Reminded me of a facebook profile. He likes himself, a lot I guess. I'd expect him to distort the subject of "Matthew G. Bisanz," but other articles I don't know.
I'm not a psychologist or someone who studies wiki, but it doesn't seem to me like someone with his personality will ruin wiki. Maybe make editing more annoying if it's one of the things he considers himself to be the expert on and you have a differing view.
They're just trying to make a name for themselves in "teh intarwebs." You need only check-out a few of their pages - most [wikipedia.org] are [wikipedia.org] pedestals [wikipedia.org] from [wikipedia.org] which [wikipedia.org] to [wikipedia.org] gloat [wikipedia.org] about [wikipedia.org] their [wikipedia.org] Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] penis [wikipedia.org], and yet these are the people IN CHARGE.
The pages that I checked out were no more self aggrandizing than any "webpage about me," they seemed like what the typical person does when given a chance to talk about themselves. They didn't scream "control freak trying to get famous for harsh wiki edits" they just screamed "typical lonely internet user." And didn't wiki start off being tended to by the same?
Just one of many things that in no way affect your job performance but will disqualify you from many jobs.
Looking for work is easily my least favorite work, and it's not just because you don't get paid to do so (unless you're looking for another job while at your current job.)
I'm not sure how they'd make it gradual. At the point where they say "okay, now you have to pay twice as much for netflix if there are two people watching," a significant chunk of their viewers will switch to alternatives that won't do that, like bittorrent or whatever. The genie is out of the bottle, the only way they're going to get most people to pay for it is if paying is the path of least resistance, and I don't see a way to put this in and keep it the easiest option if a friend or family member is over and you need to feed the box, or if the box needs to see everyone in the room.
Like I said, I expect it not to go that route not because of privacy issues but because of convenience.
Are you really so cynical and paranoid that you think there's one "They" out there?
I mean it's not to limit viewers because it's not the MPAA developing it. "They" referring to the MPAA? Sure, they dream of it, and they might try to buy this tech. "They" being PrimeSense? They're dreaming of making money, and selling it to advertisers seems a much more likely avenue.
Why do I say that? See the original post, I explained it there, for all to read.
I suspect that would get defeated with the whole "I'll just watch it on netflix/DVD/bittorrent/whatever alternative there will be at the time." Maybe not for privacy's sake, but for "I'm not paying extra for when Jimmy comes over, fuck that."
I suspect the actual uses of the device would be for advertisers to get some feedback and makeup of their viewing audience. The blurb linked to suggests it can tell between kids and adults. That doesn't sound like a tech to limit the number of viewers, that sounds like a tech to see "okay, how many kids versus how many adults are watching right now? More kids? Awesome, McDonalds pays more to run happy meal ads than value meal ads."
The game I worked on became "game of the month" in Germany's largest gaming magazine solely because we threw in a pile of merchandise they could use for a raffle. We didn't come up with the idea, the magazine did.
Hey, congratulations! Game of the month! Wow!
But there are enough other branches of worthless journalism (i.e. men's and women's magazines which recycle the bulk of their material every two years), so go figure.
I find it very rare that mens magazines recycle their material. It's not like there's a shortage of women willing to be paid to wear a bikini.
I didn't read much of the Bayesian inference page so I still don't know what that's all about, but I can tell you as someone who does research on animals that we don't bother with it before we do a study.
If something looks like it is going to work, you generally try it in a simpler model system than a monkey first, because of the costs involved, but if it passes that test it's entirely reasonable to jump right to the monkey model without doing that bayesian inference.
I do stand corrected though, there might be a way to calculate the odds.
Kind of funny that you spent so much time trying to obfuscate your actual answer.
Really? So much time? There were 5 sentences before that, most answering other points you made, and I was following your order. And how much more straightforward an answer could I have given? You want a one word post of just "yes"?
Uh... is lukewarm Dom Perignon for some reason cheaper than cold?
I'd assume lukewarm dom would be just as expensive, but then again, I would have assumed that no one would actually buy booze for over a hundred dollars a bottle, regardless of how much money they scammed online.
Comparing the price of a base PS3 to XBox360 is quite frankly ridiculous.
Features or not, they're both gaming platforms of the current generation with most of the same games. It's not like we're comparing a gameboy original to an alienware computer.
And we're talking about him wanting it or not. It's entirely up to him. If he didn't want it because it had a "P" in the name, that might sound ridiculous, but it's all the criteria he would need.
I think everyone does that to some degree. In civilizations you turn off "domination" victory, beat the last guy to one city, completely surround it with artillery, send in spies to destroy any building and sabotage production of any units, build cities all around it so it has no resources.
