I worked with Matt & Trey's web production team on an online video game store back in 2000. I met them and hung out a few times. They were dosed to the gills that year at the Oscars.
Head First! Apply Directly to the Javascript!
on
Head First JavaScript
·
· Score: 5, Funny
HEAD FIRST! APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE ow! OW! Why are you all throwing things at me?
Microsoft, in spite if its using the word to death, is simply too large and complex to innovate. Ah, but you see, they've developed a program to help with that.
"It looks like you are trying to innovate! Maybe I can help you A.) Wade through mountains of bureaucratic paperwork. B.) Convince your technically conservative superiors of the merits of your plans. C.) Steal someone else's idea and market it better.
You've chosen to steal someone else's idea. Good choice!"
Yes folks, it's Clippy's bigger brother, Hangy the wire coat hanger. He helps you abort innovation before it causes real problems AND put the new cover on your TPS reports!
Announcer: Welcome to the new game show, Proof or Wanker! Okay, first challenge. Bart Sibrel was punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin for claiming the moon landing was a hoax. Proof or wanker? Contestant one has 'buzzed' in, haha.
Contestant one: Uhh, wanker?
Announcer: That is correct! Challenge number two, oooh! It's our daily double! Okay, global warming...
Can people influence other people, or does everyone make a choice based entirely on their own free will? Is value inherent in an operating system, or is part of the value in how many other people use it? You simplify things too much in order to make a point. Yes, people chose to buy Microsoft. The question is, why? Why do more people want Microsoft products? Are they acting in their own rational self interest? Do Microsoft's offerings really provide greater value, or is some other force at work?
You say capitalism provides people with an opportunity to rise above everyone else. I ask, does the capitalist system only allow people to rise above others through merit, or are other, less honorable factors at least as important in determining who rises and who falls?
An eye surgery tool running Vista? What if it gets hacked? That's just asking to have the goatse guy literally rather than figuratively burned into your retinas.
Dealing with unfairness and undue pressure is a central theme in building societies and groups that work. If everyone were good and played fair, any system would work. We need social systems precisely because some people do not play fair. Thus, we have checks and balances in our American political system. Where are the checks and balances here?
The author is basically saying, the system is flawed because it does not take into account certain facts about human nature, and fails at one of the most basic tasks any socio-political system should strive to accomplish, namely limiting the ability of participants to put undue pressure on each other and use dirty tricks.
Well, here's the thing: the mars rovers haven't improved the lives of many people outside the scientists and engineers working on them. Yet. And they may not ever, sometimes basic research bears no tangible fruits. You never know. But sometimes basic research yields really important breakthroughs. Scientific revolutions, even. Most of the time, basic research yields small advances from which further basic and applied research can itself advance.
Applied research is easier to predict. We sink money into figuring out how to do things that improve the human condition better, faster, and cheaper, and it's going to pay off in the shorter term. But is the problem with the state of the human condition really one of not having the know-how to make it better, or is it simply not having the will? And what do we do when we run out of ways of doing things better, faster, and cheaper, and we have to figure out whole new ways of doing things? If we've ignored basic research, we're screwed.
The thing is, as much as the overspecialized would have you believe otherwise, science is a vast web, a framework of inter-connected ideas and techniques. Research in one area can pay unexpected dividends in another. Do you honestly think that by studying Martian geochemistry, we aren't learning things that apply to Earth as well? You don't think we've learned things about materials science by sending these probes to Mars? Solar cells that work in low Martian sunlight, there's something that'll never come in handy here on Earth... Those are just two examples anyone could think of off the top of their heads.
I think the most important point is that there is no way for us to truly understand the way our own planet works until we put that understanding into a larger framework of how planets work in general. Whether you believe in anthropogenic climate change or not, I'm sure that you can agree that really understanding how our planet works could improve the lives of billions of people.
The big bang as a point of reference? You do know it happened everywhere, right? I mean, it's not as if there was this superdense clump sitting in space that then exploded. There was no space.
We are a constitutional republic. The government performing wiretapping is arguably unconstitutional. Private companies should not be granted immunity for things that are unconstitutional, because this lets the government sidestep the constitution. Legal and constitutional are two different things, and our system of law rests on the constitution. If something is nominally legal, but the supreme court declares it unconstitutional, then it is illegal. That argument is about the most forceful one can make in our legal system.
