Mass doesn't disappear just because something is in outer space. That mass carries with it a certain amount of inertia, and the heavier something is on earth, the more energy will be required to manipulate it with any kind of acceleration, even in space.
I didn't say that people don't get emotionally attached to things... I just said that I don't think that said emotional attachment will generally impact a person's willingness to use the device as it is intended, even when that purpose carries some risk of damage or destruction, when there is not some sort of *personal* cost that will be incurred if it gets damaged or destroyed (time, money, disciplinary action, etc).
Obviously... but that wasn't the point made by the person who I initially responded to. His first criteria, and one that I wholeheartedly agree with, is "Will I be held accountable if it is damaged or destroyed?"
And if the answer is yes, then that's going to impact your willingness to use it in situations where it might get damaged or destroyed. If the answer is no, because it's being used as intended, then it's really just a non-issue.
Obviously you're going to rather risk the robot than your own life.... but if you are expecting that you're going to be held personally responsible for destroying a multi-million dollar machine at the end of it, that's still going to give you more than just a little pause. If your CO is a dick and is the sort of person who may be likely to personally blame you for blowing it up when all you did was use the robot as it was intended, some kind assurance that isn't going to actually happen to you may be necessary before you will be able to your job remotely effectively.
Excellent point... I had not considered the impact of being held personally accountable, but I can easily see that playing a very large factor in their willingness to use it.
If replacing it with an equally functional one is sufficiently improbable or inconvenient then once any kind of emotional attachment has developed, then that will probably have an impact on their willingness to jeopardize it when they may perceive an alternative solution.
The solution to this problem, of course, is to remove absolutely all capacity for emotion from the soldiers, effectively turning them into cybermen.
Of course, that solution probably comes with a host of other problems... even if it were possible to do.
I get that they might be sad when a robot they were using somehow gets lost or destroyed, but I really can't see that influencing how likely they are to use that robot for dangerous situations unless the soldier had somehow personally invested time and energy into making the robot do or act the way that it does, and in particular such that it would require some substantial personal investment (monetary, timewise, workwise, or simply having to wait a while) to replace it.
At least the one-way trip to mars has the merit of *SOME* sort of contingency for actually surviving there (not that I think it will be effective... I still believe that such manned missions to mars are merely a drawn-out way to commit suicide, and I don't expect anyone will live more than 2 years after launch).
But what the hell are their contingencies for surviving on Europa?
Just because it's a craft doesn't mean it's not a science. In fact, many things that are commonly more strongly associated with being art have an amazing amount of science behind them... music being the most notable that I can think of right off the top of my head.
Implied ad-hominems aside, while I am "just a programmer", I did receive formal CS training. But that is neither here nor there.
I won't dispute that there is no one language that is going to be ideal for solving all problems, but it's entirely erroneous to presume that for certain types of problems, some languages are going to be better than others simply because the syntax of the language makes the solution more elegant to express and makes the resulting source code easer to understand.
This ease of understanding almost immediately translates to a faster development cycle, resulting in the end user receiving the product earlier, and in general will also mean that the software is less likely to contain unknown bugs (barring unknown bugs in the language implementation on the target architecture or bugs in the software development environment itself), so those choices can even impact the end user, even though they are unlikely to necessarily understand how, or even necessarily be aware of them.
Just because you *CAN* do the same thing in any imperative language that you can do in one particular one does not mean that they are all equally good choices, Choice of programming language should be less about making everything look like a nail because all you have is a hammer and more about picking the right tool for the right job.
Your prof was right... language choice is "just syntax"... but in the real world, "just syntax" makes a world of difference.
When a particular choice of programming language makes the resulting work easier for others to understand and maintain or modify, simply because things have been expressed in a manner that is more natural to understand with relation to what is actually being done, "just syntax" makes a HUGE difference.
Such commutes are very common where I live as well... people live far from work because in many cases, those are the only homes that are affordable. Unless one is lucky enough to happen upon a foreclosure, getting a good deal on a home in the city proper can be next to impossible.
And of course, the employment opportunities are not as rich in the outlying suburbs, so long commutes to and from work are pretty much the norm.
