Makes the old complaints about the Patriot Act seem almost quaint, doesn't it?
SlashCrowd most definitely asked for this. Couldn't wait. Stick it to all those old white dudes! (Which since this is Slashdot, most of us are, but we like to imagine we aren't.)
The Achilles' heel of the tech weenie (myself included) is to imagine that since you are smart about something, you must be smart about everything.
They are a communist dictatorship. They don't have freedom of the press. If you say things that the government doesn't like, they lock you up. (If they find out and get around to it - for run of the mill stuff, they will have people with the drive and efficiency of your average telephone sanitizer on the job.)
They'd care if they knew they could go across the street and save $10 a night... or about 10-15%. But they don't, so they can't.
They might care in principle. Do they care enough to spend time talking to their company department that made the reservation? Really? They might in principle, but in practice it doesn't make sense.
You must have bought something online, opened the box and went "ugh I thought it looked different" So why would you want to put down so much on a car only seen online?
Agreed.
I do like to identify a car online - find one of the make and features that I want. My favorite used lot lets me do that on their site, pretty much. But then I do need to go try it out.
Customers who aren't price sensitive, aren't, well, price sensitive. If they cared enough, they'd gather the information. But the extra ding just doesn't make the extra information gathering worth it to them.
Nobody has perfect information. We all make trade offs.
Possibility 2: These machines provide for everyone's needs, freeing up humans for a glorious age of space exploration, science, what-have-you.
Really, we've been in an approximation of that scenario for some time. Thanks to technology, very few of us (in the developed world) engage directly in subsistence food raising/gathering or shelter building work. But just like how we don't call AI what it is once we have it, we don't call our (approximate) technological loafing utopia what it is once we have it.
So, let's get real; there wasn't some massive leap in technology in 2008. Blame the political or economic development of your choice, but robots ain't the problem.
If you are allowed to expose the sample to ridiculous temperatures and open flames, though, why expensive lasers rather than boring (and mature and relatively cheap) cutting torches or thermic lances?
Because they're freakin' laser beams! It's awesome!
A system where nobody can keep their actions private is a system governed by mob rule, nobody wants to engage in socially unacceptable behavior because they're instantly shunned and those who fail to participate in the shunning are also shunned for condoning it. Nobody will speak out unpopular opinions even if they feel it ought to be said, because those who don't like the message will go after the messenger. All social circles become totally transparent and people will self-censor their associations to avoid social stigma. It's freedom of the "you have freedom of speech and can say what you want, but we'll shoot you afterwards" variety.
Sounds like Slashdot or Facebook;)
Seriously, though, things never go out to their theoretical extremes like that. If effective technical countermeasures are not developed, then socially what will happen (yes, in fits and starts with much upheaval and not smoothly) is that people in general will simply have to get used to the fact that other people will often say things that they don't like.
If you learn office at a young age, it becomes very unlikely you will switch to anything else. It can be difficult for some people too, as the interface is different. Once the students go home and have to set up their own computer they will likely use office. They will either pay for it or not pay for it. If they don't pay they are committing a crime which can be severely punished if they get caught. If they pay then the school is basically training them to give money to a large corporation. Not only that, a specific corporation, with a partial monopoly in that market.
All true. But public schools are exactly the kind of bureaucracies that love getting locked in to proprietary stuff. RMS here is fighting some very natural tendencies of the system.
Though one could be forgiven for getting the timeline mixed up, given all the bizarre declarations, bizarre nomenclature, confusion of theoretical projects with real projects, dogmatic insistence that things are in fact whatever Stallman calls them, etc.
As others have pointed out, code is just a specific implementation.
Any sufficiently complex logic becomes programming. (As I tried to tell a former marketing manager, who now spends 80+% of his time "programming" instead of marketing, in his "don't need programmers anymore" system.)
I could envision all sorts of early educational implementations... "if Princess X comes into the room, do A; if Princess Y comes into the room, do B."
First time in awhile that I've seen insurance companies getting (public, open) love from the left...
Couldn't be any other explanations, of course, like heavily regulated industries trying to ingratiate themselves with government. Nah.
