Unless they plan on parking the cars a lot, I don't see how this can be useful
Useful for whom? Because for the passengers of the cab, I reckon it will be useful not to pay the Mobile WiFi while travelling - may make sense during rush hours.
That's largely irrelevant, in my opinion. As it is the fact that I'm over 40, I've seen and used BBS-es over 4800 baud (mentioning it only to put the things in perspective).
I mention that because my "generation" grew up hearing carrier tones and having to do more things manually, with slower bandwidth. The "modern internet" by-and-large works so much more easily and at higher rates, that it doesn't take so much effort to get things done. Thus, most people never have to think about it.
Now, that is relevant.
The Net is a tool. It grew mature enough and the novelty factor already has worn out - it's only natural to have the people using it the way they use a tooth-brush (without much consideration), for whatever serves their purposes.
To put the thing even more in perspective:
does the fact that I'm over 40 puts me in "the BBS generation"? Or the "colour TV generation"?
does even anyone speaks (or have spoken) about "the sanitation generation"? I'm sure the introduction of sanitation has had a bigger effect on human civilization than the Internet.
how can anyone expect that a single new mean (technological supported or not) of doing some things can alter that much the life that much to worth coining a term as "generation...".
C'mon, people, the civilisation advance is an an incremental process, I really thing the use of any "generation..." term is nonsensical and narrow minded.
Finally, from the F.. summary
Consultants and authors, mostly old guys, have called for the education system to be reworked to suit this new generation,
Of course they are. And they are right, even if maybe for the wrong reasons.
I mean, does it make sense to ignore a mature tool that can support the educational process? Now, they would be wrong if their proposal would be "Let's make the education exclusively based on Internet", but do they?
Yeap, this will teach me right to make posts that can be interpreted in too many way.
In my post, I disagreed that the rate is the problem, because the absolute value is the one that gives us trouble (and huge floods, massive wild fires and enormous landslides are not caused by a rate).
As to shorter life of a good quality: do yo think that efforts to correct the global warming will be a piece of cake? However, I'd pay the price to start now with the hope that I'd see some better quality in my life before dying.
RIM could argue that they are behaving within the law, and their government is not either providing direct advice, legal restrictions or leading by an example which suggests they should behave other than are doing.
When in Rome, do as Romans do - seems to me as valid today as it was 2000 years ago.
To exemplify: I don't like software patents, however I have no problems with the idea of USA keeping it for themselves (I do have some issues when they try to export it to other countries).
C'mon people, mod parent funny and forgive the poster for the lack of a <sarcasm> notice - not everybody knows how to edit a post to make/. accept a custom pseudo-HTML tag.
It's not *that* the temperatures are rising that's the problem. It's the *rate* that's the problem.
Uh? What, boiling the frog slower will results in a living/healthier frog? Granted, it will live longer, but in the end is still boiled (is taking longer to die your primary objective? Given the opportunity, I would personally prefer a shorter life but of a higher quality).
Says one which in 20-30 years time will whinge at the next awesome technology.
Huh? What kind of argument is that?
Argument? No argument, just pointing out that is likely the age will change the original poster's position of "even when it comes to art, is stupid to abhor technological progress just for the sake of the technological progress". But, as the original poster said, more on the news at 11.
Because for content creation, copyright should be more than enough already? What, the free and the brave started to feel the pinch of fear?
(and yes, software is a copyrightable content, as - by itself - it doesn't transform the machine it's running on, much less transform it in a useful way).
We cannot compete on prices.
Then invent some other means to compete. For example: a head-start is usually enough to get ahead of the competitions. Also, there exists something like trade secrets - if staying rich is what you want, this should be enough for you, just don't be a hypocrite to say "I'll publish my discovery for the benefit of the human race advancement"
And what about me that find rewards in writing open-source and don't give a... of prices. Why your right to feel happy of being rich would trump mine - for creating something useful used by many. Assuming that I discover something that parts of this humanity might benefit, implementing it in open-source will give everybody an easy access to use the discovery immediately.