One could also rent an apartment in the city, but where I live for a two-bedroom apartment, you could be paying double the amount in rent that you'd be spending on a mortgage for a similarly sized condominium further away from the city center. Even then, all paying rent does is help somebody else get rich, while barring a housing market price crash, paying a mortgage puts equity in your own pocket.
But.... [spoiler alert]... But wasn't the decision that took them all day to arrive at a decision to not do anything at all? In fact, they only really decided to do something after they saw what Saruman had done, and the decision to act then was made almost immediately.
It's a cross between not being particularly coordinated and having fat fingers such that, for example, trying to text accurately is an exercise in futility that is beyond even autocorrect's ability to help. My wife has a Galaxy Note 2 phone which initially she got because she wanted to get something really different (she's since completely head over heels forher phone now), but I've found it to be a perfect size for myself.... not so large as to be unmanageable or awkward as a phone, but still large enough to practically use.
As a current iPhone user who has had over 2 years of headaches trying use such a tiny touch screen,I would be all over getting a new iPhone if Apple would release a model of phone that was phablet-sized... bonus points if it came with a precision stylus.
(yes, I already know about the galaxy note 2, and I'm planning on getting one [or something similar, depending on what is available at the time] as soon as my current contract is up next April, but if Apple would come out with a feature-comparable phone, I'd definitely get it because then all of my existing apps will all move straight over. Such compatibility, however, is insufficient to make up for the frustration I experience trying to use it)
When it comes to a government, we're talking about an organization that could effectively end anyone's life as they know it anyways... I'm not saying corruption is impossible or even unlikely, but I find absolutely no compelling reason outside of paranoia to presume that they'll even be interested enough in any given individual who hasn't done anything wrong to even *try*. Exceptions happen, but deal with them on a case by case basis instead of just assuming that most people's lives are even remotely interesting enough for someone else to even care.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you deconstruct that line of reasoning more thoroughly?
http://www.zdnet.com/hackers-crowdfund-bounty-to-hack-iphone-5s-fingerprint-scanner-on-istouchidhackedyet-com-7000020879
Mass doesn't disappear just because something is in outer space. That mass carries with it a certain amount of inertia, and the heavier something is on earth, the more energy will be required to manipulate it with any kind of acceleration, even in space.
You probably hate letting your units get destroyed because of replacement cost.... that is, there is some person cost to *you*.
I didn't say that people don't get emotionally attached to things... I just said that I don't think that said emotional attachment will generally impact a person's willingness to use the device as it is intended, even when that purpose carries some risk of damage or destruction, when there is not some sort of *personal* cost that will be incurred if it gets damaged or destroyed (time, money, disciplinary action, etc).
Obviously... but that wasn't the point made by the person who I initially responded to. His first criteria, and one that I wholeheartedly agree with, is "Will I be held accountable if it is damaged or destroyed?"
And if the answer is yes, then that's going to impact your willingness to use it in situations where it might get damaged or destroyed. If the answer is no, because it's being used as intended, then it's really just a non-issue.
Obviously you're going to rather risk the robot than your own life.... but if you are expecting that you're going to be held personally responsible for destroying a multi-million dollar machine at the end of it, that's still going to give you more than just a little pause. If your CO is a dick and is the sort of person who may be likely to personally blame you for blowing it up when all you did was use the robot as it was intended, some kind assurance that isn't going to actually happen to you may be necessary before you will be able to your job remotely effectively.
Excellent point... I had not considered the impact of being held personally accountable, but I can easily see that playing a very large factor in their willingness to use it.
If replacing it with an equally functional one is sufficiently improbable or inconvenient then once any kind of emotional attachment has developed, then that will probably have an impact on their willingness to jeopardize it when they may perceive an alternative solution.
The solution to this problem, of course, is to remove absolutely all capacity for emotion from the soldiers, effectively turning them into cybermen.
Of course, that solution probably comes with a host of other problems... even if it were possible to do.
Just... no.
I get that they might be sad when a robot they were using somehow gets lost or destroyed, but I really can't see that influencing how likely they are to use that robot for dangerous situations unless the soldier had somehow personally invested time and energy into making the robot do or act the way that it does, and in particular such that it would require some substantial personal investment (monetary, timewise, workwise, or simply having to wait a while) to replace it.