I'm probably all wet though. You remember how well the banking industry predicted mortgage risks, by going with conventional wisdom about less qualified applicants.
Ironically, when discussing counterfit purses, there is already a better option that will not fail: you can sequence the proteins in the leather fairly easily, and those proteins can be a good MOI when you get enough coverage of the right sequences. You can't amplify the proteins, but the sensitivity for unamplified material is top-notch. So you can imagine that it's possible to identify the exact cow that produced a purse, and so long as you have a physical scrap of the purse left, you can still get a result. Contrast this to a DNA-barren purse because it sat in the sun too long.
Man... if it's that good of a counterfeit that you need to go to this level, then who cares?
I'm assuming that nobody intends to breed their purses, so sheesh. Does pedigree matter that much?
Yes, that's the conventional wisdom with open-source. But tell me: when was the last time you went inspect the code deep in the kernel? How many open-source code users do you think have the time, desire and ability - and probably paranoia - to go and inspect the code in *any* open-source project of reasonable size, let alone something as complex as the kernel?
Great point - just because theoretically everything could be caught doesn't mean that it will be. And how many of us just use binaries? And who inspects every source tree that they compile?
Slashdot Mirror
"The DNS hijacking attack was resolved within an hour, Moore said."
Is that a DNS joke?
Well, the resolution may take 24 - 48 hours to reach your part of the world ...
So does that mean we'll know ahead of time where the traffic jams are, and can avoid them?
Sign me up ... I don't care if they have to beam ads into my brain. Sign me up!
Absolutely right.
Makes the old complaints about the Patriot Act seem almost quaint, doesn't it?
SlashCrowd most definitely asked for this. Couldn't wait. Stick it to all those old white dudes! (Which since this is Slashdot, most of us are, but we like to imagine we aren't.)
The Achilles' heel of the tech weenie (myself included) is to imagine that since you are smart about something, you must be smart about everything.
Um, yeah. It's China.
They are a communist dictatorship. They don't have freedom of the press. If you say things that the government doesn't like, they lock you up. (If they find out and get around to it - for run of the mill stuff, they will have people with the drive and efficiency of your average telephone sanitizer on the job.)
For whatever reason, Java seems to be popular with the work to spec, outsourcing shop types.
They'd care if they knew they could go across the street and save $10 a night... or about 10-15%. But they don't, so they can't.
They might care in principle. Do they care enough to spend time talking to their company department that made the reservation? Really? They might in principle, but in practice it doesn't make sense.
You must have bought something online, opened the box and went "ugh I thought it looked different" So why would you want to put down so much on a car only seen online?
Agreed.
I do like to identify a car online - find one of the make and features that I want. My favorite used lot lets me do that on their site, pretty much. But then I do need to go try it out.
Eh, yes and no.
Customers who aren't price sensitive, aren't, well, price sensitive. If they cared enough, they'd gather the information. But the extra ding just doesn't make the extra information gathering worth it to them.
Nobody has perfect information. We all make trade offs.
Wouldn't it make more sense to fix the root cause of this problem, that is, overfishing?
It's that simple, is it? People can just stop eating?
Why are humans the only species that doesn't get to compete?
Possibility 2: These machines provide for everyone's needs, freeing up humans for a glorious age of space exploration, science, what-have-you.
Really, we've been in an approximation of that scenario for some time. Thanks to technology, very few of us (in the developed world) engage directly in subsistence food raising/gathering or shelter building work. But just like how we don't call AI what it is once we have it, we don't call our (approximate) technological loafing utopia what it is once we have it.
So, let's get real; there wasn't some massive leap in technology in 2008. Blame the political or economic development of your choice, but robots ain't the problem.
Word should be done and closed and free. Sell all the extraneous functionality that only 5% uses as enhancement packs.
Well, actually, basic Word is free (Microsoft Office Starter). With ads for the full stuff.
If you are allowed to expose the sample to ridiculous temperatures and open flames, though, why expensive lasers rather than boring (and mature and relatively cheap) cutting torches or thermic lances?
Because they're freakin' laser beams! It's awesome!