(if this sounds too commie/pinky to you, here's my opinion: I DO NOT GIVE A DAMN on what you call it - as a content creator it is my right to do as I please with my content - the content didn't kill anyone)
On the other hand (or should I say: the other arm?), the motor nerves don't "learn" - they are just simple wires.
I reckon that this might bring other problems into the picture (like: an old brain doesn't only need to learn new tricks, but also to unlearn the old ones - the old wires don't lead to the same muscles, nor the behaviour of the new "muscles" is the same as what is used to be).
There is no reason why 3-D can't be a good thing. Arguing it's bad because some people have made bad movies with it is stupid.
Calling names, youngster, are you?
I loom forward to a young generation of filmmakers to be tinker with this technology.
Me too. Just that, until then, give me good movies in 2D and I'll gladly pay the extra bucks, otherwise I won't. For the crappy-movies-night-StarWars-excluded, the rental shop is good enough for me (hey, the very crappy movies do have a good side: they are timeless and young - i.e. stay very crappy - forever).
The current technique for 3-d are awesome.
Says one which in 20-30 years time will whinge at the next awesome technology.
Using slaves to compute the first 5 digits of PI and do integral calculus, eh? Fast-forward 3000 years, these slave are called engineers - and the "masters" are no longer called kings but MBA (some owing Ferrari-es too).
It's not just American soldiers who were put in danger. Afghan civilians (and their families) who cooperated with us were also put in danger.
Not arguing that putting the civilians in danger is a good thing, but I can't stop to note the irony: the very leaked documents show the soldiers already killed civilians (which they are meant to protect) but this is OK as long as:
the public don't know
it was sanctioned by the COW
And no, don't argue it is war, there is no war declaration.
Ordinarily I'd say pirating video streams is morally questionable, but hacking access to the video stream of a security conference is so poetic that I refuse to believe it could be evil.
The best example that being a cracker is not synonym with being dishonest.
Even more, I see it as a good example of a wise strategy on long term: if disclosing the flaw before giving a chance the organizers to patch it would have exposed the organizers to ridicule. And one would rely on the same ridiculed persons to have a DEFCON 2011? Opportunism rarely make good sense in scarcity conditions.
As a consultant for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
some work using Linux.
... then...
although it was tough to do, there really was no
option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
Hey, David, is that you? Some times back I received an email from you (reproduced below): is the offer still available?
Dear Sir/M,
I am Mr.David Mark. an Auditor of a BANK OF THE NORTH INTERNATIONAL,ABUJA (FCT).
I have the courage to Crave indulgence for this important business believing that
you will never let me down either now or in the future.
Some years ago, an American Mining consultant/ contractor with the
Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation, made a numbered time (fixed) deposit
for twelve calendar months, valued $12M.USD (TWELVE MILLION US DOLLARS) in an account.
I was accused of being a (precursor to a) fascist.
Reading a bit the thread, it doesn't look to me necessarily so (the comment is a bit ambiguous), but yes I admit the comment you replied does admit such an interpretation.
I am, however, of the opinion that the public has confidence in the government's ability and need to investigate threats.
Strictly by the logic, it takes only one counter-example to invalidate: speaking for myself, no, I don't hold too much confidence in the government (only a limited one). Also speaking for myself, I consider that the actions mentioned in TFA just crossed the limits of my confidence. Now, the real question here is indeed how representative am I for the public?
In fact, the American public voted for the laws that allowed this detainment, according to the legal process we've held for two hundred years.
Oh, did they? No, no, no... think before you answer... did THEY directly vote for this law? Or was it voted by their representatives? In case is the later, does the their vote for their representative means an 100% trust the representatives will do the best in all circumstances, and no control is ever needed once the vote is cast? (just in the case you are tempted to answer positive, here's a hint: how come the judges have the power to interpret the law created by the representatives? How come that, even with the judges having this power, the society found useful to use jury in serious cases?)
