I'll tell you one of the big differences between today and the 70s: its a more complex, demanding world, and we spend more time preparing to live in it.
Our local college students seem to be preparing for lots of burning sofas, date rape, and binge drinking...
They might be better off with less preparation time.
The article blabs on and on about how this is a Big Brother-ish threat because the data could easily be obtained by the NSA. So why not just give the award to the NSA? Or, if it has to be an individual, then to the president or the head of the NSA?
Seems logical, huh? But Obama's responsibility repulsion field apparently keeps that from happening.
I see from today's stories... according to slashmind, the biggest problem is the Koch brothers and climate change "deniers".
Meanwhile, the Slashdot savior turned a recession into a depression, created a real surveillance state, and took over the biggest economic sector in the US (literally during an Orwellian "shutdown").
You aren't as smart as you think you are. You are "denying" the reality that is unfolding all around you. Good luck with that. Keep throwing stones at the approved targets; you'll have plenty of time without jobs or anything to distract you.
Name one other country with a political party who is so hellbent on reality distortion to do such silly things with tax payer money? Name one other country who will purposedly ally themselves with corporate interests agaisn't the will of the people to do such silly things like publish these studies?
For a minute there I thought you were talking about Obamacare.
If you had read TFA, you would have noticed that the robot car operates more safely than humans in the highway infrastructure that is in place today. We don't need to redesign today's infrastructure, if we switch over to autonomous cars.
'cause TFA is never wrong, especially if it is by the people selling the stuff.
In certain specific cases, a sudden outbreak of competition-on-price (say, an outsourcing, or the liberalization of trade policy in a previously tariff-protected industry) may really show a group of first world workers how much they can't compete on price with some 3rd-worlders of similar skill; but in the longer term, it's not as though being unable to compete on price is exclusive to the first world: Unless you have some very-hard-to-reproduce talent (in which case you aren't competing on price), the expected price set by pure price competition will be whatever bare subsistence costs(any lower, and the labor will starve, any higher and somebody who is unemployed will be willing to work for bare subsistence...)
Except that there is very rarely pure price competition, which is why we didn't see ever increasing dystopia since the industrial revolution.
Sorry, you can't blame the current economy on too much capitalism. (Or too much robotics, for another favorite dystopian scenario).
No, something else happened circa 2008 to turn a recession into an ongoing malaise. And it sure as heck wasn't too much capitalism or too little government.
If the customer paid through the two years required to own it they would have paid $3000 for a couch they could have gotten for sale elsewhere for about $1200.
Except they couldn't have got it elsewhere because they couldn't pay $1200 all at once.
Yeah, it's expensive to be poor. But it's still better than not being able to have stuff at all.
Dr. Pruitt cites his own example. Now 62, he was a bicycle racer and has been riding for the past four decades. He covers 5,000 to 10,000 miles a year.
In all that time, he has had four serious crashes. He broke his collarbone twice while racing and had two crashes on a mountain bike, breaking a hip one time and spraining a wrist the other.
This is a worthless data point.
OK... I drive more than that every year. Granted I've been driving less than four decades, but more than two. I've never been injured.
So the guy is a pro biker and does a lot of his biking in scenarios that actually ought to be safer for bikes than riding the city streets. And he still gets banged up frequently.
A god-like observer can observe without interacting. Back in reality every observation is an interaction.
OK... then what the heck is scientific about speculating about something that by definition either doesn't exist or can't practically participate in the experiment?
I can't believe that any prominent person tweets at all. The medium encourages inflammatory behavior and doesn't let there be any context. Recipe for disaster.
Gee, never heard that one before.
What the people pushing these ideas don't seem to know is that it's not the tools, it's the way of thinking about a problem. I once worked at a place where we made a manager a tool that would let him create his own reports, and he immediately started adding up all flavors of apples and oranges (e.g., dollars of this and pounds of that). Then he wanted the small IT staff to help him make sense out of his reports.
Yep.
And even if they do get good at using it, now you've got a {whatever} doing "programming" (in a limited clunky "environment/language") instead of {whatever it was they were supposed to be doing}.