In fallout I am busy trying to kill every non-generic character I can in capitol wasteland. I also do this often with "Way of the samurai." I like games where you can choose to kill almost every character and it affects the story.
I think everyone does the "go backwards in a race" from time to time. Especially mario kart, trying to snipe the other players as they're rushing at you with the green shell.
Skyscrapers, just jumping off them is fun, but spawning a motorcycle, car, or bike in GTA SA was fun. In GTA4, the chopper blades send bodies flying, I keep trying to do something I did on accident: get out just right so I would be hit by the blades and sent flying across the river/bay.
You say that as though I'm the only one with an issue, but I'm not. In fact, there are a lot more of us than there are of you -- and actually, odds are that when you become a parent, you'll join the gang.
Your argument is that more people think censorship is good.
That's fine, but it isn't, and you're still just shirking your responsibilities.
I am, and in many of these cases I think the parents *are* acting like parents when they complain. I know many slashdotters live in some fantasy world where parents are able to monitor their children every waking hour, but it's not reality.
I know that, everyone knows that. And I had hoped that everyone would realize the folowing: if something is a concern to you, like your kid reading dirty words in a dictionary, then you should deal with it yourself, not make everyone else deal with it.
I know you have a lot of chores to do, but it takes about 5 minutes to do any one of a number of things to remedy the situation on your end: -take the Ipod away from him -trust him not to download it -don't give him a credit card -don't give him the password to itunes -talk to him about dirty words -realize he already knows them -wash his mouth out with soap if he uses them
The world doesn't have a responsibility to sanitize itself because you have issues with what your kid sees reguardless of how much free time you have.
How old is the youngest IPhone user you've seen? For me its 15. No elementary school kid needs to be running around with a $100/mo bill and an expensive phone. By 12, most kids already know these words. Who is this censorship for?
It's for two groups of people: parents groups who might protest this despite it being quite far from a real issue as you pointed out, and Apple's PR department that would rather nip it in the bud than face what is apperantly impossible: trying to sell a product through parents to their kids while telling the parents that they're responsible for being parents rather than the product.
Much like the Kama Sutra rejection, this brings home how farcical Apple trying to be gatekeeper and arbiter of taste on the app store really is. They should give up now before their reputation sinks under the weight of their hypocrisy - every week I hear of a new stupid and arbitrary decision by their app store reviewers.
Looking at the parents group response games like beer pong or "Madworld" got on the wii, I have a little sympathy. Neither game was marketed at kids. Parents groups seemed more upset with Nintendo than the publishers, citing reasons that boiled down to "OMFG, KIDS PLAY THE WII, HOW COULD YOU NOT CENSOR THIS NINTENDO?!?"
Granted, doing stupid things to avoid upsetting stupid people is stupid, but they are a company, not an organization dedicated to freedom of expression. They'd be reasonable to think that if they don't maintain some standards, parents groups would fly off the handle, boycott it, and they'd be losing out on their most profitable market: kids. It's somewhat positive that at least now they would have published it rather than just quashing it forever.
Naturally, the real solution should be parents acting like parents, but naturally pigs will fly before these groups put responsibility on their members.
From TFA, a quote by the president of the company making the dictionary
17+ ratings were not available when we launched, which means at that time, it was simply not possible for our dictionary to be on the App Store without being censored. Given the options of censoring or sitting on the side lines while our competitors ate our lunch, we chose to launch.â
What if it's a hundred monkeys? A million monkeys? A billion?
This is a ridiculous rhetorical situation for several reasons. Mostly because frying monkey brains isn't going to cure aids, but also because you're not going to get a billion damn monkeys.
What if there's a 5% chance it might help?
Another ridiculous point: describe to me how a research experiment might have a "5% chance" instead of "Well, it seems like it might work, but we won't know until we test" you know, like every research project out there. You think you have a cure and it's only afterward that you find out that you do or don't, there's no calculating the odds because you don't have that information.
What if it's a researcher who thinks it might help, but hasn't been right to date?
So you're asking what if it's a typical researcher: wrong right up until he's right?
It's beside the point but my answer with all those conditions is still yes, because a trillion monkeys don't add up to one person in my book.
I was going to ask why are we concerned with it being a -microchip- at all? We know how to grow functional neurons in vitro although at lower efficiencies than we would probably need and they're poorly organized, we're working on figuring out how organization develops in vivo, those lessons may be applicable to making a neuronal array to design. I've never heard of anyone trying to make a neuronal computer yet: I don't think anyone could say how long it will be until we get there or even what the major technical obstacles will be, but it seems apparent that there's no magical barrier to making a computer out of brain cells. Doing so may totally blow the lid off the parallel computing problem (which I admit I don't know a whole lot about). It seems like if we were able to make brain cells artificially connect in whatever pattern we want, we could make as many neurons and synaptic connections as we wanted since we're not limited by "what can a human body support."