Sorry to hear that. Plenty of experiments have shown that babies will not crawl off cliffs, even when called by their mothers and the drop is covered with Plexiglas.
From now on, whenever someone posts something they claim is 'obligatory,' we should point out, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Dueling memes, what fun!
All animals with a central nervous system have some form of BIOS and OS. No one has to 'figure out' how to breath, feed, eliminate waste, or circulate blood. In addition, many behaviors are built in, including the behaviors that let a creature learn more than it was born with. For instance, no baby animals of any sort will voluntarily move off of a cliff, even onto a clear surface that would support them. Fear of heights is built in.
However, I think I see what you are getting at. This is a programmed system, not one that learned most of its behaviors through trial and error. A system that can't start where a baby starts, and can learn the basics on its own the way a baby does, is still lacking. But the "No BIOS, no OS" thing is going a little too far.
I think you exaggerate. I use a DVR to skip commercials. I notice how long half hour network shows actually run. It's about 22 minutes of show and 8 minutes of ads, same as always. What the networks seem to be doing is making more frequent, shorter ad breaks, and putting them in odd places. There may be six minutes of show, one minute of ads, then four minutes of show and three minutes of ads. I think they are trying to confound and confuse DVR users into giving up on using the 'thirty second skip' feature and just fast forwarding through the ads, so at least they see something.
One thing I have noticed, though, is that shows do not seem to stop and start on time at all anymore, and certain shows seem to go over time while others are under. I think they may be sticking extra commercials into popular shows, and reducing the number of commercials in less popular shows, so The Simpsons might run thirty-five minutes including an extra five minutes of commercials, while the next show runs twenty-five minutes with five fewer minutes of commercials. This has the added advantage of screwing over people who record on schedules.
Otherwise, how's that self-hatred working out for you? I hate myself for not hating myself as much as I deserve. Why do I let myself get away with that? And here I am, posting about it to Slashdot, when I should be hating myself! Well, now I'm hating myself for posting to Slashdot, I suppose that's a start.
This isn't determining the meaning of a thought, it's the meaning of a vocal nerve impulse. Meaning, if someone who didn't speak English was taught to sing the Star Spangled Banner, this thing would be able to determine what words they were singing, even though they didn't know what they were. Previous experiments have shown that (for instance) anyone subvocalizing an 'aaaaa' sound makes the same recognizable nerve impulses.
I want to know, do you support licensing of private investigators? Was obtaining your license a sizable barrier to your entering the profession? What do you feel are the primary reasons, if any, for requiring licensing of your profession?
So your thesis, supported by fictional anecdote, is that licensing does not protect consumers, only corporations. What is your solution to the problem of verifying reputation and suitability to perform a desired task, or do you not think there is a problem? I mean, it's certainly okay to merely criticize, I do it all the time. But perhaps what you are criticizing really is the best possible solution. Without presenting some alternatives, you aren't really making a case. It would also be helpful if you could show how your proposed solution does not fall prey to the same problems you criticize other solutions for having.
I certainly hope your proposed solution is more thought out than "Government is always bad, let's do away with it completely and let the individual do whatever they damn well please," because that doesn't work in the real world.
No, it is NOT illegal to know. It is illegal to hire yourself out to perform investigations without proper license. Just as it's not illegal to drive, it's just illegal to drive on a public road without a license. And mental states should be criminalized. Because there is a big difference between someone who accidentally kills someone, someone who kills someone in a fit of passion, and someone who deliberately plans and carries out a murder. Society has an interest in protecting its members, and those members arguably need greater protection from the last type of person than they do the other two.
Now please understand, I am an anarchist. That means I believe in no rulers, no government by coercion. Government agreed to, supported, and enacted by the people is a different matter. All groups of people face the same sorts of problems, and many different solutions have been tried in the past. I'd be interested to hear your proposed solution to the problem of verifying someone's suitability to perform a job, as well as your views on how best to handle different types of motivations as they relate to crime.
I do hope it boils down to something more workable than "Sue them after you have been wronged, if you have the time and money."