There's a marketing manager in my last job's company doing exactly that (not entirely unrelated to why it is my last job). I'm glad he's having fun playing programmer, but he does even less actual marketing than he was doing before...
... then why don't the big broadcaster get together and buy Aereo before it can - supposedly! - "do more damage". --- This whole thing reeks of the stink TPTB raised each time an Internet file-sharing tech came along. Instead of investing/going along with the "new wave in media consumption", TPTB always demonize whatever the latest content-delivery mechanism does.
Great question, and great advice for the industry.
In another industry, the big publishers own and operate magazines.com... they could have been idiots and tried to stamp out internet subscription agents, but instead they became the biggest one. Duh.
A security-minded person would say 'yes, because security guards with guns deter threats that locks and passwords do not.' If your valuables are really that valuable, then there is no such thing as too much security.
Of course, the article is mainly focused on start-ups who rarely focus on security, not large corporations who have years experience at deterring the bad guys.
Just as real computer security is hard, so is real physical security.
I think I've worked maybe one place that had what I would consider real physical security that was worth much of anything. (And it wasn't the military, but rather a military contractor.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'll tell you one of the big differences between today and the 70s: its a more complex, demanding world, and we spend more time preparing to live in it.
Our local college students seem to be preparing for lots of burning sofas, date rape, and binge drinking ...
They might be better off with less preparation time.
The article blabs on and on about how this is a Big Brother-ish threat because the data could easily be obtained by the NSA. So why not just give the award to the NSA? Or, if it has to be an individual, then to the president or the head of the NSA?
Seems logical, huh? But Obama's responsibility repulsion field apparently keeps that from happening.
I see from today's stories ... according to slashmind, the biggest problem is the Koch brothers and climate change "deniers".
Meanwhile, the Slashdot savior turned a recession into a depression, created a real surveillance state, and took over the biggest economic sector in the US (literally during an Orwellian "shutdown").
You aren't as smart as you think you are. You are "denying" the reality that is unfolding all around you. Good luck with that. Keep throwing stones at the approved targets; you'll have plenty of time without jobs or anything to distract you.
Name one other country with a political party who is so hellbent on reality distortion to do such silly things with tax payer money? Name one other country who will purposedly ally themselves with corporate interests agaisn't the will of the people to do such silly things like publish these studies?
For a minute there I thought you were talking about Obamacare.
If you had read TFA, you would have noticed that the robot car operates more safely than humans in the highway infrastructure that is in place today. We don't need to redesign today's infrastructure, if we switch over to autonomous cars.
'cause TFA is never wrong, especially if it is by the people selling the stuff.
Right off the bat you can imagine autonomous driving easily topping your average intoxicated drivers' ability behind the wheel.
Um, what? Self-driving cars will drive better than drunks? That's an endorsement?
In certain specific cases, a sudden outbreak of competition-on-price (say, an outsourcing, or the liberalization of trade policy in a previously tariff-protected industry) may really show a group of first world workers how much they can't compete on price with some 3rd-worlders of similar skill; but in the longer term, it's not as though being unable to compete on price is exclusive to the first world: Unless you have some very-hard-to-reproduce talent (in which case you aren't competing on price), the expected price set by pure price competition will be whatever bare subsistence costs(any lower, and the labor will starve, any higher and somebody who is unemployed will be willing to work for bare subsistence...)
Except that there is very rarely pure price competition, which is why we didn't see ever increasing dystopia since the industrial revolution.
Sorry, you can't blame the current economy on too much capitalism. (Or too much robotics, for another favorite dystopian scenario).
No, something else happened circa 2008 to turn a recession into an ongoing malaise. And it sure as heck wasn't too much capitalism or too little government.
If the customer paid through the two years required to own it they would have paid $3000 for a couch they could have gotten for sale elsewhere for about $1200.
Except they couldn't have got it elsewhere because they couldn't pay $1200 all at once.
Yeah, it's expensive to be poor. But it's still better than not being able to have stuff at all.