A system where nobody can keep their actions private is a system governed by mob rule, nobody wants to engage in socially unacceptable behavior because they're instantly shunned and those who fail to participate in the shunning are also shunned for condoning it. Nobody will speak out unpopular opinions even if they feel it ought to be said, because those who don't like the message will go after the messenger. All social circles become totally transparent and people will self-censor their associations to avoid social stigma. It's freedom of the "you have freedom of speech and can say what you want, but we'll shoot you afterwards" variety.
Sounds like Slashdot or Facebook ;)
Seriously, though, things never go out to their theoretical extremes like that. If effective technical countermeasures are not developed, then socially what will happen (yes, in fits and starts with much upheaval and not smoothly) is that people in general will simply have to get used to the fact that other people will often say things that they don't like.
If you learn office at a young age, it becomes very unlikely you will switch to anything else. It can be difficult for some people too, as the interface is different. Once the students go home and have to set up their own computer they will likely use office. They will either pay for it or not pay for it. If they don't pay they are committing a crime which can be severely punished if they get caught. If they pay then the school is basically training them to give money to a large corporation. Not only that, a specific corporation, with a partial monopoly in that market.
All true. But public schools are exactly the kind of bureaucracies that love getting locked in to proprietary stuff. RMS here is fighting some very natural tendencies of the system.
Though one could be forgiven for getting the timeline mixed up, given all the bizarre declarations, bizarre nomenclature, confusion of theoretical projects with real projects, dogmatic insistence that things are in fact whatever Stallman calls them, etc.
Infallible theory you've got there ...
You'll remember how well the banking industry predicted the risks of mortgage default. What could go wrong?
As others have pointed out, code is just a specific implementation.
Any sufficiently complex logic becomes programming. (As I tried to tell a former marketing manager, who now spends 80+% of his time "programming" instead of marketing, in his "don't need programmers anymore" system.)
I could envision all sorts of early educational implementations ... "if Princess X comes into the room, do A; if Princess Y comes into the room, do B."
First time in awhile that I've seen insurance companies getting (public, open) love from the left ...
Couldn't be any other explanations, of course, like heavily regulated industries trying to ingratiate themselves with government. Nah.
I'm probably all wet though. You remember how well the banking industry predicted mortgage risks, by going with conventional wisdom about less qualified applicants.
Ironically, when discussing counterfit purses, there is already a better option that will not fail: you can sequence the proteins in the leather fairly easily, and those proteins can be a good MOI when you get enough coverage of the right sequences. You can't amplify the proteins, but the sensitivity for unamplified material is top-notch. So you can imagine that it's possible to identify the exact cow that produced a purse, and so long as you have a physical scrap of the purse left, you can still get a result. Contrast this to a DNA-barren purse because it sat in the sun too long.
Man ... if it's that good of a counterfeit that you need to go to this level, then who cares?
I'm assuming that nobody intends to breed their purses, so sheesh. Does pedigree matter that much?
"Five other Visa holders like this website! Here are thumbnails of their credit cards."
The powerful don't want to see inflation, it makes their money worth less.,
Inflation makes everybody's money worth less. I visited Brazil during hyperinflation. It wasn't just the "powerful" suffering.
BTW, "the powerful" did fine in the US during the 1970s .../p?
To an extent, it's perfectly natural to depend on recognition.
Yep. Everybody wants attention, so long as it is sought in healthy ways that's not a problem, it's just normal humanity.
Yes, that's the conventional wisdom with open-source. But tell me: when was the last time you went inspect the code deep in the kernel? How many open-source code users do you think have the time, desire and ability - and probably paranoia - to go and inspect the code in *any* open-source project of reasonable size, let alone something as complex as the kernel?
Great point - just because theoretically everything could be caught doesn't mean that it will be. And how many of us just use binaries? And who inspects every source tree that they compile?
Or you know, the scientific method was used that refines theories, based on new evidence.
How is this the scientific method? Where are the controlled, repeatable experiments?
This is mostly a bunch of speculation, with the trappings of science draped over it.
Groups of strutting "youths" obviously want to look intimidating.
Why complain if people actually are intimidated, giving them exactly what they want?