I'm detecting libertarian, no government is good government leanings in our pal Michael. I'm just guessing here, but I think perhaps he wants to get rid of the baby, and the bathwater is just a means to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
I met Matt and Trey a few times. Partied with them at their 'Lapdance 2000' party at Sundance, for instance.
I worked with Matt & Trey's web production team on an online video game store back in 2000. I met them and hung out a few times. They were dosed to the gills that year at the Oscars.
HEAD FIRST! APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE ow! OW! Why are you all throwing things at me?
"It looks like you are trying to innovate! Maybe I can help you
A.) Wade through mountains of bureaucratic paperwork.
B.) Convince your technically conservative superiors of the merits of your plans.
C.) Steal someone else's idea and market it better.
You've chosen to steal someone else's idea. Good choice!"
Yes folks, it's Clippy's bigger brother, Hangy the wire coat hanger. He helps you abort innovation before it causes real problems AND put the new cover on your TPS reports!
Announcer: Welcome to the new game show, Proof or Wanker! Okay, first challenge. Bart Sibrel was punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin for claiming the moon landing was a hoax. Proof or wanker? Contestant one has 'buzzed' in, haha.
Contestant one: Uhh, wanker?
Announcer: That is correct! Challenge number two, oooh! It's our daily double! Okay, global warming...
Can people influence other people, or does everyone make a choice based entirely on their own free will? Is value inherent in an operating system, or is part of the value in how many other people use it? You simplify things too much in order to make a point. Yes, people chose to buy Microsoft. The question is, why? Why do more people want Microsoft products? Are they acting in their own rational self interest? Do Microsoft's offerings really provide greater value, or is some other force at work?
You say capitalism provides people with an opportunity to rise above everyone else. I ask, does the capitalist system only allow people to rise above others through merit, or are other, less honorable factors at least as important in determining who rises and who falls?
An eye surgery tool running Vista? What if it gets hacked? That's just asking to have the goatse guy literally rather than figuratively burned into your retinas.
Dealing with unfairness and undue pressure is a central theme in building societies and groups that work. If everyone were good and played fair, any system would work. We need social systems precisely because some people do not play fair. Thus, we have checks and balances in our American political system. Where are the checks and balances here?
The author is basically saying, the system is flawed because it does not take into account certain facts about human nature, and fails at one of the most basic tasks any socio-political system should strive to accomplish, namely limiting the ability of participants to put undue pressure on each other and use dirty tricks.
Well, if you're making mythical children, you could probably do it in a month. If you had enough men.
Well, here's the thing: the mars rovers haven't improved the lives of many people outside the scientists and engineers working on them. Yet. And they may not ever, sometimes basic research bears no tangible fruits. You never know. But sometimes basic research yields really important breakthroughs. Scientific revolutions, even. Most of the time, basic research yields small advances from which further basic and applied research can itself advance.
Applied research is easier to predict. We sink money into figuring out how to do things that improve the human condition better, faster, and cheaper, and it's going to pay off in the shorter term. But is the problem with the state of the human condition really one of not having the know-how to make it better, or is it simply not having the will? And what do we do when we run out of ways of doing things better, faster, and cheaper, and we have to figure out whole new ways of doing things? If we've ignored basic research, we're screwed.
The thing is, as much as the overspecialized would have you believe otherwise, science is a vast web, a framework of inter-connected ideas and techniques. Research in one area can pay unexpected dividends in another. Do you honestly think that by studying Martian geochemistry, we aren't learning things that apply to Earth as well? You don't think we've learned things about materials science by sending these probes to Mars? Solar cells that work in low Martian sunlight, there's something that'll never come in handy here on Earth... Those are just two examples anyone could think of off the top of their heads.
I think the most important point is that there is no way for us to truly understand the way our own planet works until we put that understanding into a larger framework of how planets work in general. Whether you believe in anthropogenic climate change or not, I'm sure that you can agree that really understanding how our planet works could improve the lives of billions of people.
I use a knork myself.
The big bang as a point of reference? You do know it happened everywhere, right? I mean, it's not as if there was this superdense clump sitting in space that then exploded. There was no space.