Dr. Pruitt cites his own example. Now 62, he was a bicycle racer and has been riding for the past four decades. He covers 5,000 to 10,000 miles a year.
In all that time, he has had four serious crashes. He broke his collarbone twice while racing and had two crashes on a mountain bike, breaking a hip one time and spraining a wrist the other.
This is a worthless data point.
OK ... I drive more than that every year. Granted I've been driving less than four decades, but more than two. I've never been injured.
So the guy is a pro biker and does a lot of his biking in scenarios that actually ought to be safer for bikes than riding the city streets. And he still gets banged up frequently.
... I have never, since the days I stopped using analog broadcast, complained about picture quality.
I have complained that the content is absolutely vapid. No, I do not need to see Real Zombies of Survivor in breathtaking resolution ...
I'd rather have banner ads than have 3 or 4 ads at the top that are almost indistinguishable from the search results.
That's a good point.
We know they have to advertise - that's how we get this awesome free search service. At least an ad that is plainly an ad is pretty easy to ignore.
A god-like observer can observe without interacting. Back in reality every observation is an interaction.
OK ... then what the heck is scientific about speculating about something that by definition either doesn't exist or can't practically participate in the experiment?
I can't believe that any prominent person tweets at all. The medium encourages inflammatory behavior and doesn't let there be any context. Recipe for disaster.
Gee, never heard that one before. What the people pushing these ideas don't seem to know is that it's not the tools, it's the way of thinking about a problem. I once worked at a place where we made a manager a tool that would let him create his own reports, and he immediately started adding up all flavors of apples and oranges (e.g., dollars of this and pounds of that). Then he wanted the small IT staff to help him make sense out of his reports.
Yep.
And even if they do get good at using it, now you've got a {whatever} doing "programming" (in a limited clunky "environment/language") instead of {whatever it was they were supposed to be doing}.
There's a marketing manager in my last job's company doing exactly that (not entirely unrelated to why it is my last job). I'm glad he's having fun playing programmer, but he does even less actual marketing than he was doing before ...
I for one ... oh forget it.
Some of us enjoyed them both.
It's geopolitical strategy, in other words.
Well, we can't have that, I guess.
Not if you don't know it's '133t' instead of '1eet'. And 'h4x0r' not 'haX0r' ;-)
I take great pride in not knowing the precise syntax for those :)
... I'm still shocked when anybody does anything based on something that happens on Twitter.
Most software isn't life or death. With most software, "good enough" is good enough.
Life is full of tradeoffs.
... then why don't the big broadcaster get together and buy Aereo before it can - supposedly! - "do more damage". --- This whole thing reeks of the stink TPTB raised each time an Internet file-sharing tech came along. Instead of investing/going along with the "new wave in media consumption", TPTB always demonize whatever the latest content-delivery mechanism does.
Great question, and great advice for the industry.
In another industry, the big publishers own and operate magazines.com ... they could have been idiots and tried to stamp out internet subscription agents, but instead they became the biggest one. Duh.
Where I live (California) I don't even need a wallet to drive, because it is legal to show a cop a photo of my drivers license on my phone.
Huh. What if your phone battery (or your whole phone) decides to die when you get stopped?
I'm guessing you still have your real physical license on you.
You have got to wonder why a relatively wealthy and developed nation should be the largest recipient.
Um, because they are an ally? Because they are civilization, and not barbarians intent on world domination? Because they are surrounded by barbarians?
It's really not that complicated.
A security-minded person would say 'yes, because security guards with guns deter threats that locks and passwords do not.' If your valuables are really that valuable, then there is no such thing as too much security.
Of course, the article is mainly focused on start-ups who rarely focus on security, not large corporations who have years experience at deterring the bad guys.
Just as real computer security is hard, so is real physical security.
I think I've worked maybe one place that had what I would consider real physical security that was worth much of anything. (And it wasn't the military, but rather a military contractor.)
Why do you use that crappy font? Makes what you have to say totally unreadable.
Because crappy fonts prove your 1eet haX0r street cred?