Computer modeling of human brains I'm even more in the dark about, I'd hazard a guess that there are also unknown unknowns in it's future, and no one would be able to put a number on how many years it's going to be with any value, but there's nothing magical about it.
By the time we figure out how to go about building an artificial human psyche, isn't it possible we'll be using computers that are essentially made out of brain cells? The conjecture on "can we do it in silicon" is a little premature isn't it? A bit like if back before we were as good at metalworking as we are now we had asked ourselves "Can we build a flying machine capable of carrying people long distances out of wood?"
They put countless thousands of man hours into perfecting the driving mechanics, but then can't show any damage on the vehicle. I am not sure how it is in the latest iteration, but this pulled me right out of the game in Gran Turismo, they are trying to get me to buy the fact that I am driving a real car on a real track, yet I can smash into a wall at 200+ mph with no consequences.
Keep in mind the series has it's origins on the PS1. They put an incredible amount of effort into everything else in all the GT games. I'm sure modeling the cars such that they could have had realistic damage would have exponentially increased the effort required, and that wasn't the focus of the games: to make it as realistic a -racing- simulator as possible. It never intended to be a crash simulator.
Granted, it did make some of the races cheap. Doing the endurance races at laguna seca, occasionally I would forget to start braking in time to stay on the road through the corkscrew. In those situations it was better to just keep going, hit the wall dead on at 200mph and then drive. And one of those tahiti courses, it was faster to let the walls turn you. Some modes though did something to compensate, if you crashed it didn't show damage but you did get a "failed."
Slashdot Mirror
Reminded me of a facebook profile. He likes himself, a lot I guess. I'd expect him to distort the subject of "Matthew G. Bisanz," but other articles I don't know.
I'm not a psychologist or someone who studies wiki, but it doesn't seem to me like someone with his personality will ruin wiki. Maybe make editing more annoying if it's one of the things he considers himself to be the expert on and you have a differing view.
They're just trying to make a name for themselves in "teh intarwebs." You need only check-out a few of their pages - most [wikipedia.org] are [wikipedia.org] pedestals [wikipedia.org] from [wikipedia.org] which [wikipedia.org] to [wikipedia.org] gloat [wikipedia.org] about [wikipedia.org] their [wikipedia.org] Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] penis [wikipedia.org], and yet these are the people IN CHARGE.
The pages that I checked out were no more self aggrandizing than any "webpage about me," they seemed like what the typical person does when given a chance to talk about themselves. They didn't scream "control freak trying to get famous for harsh wiki edits" they just screamed "typical lonely internet user." And didn't wiki start off being tended to by the same?
What edits or additions of yours got rejected?
Just one of many things that in no way affect your job performance but will disqualify you from many jobs.
Looking for work is easily my least favorite work, and it's not just because you don't get paid to do so (unless you're looking for another job while at your current job.)
I'm not sure how they'd make it gradual. At the point where they say "okay, now you have to pay twice as much for netflix if there are two people watching," a significant chunk of their viewers will switch to alternatives that won't do that, like bittorrent or whatever. The genie is out of the bottle, the only way they're going to get most people to pay for it is if paying is the path of least resistance, and I don't see a way to put this in and keep it the easiest option if a friend or family member is over and you need to feed the box, or if the box needs to see everyone in the room.
Like I said, I expect it not to go that route not because of privacy issues but because of convenience.
Are you really so cynical and paranoid that you think there's one "They" out there?
I mean it's not to limit viewers because it's not the MPAA developing it. "They" referring to the MPAA? Sure, they dream of it, and they might try to buy this tech. "They" being PrimeSense? They're dreaming of making money, and selling it to advertisers seems a much more likely avenue.
Why do I say that? See the original post, I explained it there, for all to read.
I suspect that would get defeated with the whole "I'll just watch it on netflix/DVD/bittorrent/whatever alternative there will be at the time." Maybe not for privacy's sake, but for "I'm not paying extra for when Jimmy comes over, fuck that."
I suspect the actual uses of the device would be for advertisers to get some feedback and makeup of their viewing audience. The blurb linked to suggests it can tell between kids and adults. That doesn't sound like a tech to limit the number of viewers, that sounds like a tech to see "okay, how many kids versus how many adults are watching right now? More kids? Awesome, McDonalds pays more to run happy meal ads than value meal ads."