The limits placed on a law should be based on practicality, liberty, and benefit.
Good set of reasons to limit the law, but I don't think one can come with a complete and full-proof set of reasons (this would be a law in itself).
I, for one, believe that the ability to detain incoming travelers at the border, with a reason, is good. The inconvenience is a few hours, and the benefit is a significantly larger pool of intelligence. Once essential liberties get breached, like being detained beyond the limits of the law, or being detained without reason, or being subjected to unreasonable searches, then it is time to reconsider the law.
Essential liberties, you say? From TFA: Appelbaum was asked by an attendee for his phone number. He replied "that phone was seized." Guess they just wanted to crack some nuts with the phone and were missing a nut-cracker. No, sir, surely they didn't have any intention to browse through the list of contacts or, using the phone id, to search for what calls have been made/received. And even if they did browse for contacts and such, privacy is not an essential liberty, is it now?
I do not "put the law above the sky". I put the law above the minor inconvenience of people who work with things that threaten the nation.
As long as it is not you (or government, or anyone else for that matter) to judge what is a minor inconvenience to myself or to anyone else anyone else, I don't see a problem with this.
PS: just in case, I'm not suggesting that you are a fascist, or coward or making any moral/ethical judgement about you. Just presenting some opinions, even with the risk of being destroyed by facts. As it is, for the matter, the opinion that some good will arrise by withholding the information about the fact that more civilians were killed in Afghanistan than in 9/11.
Slashdot Mirror
... and release the source code for the limos under GPL, no less!
Unless they plan on parking the cars a lot, I don't see how this can be useful
Useful for whom?
Because for the passengers of the cab, I reckon it will be useful not to pay the Mobile WiFi while travelling - may make sense during rush hours.
I'm 26 [...]
That's largely irrelevant, in my opinion. As it is the fact that I'm over 40, I've seen and used BBS-es over 4800 baud (mentioning it only to put the things in perspective).
I mention that because my "generation" grew up hearing carrier tones and having to do more things manually, with slower bandwidth. The "modern internet" by-and-large works so much more easily and at higher rates, that it doesn't take so much effort to get things done.
Thus, most people never have to think about it.
Now, that is relevant.
The Net is a tool. It grew mature enough and the novelty factor already has worn out - it's only natural to have the people using it the way they use a tooth-brush (without much consideration), for whatever serves their purposes.
To put the thing even more in perspective:
C'mon, people, the civilisation advance is an an incremental process, I really thing the use of any "generation ..." term is nonsensical and narrow minded.
Finally, from the F.. summary
Consultants and authors, mostly old guys, have called for the education system to be reworked to suit this new generation,
Of course they are. And they are right, even if maybe for the wrong reasons.
I mean, does it make sense to ignore a mature tool that can support the educational process? Now, they would be wrong if their proposal would be "Let's make the education exclusively based on Internet", but do they?
Yeap, this will teach me right to make posts that can be interpreted in too many way.
In my post, I disagreed that the rate is the problem, because the absolute value is the one that gives us trouble (and huge floods, massive wild fires and enormous landslides are not caused by a rate).
As to shorter life of a good quality: do yo think that efforts to correct the global warming will be a piece of cake? However, I'd pay the price to start now with the hope that I'd see some better quality in my life before dying.
End-users won't fix the problem. RIM would simply lose money.
Vote with your money, if you fill so strong for the people of UEA...
The Middle East not only doesn't play by our customs, those customs are utterly alien.
... and stop using their oil too.
RIM could argue that they are behaving within the law, and their government is not either providing direct advice, legal restrictions or leading by an example which suggests they should behave other than are doing.
When in Rome, do as Romans do - seems to me as valid today as it was 2000 years ago.
To exemplify: I don't like software patents, however I have no problems with the idea of USA keeping it for themselves (I do have some issues when they try to export it to other countries).