At least the one-way trip to mars has the merit of *SOME* sort of contingency for actually surviving there (not that I think it will be effective... I still believe that such manned missions to mars are merely a drawn-out way to commit suicide, and I don't expect anyone will live more than 2 years after launch).
But what the hell are their contingencies for surviving on Europa?
Because if current rates of adoption are any indication, an ipv6 internet won't be US-centric for years to come.
No.
Just.... no.
Just because it's a craft doesn't mean it's not a science. In fact, many things that are commonly more strongly associated with being art have an amazing amount of science behind them... music being the most notable that I can think of right off the top of my head.
I'm missing a very important 'not' in the second sentence of the second paragraph there... between the words "are" and "going"
Implied ad-hominems aside, while I am "just a programmer", I did receive formal CS training. But that is neither here nor there.
I won't dispute that there is no one language that is going to be ideal for solving all problems, but it's entirely erroneous to presume that for certain types of problems, some languages are going to be better than others simply because the syntax of the language makes the solution more elegant to express and makes the resulting source code easer to understand.
This ease of understanding almost immediately translates to a faster development cycle, resulting in the end user receiving the product earlier, and in general will also mean that the software is less likely to contain unknown bugs (barring unknown bugs in the language implementation on the target architecture or bugs in the software development environment itself), so those choices can even impact the end user, even though they are unlikely to necessarily understand how, or even necessarily be aware of them.
Just because you *CAN* do the same thing in any imperative language that you can do in one particular one does not mean that they are all equally good choices, Choice of programming language should be less about making everything look like a nail because all you have is a hammer and more about picking the right tool for the right job.
Your prof was right... language choice is "just syntax"... but in the real world, "just syntax" makes a world of difference.
When a particular choice of programming language makes the resulting work easier for others to understand and maintain or modify, simply because things have been expressed in a manner that is more natural to understand with relation to what is actually being done, "just syntax" makes a HUGE difference.
Such commutes are very common where I live as well... people live far from work because in many cases, those are the only homes that are affordable. Unless one is lucky enough to happen upon a foreclosure, getting a good deal on a home in the city proper can be next to impossible.
And of course, the employment opportunities are not as rich in the outlying suburbs, so long commutes to and from work are pretty much the norm.
One could also rent an apartment in the city, but where I live for a two-bedroom apartment, you could be paying double the amount in rent that you'd be spending on a mortgage for a similarly sized condominium further away from the city center. Even then, all paying rent does is help somebody else get rich, while barring a housing market price crash, paying a mortgage puts equity in your own pocket.
Well... Tesla's cars also cost twice as much.
But.... [spoiler alert]... But wasn't the decision that took them all day to arrive at a decision to not do anything at all? In fact, they only really decided to do something after they saw what Saruman had done, and the decision to act then was made almost immediately.
It's a cross between not being particularly coordinated and having fat fingers such that, for example, trying to text accurately is an exercise in futility that is beyond even autocorrect's ability to help. My wife has a Galaxy Note 2 phone which initially she got because she wanted to get something really different (she's since completely head over heels forher phone now), but I've found it to be a perfect size for myself.... not so large as to be unmanageable or awkward as a phone, but still large enough to practically use.
How is the scanning of a fingerprint to clock in and out of work a violation of civil liberties, exactly?
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/august-2013-update/
As a current iPhone user who has had over 2 years of headaches trying use such a tiny touch screen,I would be all over getting a new iPhone if Apple would release a model of phone that was phablet-sized ... bonus points if it came with a precision stylus.
(yes, I already know about the galaxy note 2, and I'm planning on getting one [or something similar, depending on what is available at the time] as soon as my current contract is up next April, but if Apple would come out with a feature-comparable phone, I'd definitely get it because then all of my existing apps will all move straight over. Such compatibility, however, is insufficient to make up for the frustration I experience trying to use it)
When it comes to a government, we're talking about an organization that could effectively end anyone's life as they know it anyways... I'm not saying corruption is impossible or even unlikely, but I find absolutely no compelling reason outside of paranoia to presume that they'll even be interested enough in any given individual who hasn't done anything wrong to even *try*. Exceptions happen, but deal with them on a case by case basis instead of just assuming that most people's lives are even remotely interesting enough for someone else to even care.