I remember that not working very well for that guy. Also, bruce willis would be the MPAA in that case, which is a bit of a stretch.
Its really nothing worth getting upset about. Lot's of smart people mix that one up.
The game I worked on became "game of the month" in Germany's largest gaming magazine solely because we threw in a pile of merchandise they could use for a raffle. We didn't come up with the idea, the magazine did.
Hey, congratulations! Game of the month! Wow!
But there are enough other branches of worthless journalism (i.e. men's and women's magazines which recycle the bulk of their material every two years), so go figure.
I find it very rare that mens magazines recycle their material. It's not like there's a shortage of women willing to be paid to wear a bikini.
What pressure does homo sapiens to evolve, given that our technological abilities largely shield us from the pressures of our environment?
Our technology itself. Hopefully. If we haven't figured out cybernetic immortality in a half a billion years, I'll be... well, dead, but disappointed.
Or starts downloading child porn. If cats can do it...
I didn't read much of the Bayesian inference page so I still don't know what that's all about, but I can tell you as someone who does research on animals that we don't bother with it before we do a study.
If something looks like it is going to work, you generally try it in a simpler model system than a monkey first, because of the costs involved, but if it passes that test it's entirely reasonable to jump right to the monkey model without doing that bayesian inference.
I do stand corrected though, there might be a way to calculate the odds.
Kind of funny that you spent so much time trying to obfuscate your actual answer.
Really? So much time? There were 5 sentences before that, most answering other points you made, and I was following your order. And how much more straightforward an answer could I have given? You want a one word post of just "yes"?
I bet it was LUKEWARM Dom Perignon, though!
Uh... is lukewarm Dom Perignon for some reason cheaper than cold?
I'd assume lukewarm dom would be just as expensive, but then again, I would have assumed that no one would actually buy booze for over a hundred dollars a bottle, regardless of how much money they scammed online.
Comparing the price of a base PS3 to XBox360 is quite frankly ridiculous.
Features or not, they're both gaming platforms of the current generation with most of the same games. It's not like we're comparing a gameboy original to an alienware computer.
And we're talking about him wanting it or not. It's entirely up to him. If he didn't want it because it had a "P" in the name, that might sound ridiculous, but it's all the criteria he would need.
I think everyone does that to some degree. In civilizations you turn off "domination" victory, beat the last guy to one city, completely surround it with artillery, send in spies to destroy any building and sabotage production of any units, build cities all around it so it has no resources.
In fallout I am busy trying to kill every non-generic character I can in capitol wasteland. I also do this often with "Way of the samurai." I like games where you can choose to kill almost every character and it affects the story.
Hey, I don't do it in real life, I'm curious.
I think everyone does the "go backwards in a race" from time to time. Especially mario kart, trying to snipe the other players as they're rushing at you with the green shell.
Skyscrapers, just jumping off them is fun, but spawning a motorcycle, car, or bike in GTA SA was fun. In GTA4, the chopper blades send bodies flying, I keep trying to do something I did on accident: get out just right so I would be hit by the blades and sent flying across the river/bay.
You say that as though I'm the only one with an issue, but I'm not. In fact, there are a lot more of us than there are of you -- and actually, odds are that when you become a parent, you'll join the gang.
Your argument is that more people think censorship is good.
That's fine, but it isn't, and you're still just shirking your responsibilities.
I am, and in many of these cases I think the parents *are* acting like parents when they complain. I know many slashdotters live in some fantasy world where parents are able to monitor their children every waking hour, but it's not reality.
I know that, everyone knows that. And I had hoped that everyone would realize the folowing: if something is a concern to you, like your kid reading dirty words in a dictionary, then you should deal with it yourself, not make everyone else deal with it.
I know you have a lot of chores to do, but it takes about 5 minutes to do any one of a number of things to remedy the situation on your end:
-take the Ipod away from him
-trust him not to download it
-don't give him a credit card
-don't give him the password to itunes
-talk to him about dirty words
-realize he already knows them
-wash his mouth out with soap if he uses them
The world doesn't have a responsibility to sanitize itself because you have issues with what your kid sees reguardless of how much free time you have.
Alexander the Great had pounded much of the world into submission by the time he was 20.
Yeah, but with a middle and last name like that, I probably would have too.
How old is the youngest IPhone user you've seen? For me its 15. No elementary school kid needs to be running around with a $100/mo bill and an expensive phone. By 12, most kids already know these words. Who is this censorship for?