C'mon people, mod parent funny and forgive the poster for the lack of a <sarcasm> notice - not everybody knows how to edit a post to make /. accept a custom pseudo-HTML tag.
It's not *that* the temperatures are rising that's the problem. It's the *rate* that's the problem.
Uh? What, boiling the frog slower will results in a living/healthier frog? Granted, it will live longer, but in the end is still boiled (is taking longer to die your primary objective? Given the opportunity, I would personally prefer a shorter life but of a higher quality).
As /. doesn't broadcast news originated in The Onion, I reckon we should see the same for the case of NYTimes.
Says one which in 20-30 years time will whinge at the next awesome technology.
Huh? What kind of argument is that?
Argument? No argument, just pointing out that is likely the age will change the original poster's position of "even when it comes to art, is stupid to abhor technological progress just for the sake of the technological progress". But, as the original poster said, more on the news at 11.
Why do content creators want to abolish patents?
Because for content creation, copyright should be more than enough already? What, the free and the brave started to feel the pinch of fear?
(and yes, software is a copyrightable content, as - by itself - it doesn't transform the machine it's running on, much less transform it in a useful way).
We cannot compete on prices.
Also, there exists something like trade secrets - if staying rich is what you want, this should be enough for you, just don't be a hypocrite to say "I'll publish my discovery for the benefit of the human race advancement"
(if this sounds too commie/pinky to you, here's my opinion: I DO NOT GIVE A DAMN on what you call it - as a content creator it is my right to do as I please with my content - the content didn't kill anyone)
until I read your whole post, I thought somehow you knew about Logopolis, Oh never mind, poor human
For this, I need to fast-forward more than 3000 years. BTW, master, do you own a Ferrari?
Yours, who.
Also, what's the correct term to designate somebody that build arms and other limbs: army or armory?
And what if the arm builder is a corporate body?
Maybe because we are discussing ferrari-es and not engineers!
On the other hand (or should I say: the other arm?), the motor nerves don't "learn" - they are just simple wires.
I reckon that this might bring other problems into the picture (like: an old brain doesn't only need to learn new tricks, but also to unlearn the old ones - the old wires don't lead to the same muscles, nor the behaviour of the new "muscles" is the same as what is used to be).
doctors need to find more and more neurons to represent each degree of freedom of the output device.
Not necessarily - google for "brain rewire" (connecting supplementary electrodes to the neighbouring neurons might do the trick)
the brain's immune system rejects the device
Now, this is a problem; before your brain learns how to use the interface, the interface is irrationally rejected - how stupid for the brain ;)
I wonder if this is going to run afoul of... arms-control regulations?
Being sponsored by the army, a better term would be arm control rules ;)
I wonder what the moderator found funny in my post above: I'd consider it rather depressing (wink)
Old people resist change, news at 11.
There is no reason why 3-D can't be a good thing. Arguing it's bad because some people have made bad movies with it is stupid.
Calling names, youngster, are you?
I loom forward to a young generation of filmmakers to be tinker with this technology.
Me too.
Just that, until then, give me good movies in 2D and I'll gladly pay the extra bucks, otherwise I won't. For the crappy-movies-night-StarWars-excluded, the rental shop is good enough for me (hey, the very crappy movies do have a good side: they are timeless and young - i.e. stay very crappy - forever).
The current technique for 3-d are awesome.
Says one which in 20-30 years time will whinge at the next awesome technology.
And they used slaves to do it all
Using slaves to compute the first 5 digits of PI and do integral calculus, eh?
Fast-forward 3000 years, these slave are called engineers - and the "masters" are no longer called kings but MBA (some owing Ferrari-es too).
It's not just American soldiers who were put in danger. Afghan civilians (and their families) who cooperated with us were also put in danger.
Not arguing that putting the civilians in danger is a good thing, but I can't stop to note the irony: the very leaked documents show the soldiers already killed civilians (which they are meant to protect) but this is OK as long as:
And no, don't argue it is war, there is no war declaration.
