually "overthinks" their responses.
Jesus. This is the second "speed = intelligence" article on Slashdot in as many days. Yesterday it was "people are gettting dumber !!!". Do I smell a PR attack with an agenda behind it? IS someone trying to foist the idea that we have a clear and unambiguous way to both define (we don't) and measure (we don't) intelligence so that they can.... profit????
uh, I think you may have missed my sarcasm.
Not that I blame you, since there ARE people who think just like my post in the U..S
WHO==U.N.==SOCIALISM==COMMUNISM
Sure, maybe IP is *interfering* with scientific research in this case, but so what? If you take down the IP and interfering with corporations maximizing their profit, no one will be motivated to do anything. We'll all just loll around , (if they're people like me) staring at our navel disinterested in the world (if they're people like me) ....We'll be like Old Sick Europe . Then where will ALL of science be? Do you think people are motivated by the mere chance to relieve human suffering ? Do my whores fuck me because they love me???? We need REAL motivation !!!!!
What's your value system here? Is science for the betterment of mankind , to save human lives and advance the general welfare of people or is its primary purpose to make money for people with money so they'll go on doing science ?
COIMMUNIST! I SMELL A COMMUNIST!!!!
If the IP system is pared back, then all progress will cease.
Does this alleviate Bob's problem of determining whether or not Eve has gotten the plate before it got to Bob or after it got to Bob? Is it not really impenetrable encryption, or does it just move the challenge from "snooping electronically" to "stealing without detection"? If Eve got a hold of the plate before Bob did could she not even in theory substitute a different plate? Copy the plate? Provably too hard or just too hard as far as we know or doable given resources, which? Bob would have to destroy / mutate the plate right after use- destroy after reading. Humans are the weak link in that scheme, right? Bob can't be relied to remember much info without the aid of some form of transcription. So good for secure launch codes, the ultimate in "use-once-and-render-irrelevant" , (but what if there's failure to launch? What do you know ? Can you still destroy the glass or do you have to keep it around for forensics examination and what are the security implications there? ) but not so good for ad hoc communication. And anyways how is this better than the one time pads you can listen to on shortwave radio? http://www.spynumbers.com/ Or the mysterious Yosemite Sam broadcast coming out of NM? http://www.spynumbers.com/ys.wav Which may effectively be a one-time pad where numbers are represented by hard-to-detect changes in the background noise / amplitude of the seemingly same Bugs Bunny excerpt?
There are two types of tech companies. Those who make money by selling you a service or product you pay for directly - an IDE company, a programming company, a game company- and those who sell your personal data to companies =tech and otherwise -who are the first kind of company.
If you didn't pay for it, then you're being sold in some way as a lead . FB, Google, Huffpo, slashdot, all these companies run on some combination of eyeballs (advertising) and personal information selling.
It's true. What I am really talking about is authoritarianism to a degree. The thing about the conservative movement s is it's NOT populated by only authoritarians. There's also people who are effectively oppositional defiant personality types, which is a kind of diseased form of contrarian. These are the so called libertarians. They're going to get theirs and nothing is going to stop them, least of all the thought of future generations. It's a kind of hedonism whereby their value system is a thinly disguised form of primitive self-gratification and their reasoning is nothing more than an ongoing process of rationalization, an ongoing narrative of strung together , disjointed and self contradictory justifications.
I know these people. I have an uncle like this and in the public eye, of Murdoch fits this bill as does Steve Forbes. It's a pure self0-gratification play, a long form process of self seeking without regard to anything- truth, consistency, reality, other people, nothing. These aren't authoritarians. I wish all anti-social behavior came down to a single pathology. What they all are are conservatives.
What people sometimes mix up is the STATED PHILOSOPHY of an authoritarian (or other) personality type with their actual actions. No progressive advocates for mass murder or forced relocation or anything of this nature.
No progressive advocates for coerced anything and notice I am not doing that here- I am saying they should not be created in the first place. .
Mao and Stalin were quite obviously NOT progressives whatever their stated philosophies about "community" and the good of the people. They were both obvious authoritarians- just like the heavy handed science murderers in Canada today.