It's for two groups of people: parents groups who might protest this despite it being quite far from a real issue as you pointed out, and Apple's PR department that would rather nip it in the bud than face what is apperantly impossible: trying to sell a product through parents to their kids while telling the parents that they're responsible for being parents rather than the product.
Much like the Kama Sutra rejection, this brings home how farcical Apple trying to be gatekeeper and arbiter of taste on the app store really is. They should give up now before their reputation sinks under the weight of their hypocrisy - every week I hear of a new stupid and arbitrary decision by their app store reviewers.
Looking at the parents group response games like beer pong or "Madworld" got on the wii, I have a little sympathy. Neither game was marketed at kids. Parents groups seemed more upset with Nintendo than the publishers, citing reasons that boiled down to "OMFG, KIDS PLAY THE WII, HOW COULD YOU NOT CENSOR THIS NINTENDO?!?"
Granted, doing stupid things to avoid upsetting stupid people is stupid, but they are a company, not an organization dedicated to freedom of expression. They'd be reasonable to think that if they don't maintain some standards, parents groups would fly off the handle, boycott it, and they'd be losing out on their most profitable market: kids. It's somewhat positive that at least now they would have published it rather than just quashing it forever.
Naturally, the real solution should be parents acting like parents, but naturally pigs will fly before these groups put responsibility on their members.
They were partially right though:
From TFA, a quote by the president of the company making the dictionary
17+ ratings were not available when we launched, which means at that time, it was simply not possible for our dictionary to be on the App Store without being censored. Given the options of censoring or sitting on the side lines while our competitors ate our lunch, we chose to launch.â
What if it's a hundred monkeys? A million monkeys? A billion?
This is a ridiculous rhetorical situation for several reasons. Mostly because frying monkey brains isn't going to cure aids, but also because you're not going to get a billion damn monkeys.
What if there's a 5% chance it might help?
Another ridiculous point: describe to me how a research experiment might have a "5% chance" instead of "Well, it seems like it might work, but we won't know until we test" you know, like every research project out there. You think you have a cure and it's only afterward that you find out that you do or don't, there's no calculating the odds because you don't have that information.
What if it's a researcher who thinks it might help, but hasn't been right to date?
So you're asking what if it's a typical researcher: wrong right up until he's right?
It's beside the point but my answer with all those conditions is still yes, because a trillion monkeys don't add up to one person in my book.
I was going to ask why are we concerned with it being a -microchip- at all? We know how to grow functional neurons in vitro although at lower efficiencies than we would probably need and they're poorly organized, we're working on figuring out how organization develops in vivo, those lessons may be applicable to making a neuronal array to design. I've never heard of anyone trying to make a neuronal computer yet: I don't think anyone could say how long it will be until we get there or even what the major technical obstacles will be, but it seems apparent that there's no magical barrier to making a computer out of brain cells. Doing so may totally blow the lid off the parallel computing problem (which I admit I don't know a whole lot about). It seems like if we were able to make brain cells artificially connect in whatever pattern we want, we could make as many neurons and synaptic connections as we wanted since we're not limited by "what can a human body support."
Computer modeling of human brains I'm even more in the dark about, I'd hazard a guess that there are also unknown unknowns in it's future, and no one would be able to put a number on how many years it's going to be with any value, but there's nothing magical about it.
By the time we figure out how to go about building an artificial human psyche, isn't it possible we'll be using computers that are essentially made out of brain cells? The conjecture on "can we do it in silicon" is a little premature isn't it? A bit like if back before we were as good at metalworking as we are now we had asked ourselves "Can we build a flying machine capable of carrying people long distances out of wood?"
Not to say we -shouldn't- talk about it...
They put countless thousands of man hours into perfecting the driving mechanics, but then can't show any damage on the vehicle. I am not sure how it is in the latest iteration, but this pulled me right out of the game in Gran Turismo, they are trying to get me to buy the fact that I am driving a real car on a real track, yet I can smash into a wall at 200+ mph with no consequences.
Keep in mind the series has it's origins on the PS1. They put an incredible amount of effort into everything else in all the GT games. I'm sure modeling the cars such that they could have had realistic damage would have exponentially increased the effort required, and that wasn't the focus of the games: to make it as realistic a -racing- simulator as possible. It never intended to be a crash simulator.
Granted, it did make some of the races cheap. Doing the endurance races at laguna seca, occasionally I would forget to start braking in time to stay on the road through the corkscrew. In those situations it was better to just keep going, hit the wall dead on at 200mph and then drive. And one of those tahiti courses, it was faster to let the walls turn you. Some modes though did something to compensate, if you crashed it didn't show damage but you did get a "failed."