Ordinarily I'd say pirating video streams is morally questionable, but hacking access to the video stream of a security conference is so poetic that I refuse to believe it could be evil.
The best example that being a cracker is not synonym with being dishonest.
Even more, I see it as a good example of a wise strategy on long term: if disclosing the flaw before giving a chance the organizers to patch it would have exposed the organizers to ridicule. And one would rely on the same ridiculed persons to have a DEFCON 2011? Opportunism rarely make good sense in scarcity conditions.
Hello,
As a consultant for several large companies, I'd always done my work on Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do some work using Linux.
... then ...
although it was tough to do, there really was no
option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
Hey, David, is that you? Some times back I received an email from you (reproduced below): is the offer still available?
Dear Sir/M,
I am Mr.David Mark. an Auditor of a BANK OF THE NORTH INTERNATIONAL,ABUJA (FCT).
I have the courage to Crave indulgence for this important business believing that
you will never let me down either now or in the future.
Some years ago, an American Mining consultant/ contractor with the
Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation, made a numbered time (fixed) deposit
for twelve calendar months, valued $12M.USD (TWELVE MILLION US DOLLARS) in an account.
I was accused of being a (precursor to a) fascist.
Reading a bit the thread, it doesn't look to me necessarily so (the comment is a bit ambiguous), but yes I admit the comment you replied does admit such an interpretation.
I am, however, of the opinion that the public has confidence in the government's ability and need to investigate threats.
Strictly by the logic, it takes only one counter-example to invalidate: speaking for myself, no, I don't hold too much confidence in the government (only a limited one). Also speaking for myself, I consider that the actions mentioned in TFA just crossed the limits of my confidence. Now, the real question here is indeed how representative am I for the public?
In fact, the American public voted for the laws that allowed this detainment, according to the legal process we've held for two hundred years.
Oh, did they? No, no, no... think before you answer... did THEY directly vote for this law? Or was it voted by their representatives? In case is the later, does the their vote for their representative means an 100% trust the representatives will do the best in all circumstances, and no control is ever needed once the vote is cast? (just in the case you are tempted to answer positive, here's a hint: how come the judges have the power to interpret the law created by the representatives? How come that, even with the judges having this power, the society found useful to use jury in serious cases?)
The limits placed on a law should be based on practicality, liberty, and benefit.
Good set of reasons to limit the law, but I don't think one can come with a complete and full-proof set of reasons (this would be a law in itself).
I, for one, believe that the ability to detain incoming travelers at the border, with a reason, is good. The inconvenience is a few hours, and the benefit is a significantly larger pool of intelligence. Once essential liberties get breached, like being detained beyond the limits of the law, or being detained without reason, or being subjected to unreasonable searches, then it is time to reconsider the law.
Essential liberties, you say? From TFA: Appelbaum was asked by an attendee for his phone number. He replied "that phone was seized." Guess they just wanted to crack some nuts with the phone and were missing a nut-cracker. No, sir, surely they didn't have any intention to browse through the list of contacts or, using the phone id, to search for what calls have been made/received.
And even if they did browse for contacts and such, privacy is not an essential liberty, is it now?
I do not "put the law above the sky". I put the law above the minor inconvenience of people who work with things that threaten the nation.
As long as it is not you (or government, or anyone else for that matter) to judge what is a minor inconvenience to myself or to anyone else anyone else, I don't see a problem with this.
PS: just in case, I'm not suggesting that you are a fascist, or coward or making any moral/ethical judgement about you. Just presenting some opinions, even with the risk of being destroyed by facts. As it is, for the matter, the opinion that some good will arrise by withholding the information about the fact that more civilians were killed in Afghanistan than in 9/11.
How likely is it that an email would actually be answered in a timely fashion, or provide nearly enough information?
How's the timely fashion relevant to the issue? What would have happened if, instead of 3 hours, the guys would have had an answer in 3 days?