Ditto all the fascists of the 20th century. Pol Pot hated intellectuals and progressives and used l;language which was eerily similar to that used by conservatives today. He hate progressives and intellectuals like conservatives hate them in America today, and for much the same reasons. He thought intellectuals (professors and "libs" in American conservative talk) had led people away from a "wholesome and natural" existence they were meant to live, which centered around farming and traditional ways ("family values and tradition") and what was needed was to turn the clock back to Day Zero (Tea Party translation - The American Revolution) and start all over again bringing everything back to a time before intellectuals (liberals) had screwed everything up (Tea Party translation - "The Founding Fathers and the American Revolution).
This is why conservatives are always talking about "2nd amendment remedies" and implying violence against "libs" . Pol Pot's "second amendment remedies" consisted of luring the intellectuals back to Cambodia, then gunning them down right on the tarmac as they debarked from the plane at the airport.
Conservatives will merrily take this earth and all it inhabitants down the road to total ruin, denying science and attacking scientists every step of the way, at first denying that AGW is going to happen, then blaming it on liberals, then finally deciding it was all foretold in the Bible.
You can't reason with them because they explicitly distrust reason science and evidentiary based reasoning, the later they see as a liberal trick and can never be used to serve their personal greed. When you have a group of people who are attempting to engage in policies which our best science has explicitly stated will destroy the world and who cannot be reasoned with , then that's where civilization ends and war begins.
The most humane thing to do is to quietly stop creating this class of people. To use science to improve humanity instead of just humanity's tools, which at this point is just giving the worst kinds of people more and more power.
So, you're an evolutionary psychologist. How do Bronze Age notions make it from the Bronze Age, which would now be anywhere from two to five thousand years old now, and survive to the present day, and yet so obviously imperil the survival of humanity? Should not these Bronze Age notions have caused the extinction of humanity in the millennia since?
You're leaving out the force multiplier that is modern technology. It's what Einstein said- the bomb has changed everything but our thinking.
If Hitler had had the bomb, the world would have been destroyed via nuclear winter before they could have figured out what was happening . It's just an accident of history- not a form of historical inevitability- that Hitler didn't get the bomb first and starting using it.
You're making the same mistake in thinking that people who cite the improbability of life itself as evidence of divine creation. The fact is, if we weren't here - by accident- then we wouldn't be talking about why we're here. Being here- for whatever reason including just chance- is a prerequisite to talking about why we're here.
So also with our lucky continued existence under the influence of Bronze Age ideas of God and Heaven and Hell and the supremacy of Biblical and Islamic or Hebrew law which is, how many people in the world live and evaluate morality still to this day, especially in America where half of all people reject evolution in favor of creationism and vote that way. If we had gotten unlucky in, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Being here to talk about itself proves nothing about the current efficacy of those ideas.
So today we are facing a timebomb called global warming. It's going to go off, it IS going off and once it reaches past a certain point - a point which may be as close as 20 years hence, then there will be no turning it back, no magic technology is going to save us. 20 years is not enough time to change a conservative's "mind". We need to have started acting in a concerted manner yesterday. So this is how the conservative mind represents a clear and present danger not just to the US but to everyone in the world. It's the intersection of the rapid pace of change and the magnitude of change that technology confers on us and conservatism being conservatism.
Another way conservatism threatens humanity is the threat of conservatives in other nations getting a hold of something more deadly and far reaching than just airplanes. As nanotechnology progresses, as home fabrication becomes a reality, as our command over nature increases on the genetic level and microscopic level, as higher education spreads it increases the probability that well integrated, seemingly intelligent fundamentalists will appear in labs, in positions of power in research institutions and next time it won't be pressure cookers at marathons but germ warfare everywhere or worse.
None of this is taking into account the heedless, reckless actions of non-terrorists within our society who are motivated by pure greed and hubris who may accidentally release a pathogen or a genetically mutated organism which kills hundreds of millions before we can even understand what's happening. Or something more pervasive like the destruction of the ozone layer, which has the power to wipe out the bottom of the food web through over exposure to UV. In fact, that almost happened.
The conservative / insanely greedy and selfish mind and modern society are fundamentally incompatible. We cannot continue to permit the greedy and the religious head cases loaded down with sociopathic indifference to others to continue to exist on this earth. Full stop. Those are genetically mediate traits and it's at the level of genetics where ;we need to acquire knowledge in order to eliminate them.