We are a constitutional republic. The government performing wiretapping is arguably unconstitutional. Private companies should not be granted immunity for things that are unconstitutional, because this lets the government sidestep the constitution. Legal and constitutional are two different things, and our system of law rests on the constitution. If something is nominally legal, but the supreme court declares it unconstitutional, then it is illegal. That argument is about the most forceful one can make in our legal system.
Sorry to hear that. Plenty of experiments have shown that babies will not crawl off cliffs, even when called by their mothers and the drop is covered with Plexiglas.
From now on, whenever someone posts something they claim is 'obligatory,' we should point out, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Dueling memes, what fun!
All animals with a central nervous system have some form of BIOS and OS. No one has to 'figure out' how to breath, feed, eliminate waste, or circulate blood. In addition, many behaviors are built in, including the behaviors that let a creature learn more than it was born with. For instance, no baby animals of any sort will voluntarily move off of a cliff, even onto a clear surface that would support them. Fear of heights is built in.
However, I think I see what you are getting at. This is a programmed system, not one that learned most of its behaviors through trial and error. A system that can't start where a baby starts, and can learn the basics on its own the way a baby does, is still lacking. But the "No BIOS, no OS" thing is going a little too far.
I think you exaggerate. I use a DVR to skip commercials. I notice how long half hour network shows actually run. It's about 22 minutes of show and 8 minutes of ads, same as always. What the networks seem to be doing is making more frequent, shorter ad breaks, and putting them in odd places. There may be six minutes of show, one minute of ads, then four minutes of show and three minutes of ads. I think they are trying to confound and confuse DVR users into giving up on using the 'thirty second skip' feature and just fast forwarding through the ads, so at least they see something.
One thing I have noticed, though, is that shows do not seem to stop and start on time at all anymore, and certain shows seem to go over time while others are under. I think they may be sticking extra commercials into popular shows, and reducing the number of commercials in less popular shows, so The Simpsons might run thirty-five minutes including an extra five minutes of commercials, while the next show runs twenty-five minutes with five fewer minutes of commercials. This has the added advantage of screwing over people who record on schedules.
This isn't determining the meaning of a thought, it's the meaning of a vocal nerve impulse. Meaning, if someone who didn't speak English was taught to sing the Star Spangled Banner, this thing would be able to determine what words they were singing, even though they didn't know what they were. Previous experiments have shown that (for instance) anyone subvocalizing an 'aaaaa' sound makes the same recognizable nerve impulses.
You all keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I want to know, do you support licensing of private investigators? Was obtaining your license a sizable barrier to your entering the profession? What do you feel are the primary reasons, if any, for requiring licensing of your profession?
So your thesis, supported by fictional anecdote, is that licensing does not protect consumers, only corporations. What is your solution to the problem of verifying reputation and suitability to perform a desired task, or do you not think there is a problem? I mean, it's certainly okay to merely criticize, I do it all the time. But perhaps what you are criticizing really is the best possible solution. Without presenting some alternatives, you aren't really making a case. It would also be helpful if you could show how your proposed solution does not fall prey to the same problems you criticize other solutions for having.
I certainly hope your proposed solution is more thought out than "Government is always bad, let's do away with it completely and let the individual do whatever they damn well please," because that doesn't work in the real world.
No, it is NOT illegal to know. It is illegal to hire yourself out to perform investigations without proper license. Just as it's not illegal to drive, it's just illegal to drive on a public road without a license. And mental states should be criminalized. Because there is a big difference between someone who accidentally kills someone, someone who kills someone in a fit of passion, and someone who deliberately plans and carries out a murder. Society has an interest in protecting its members, and those members arguably need greater protection from the last type of person than they do the other two.
Now please understand, I am an anarchist. That means I believe in no rulers, no government by coercion. Government agreed to, supported, and enacted by the people is a different matter. All groups of people face the same sorts of problems, and many different solutions have been tried in the past. I'd be interested to hear your proposed solution to the problem of verifying someone's suitability to perform a job, as well as your views on how best to handle different types of motivations as they relate to crime.
I do hope it boils down to something more workable than "Sue them after you have been wronged, if you have the time and money."
I'm detecting libertarian, no government is good government leanings in our pal Michael. I'm just guessing here, but I think perhaps he wants to get rid of the baby, and the bathwater is just a means to do so.