Exactly. Altermeyer shows that authoritarians, which in the UIS are conservatives, literally do not process information like other people. They reliably take longer to recognize ambiguous stimuli , they can reliably be counted on to not live according to the dictates of reason. When put in charge of an army in a game of conflict / negotiation, they implement policies that lead to a nuclear holocaust.
If you want to read a book by a research psychologist whose studies and conclusions which will change your mind about your fellow human is capable of and what they will do if given the chance,, then read The Authoritarians- it's a life changing event.
I should say that Altermeyer does not assert that conservatism is genetic in its genesis.. That's coming form ethnobioology and sociobiology.
Sorry but you're talking to a hard core evolutionary psychologist so i agree, evolution does make people selfish and therefore we have no reason to wonder *why* conservatives are selfish. But like any other normally distributed trait, some some people are MORE selfish than others, and some people are so selfish that their innate impulses are maladaptive, given their environment.
Thus, we agree, the selfish conservatives are a genetic phenomena.
The fact is that conservatives cannot cope with the rate of change that technology is delivering. Just like they cannot cope with equality for women.. Or equality for the races. Or economic equality. Or any other egalitarian notion.
But the world cannot survive by oppressing most of the people for the benefit of the few. Society can't survive by appealing to Bronze Age notions of reality and morality.
Once a long long time ago it was adaptive to bash your neighbor's brains out, take his stuff, enslave your enemies and live to gain power in a power hierarchy, all the while controlling others by appealing to a Sky God and indeed believing in that Sky God yourself. That kept things going, if only miserably but it kept societies together, which was better than being conquered or eaten .
Those times are gone.
Now conservatives are completely maladaptive in their appeal to ancient Sky Gods and their endless appetite to advance themselves and their genetically mediated indifference to the suffering of people not in their tribe or, in the case of global warming, their generation.
No you fucking moron,t he parts that deal with stopping climate change are NOTHING but anti-science and anti-reality. The only political bias here is in your fucking head, you know, where you've convinced yourself that AGW is still not settled.
It has to become the defacto mission of all science to find the conservative gene(s) and prevent their future expression in humans. All scientists have to consider that THIS is their most pressing goal. The problems we face, the serious ones like global warming, religious extremism or the so called "clash of civilizations", gigantic disparities in wealth distribution and the follow on problems of crime, war and civil unrest ,aren't fundamentally problems with technology or the lack of basic science needed to address the issues. They're the result of the actions of conservatives, of non-egalitarian greedheads and religious fanatics all of whom are the conservatives within their respective societies.
Conservatism isn't a "point of view". It's a disease. It's a sickness that causes your ability to reason, to impartially process evidence, to effectively short circuit if such evidence would otherwise lead you to change one of your beliefs.
And about those beliefs. Anti-egalitarian, hierarchical, authoritarian, unempathetic to the point of sociopathy and concerned only with immediate and personal gratification. It's what John Kenneth Galbraith said :
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
looking back it's never been any different. They go after science, historically via religion but lately they've dropped that facade and admit it's just for money, for centuries. Centuries.
In the West they opposed *every* *single* *advancement* in civil society, equality and anything tending towards egalitarian outcomes for centuries and int he East, they stil do that.
They fly buildings into planes, try to get a hold of nuclear weapons for the purpose of wage war on civilians populations, in India and Pakistan they set fire to and behead their opponents, in America they bomb buildings , shoot doctors, lie about climate change, decimate the environment for all future generations and rape the economy .
When is enough enough? When will scientists finally admit that we don't have technological problems, we have problems with the behavior and proclivities and thinking of conservatives and begin to look at it like the engineering problem it is. The conservative gene is a dangerous anachronism which, if left unaddressed will extinguish civilization through one means or another.
One imagines that such information is securely encrypted within the database.. no?
This is why we decided not to integrate with any Google services or software. They throw shit over the wall and abandon it. They have a working service and change everything about it. They do this all the time. In fact, ditching XMPP after ten years represents a new dimension along which you can't trust them. Not only can't you trust the new shit to be around longer than 18 months, but now you can't trust anything under, apparently, 10 years stay around either.
Yeah. Integrate with Google's offerings.. I think not.
This has a funny smell to it. Everyone knows all of America's IT companies use a variety of techniques (double dutch etc.) to avoid being good corporate citizens of the US. So why is Apple being singled out.
one theory goes Apple would not play ball with the Feds in some security relate way- think CALLEA. The game is, all tech companies cheat massively on their taxes and in exchange for those ill gotten billions, Uncle Sam expects them to step up to the plate when the Feds come knocking for back doors etc . Any company who doesn't play ball gets paraded before Congress and the American public and threatened with having their criminal tax dodge taken away.
Google is as guilty as Apple. So it IBM HP Oracle and every single other IT company. So why is Apple having it's drawers dropped over a barrel like this?
if he doesn't want to be sued for making false statements regarding his company's outlook, since Infosys is a public company and no one, including Infosys is going to do for IT what manufacturing did for the assembly line.
Programs (robots ) can't write bespoke programs or even troubleshoot existing ones better than say LINT and realistically are as far away from that goal as human-level general cognition type AI has always been, which is to say a it's still a mere pipe dream.
It's not like there aren't teams who periodically assemble with some new way of automatically composing programs from, say, existing components, or from VERY descriptive descriptions - little languages- of the program to be written or within some VERY VERY limited domain. In fact, there is always a new run at this being made somewhere and while it's sucked up more than it's fair share of VC fumes , it's never delivered on jack squat.
So if this jackofff is thinking he's making a credible threat to Congress in response to being told he can't dump (crappy, underpaid ) labor on the UIS market, then please, Congress, rest assured this is the very emptiest of all empty threats.
If this slumdog-millionaire style greasy-haired dirtbag is thinking he's making a forward looking statement to investors then he's going to want to avoid a possible shareholder lawsuit by accurately qualify his statement with just how many decades- and that would be no less than ten- before anything like "IT robots" amount to more than
"...push or say 'one'... "
I think the post is believable and certainly comports with what I've seen,. Abusive, assholes in power positions ruin projects all the time. I don't think to screen swipe my exchanges with assholes because I don't feel the need to *prove* anything to someone else. People take me at my word and my word is good. You're trying to issue some requirement on everyone else for believability. Pics or it didn't happen is OK for nuclear arms verification treaties. People sharing their personal experiences in an online forum? Uh,... no./
Thinking on unit testing is dominated by a small group of gurus who have been effective at establishing a few articles of faith on the topic and most programmers reflexively agree with those opinions in order to make a public demonstration that they *understand* unit testing and can be taken seriously. Article of Faith #1 - don't write unit tests for private methods. It's ridiculous and wrongheaded to never test private methods. There is nothing about a private method that makes it any less complex, any less prone to error or any less worthy of being tested than the public API. It's not hard to see that SOME private methods will only be invoked in rare circumstances which you won't easily think to test for when viewing the program from the POV of /the public API . This is even more true if private methods call private methods. Five deep, throw in some case logic in each and you've got a combinatorial explosion of test cases at the API level one of which recommend themselves naturally. Sure, in theory it can be done, but in theory, you need not make mistakes in the first place and have no need for unit testing.
Article of Faith #2: Another thing that makes unit testing an exercise in checkbox punching is the idea that you should never write a line of code before the unit test is written. The person who came up with this idea does not program things which are not already clear cut. I know my methods will be refactored, I know my classes will come and go. i know what I think is my driving use case will change utterly as I iterative discover what REALLY needs to be done. Writing millions of unit test cases that will ultimately be thrown away is a literal waste of time.
There's more but it's enough. Unit tests are often useless because it's just an exercise in confirming your expected input, not *really* thinking about how things can go wrong.
Because economics which says wages rise when there is s shortage of labor and falls when their is a surplus is for the Little People ; when you're a multi-national, Special Reverse Economics are applied.
Yeah you fucking moron, not all papers in the fucking discipline of climatology are examining whether AGW is real. A lot of them are just doing the basic science in their field which is where the evidence that AGW is real. In fact, a lot of papers specfically set their research goals to prove or disprove some hypothesis directly related to AGW without actually saying IN THAT VERY PAPER that AGW is real. AGW is real the way evolution is real. All the papers that deal with some aspect of evolution don't come out and say "evolution is real!" because they're not writing for the army of fucktards who think it's not.