I don't get what the problem is with a f*ing worldwide Panopticon. I seriously wouldn't mind. Even if the lot surrounding our house has no fence, and you could see us, say, sleeping outside on the hammock. Big f*ing deal.
I think you truly believe what you say, but it's just FUD spread by certification agencies and standard body shills. I don't know if you're one knowingly or not. It's a bunch of BS. If something cheap and poorly done starts a fire, there's usually no way of telling what it was. It'll melt and you won't be able to even tell what the heck it was. Nobody cares, really. As long as it's not fraudulently done (on purpose to get insurance money), you'll be in the clear.
So you're saying there are idiots out there who do PCB layout without having all that put down in design rules that get automatically checked? WTF?! When I do layout, I first check what limits are placed by the board maker and assembly house, then applicable standards and good engineering practice, then everything gets put into the DRC rule set. From that point onwards it's easy sailing.
You're doing it wrong. Get in touch with a company that does consulting, contract with someone who has done hundreds of those devices. For $10k extra you'll pass. BTDT.
This can still be done with plenty of lip service. Just like building that's done to minimum code requirements is often a crappy place to live, designs done to minimum standard requirements usually suck.
Maybe they are uniformly high-quality cogs. Then perhaps it'd work. I presume in most companies the quality of engineering staff is at best variable, with uselessness quotient rising as you climb the ladder. If you have a very highly skilled team, then people have so much skill and motivation that they can pick up easily after someone else. You still can't exactly play roulette with them since team morale still exists. Alas, quality of pay and benefits can improve morale, so if Google pays very well, provides good benefits, and hires very good people, then sure they can be exchanged with much less ado than otherwise possible. You still need to value them, though, and not treat them like shit. Perhaps Google found a way of not treating people like shit yet still allowing for some turnover?
The problem with the idea of "cogs" is that it's someone's pipe dream -- someone who doesn't know jack shit about people. I'm not saying that irreplaceable people, the other extreme, are any good either, as this promotes complacency and makes your business vulnerable to one's whims. There's a middle road that works. People should be respected and valued. Yes, if you treat them like cogs, you can inflate the balance sheets for a couple of quarters. Then it all goes to hell. And we see that over and over. And yet people still believe the "cog" idea.
It is only with the lowest denominator, high-on-training, almost mechanical jobs where the idea of a cog somewhat works. Of course you end up with burger chain morons who go into an endless loop when you, say, pay them in cash and the amount of payment is more than the amount to be paid (say you want a specific set of change back). This is but an example. You can only train people so far, there comes a moment where either they have to bring value of their own or you're toast as a corporation.
Yes, but the way it'll be used is that synthetic focus will be applied during post production / editing, and it will end up as a "regular" film. IOW: nothing interactive about the end product, when used for movies.
So what, you expected them to recode their algorithms in flash, send you a source image that's dozens of megabytes in size, and have you wait tens of seconds, possibly minutes, while the whole thing is recalculated after each click? Haha.
The problem is this: this is not how movies work. It'll cost a fortune to make a movie where you can "look around". Shots are usually planned in detail, so if something is out of focus and is a prop/set, it's way cheaper that way. Even in CG movies, there are still digital props, sets, etc, and they are planned according to the needs of script and director's ideas. The level of detail varies and usually is only enough to do the job, doing otherwise would be a waste of money -- if it doesn't end on film, it's a waste.
Here, suddenly, you'll need sets with way more detail, all props will be subject to potential scrutiny even if artistically they're not very important, and it'll be way more work for continuity and to make sure there's no guffaws in the recorded material.
I don't see it happening, not without a major mental shift in the moviemaking business.
And the problem, as almost always, lies in understanding, or rather lack thereof. Many people still view technology like black magic. This is a widespread phenomenon. This includes "engineers" at many asian device makers. They don't understand what quality entails, they don't understand how easy/smooth a device should be to operate, their management doesn't understand what they are selling either. They are happy that they got this magic technology from Google, and since google is the big wizard, they are happy that they got the magic wand going at all.
The figure you cite is an aggregate statistic. You cannot infer anything from that figure as it relates to a single accident post-facto. Before the accident happens, the 50% figure tells you something, after it happened: not anymore. You need to look at what's in front of you.
I find it incredible that people can twist someone's words so badly. I never said, nor implied, that seatbelts are unproven or provide no safety benefits. Never in my life did I drive without wearing seatbelts; what little biomechanics I know is enough to understand how they help.
I just claim that their lack most likely didn't play a role in this accident. If someone gets killed during a home robbery, it makes neither a pro nor a con argument for having smoke detectors. The latter would improve your chances under different circumstances.
You're a damned fool in making assumptions. There's nothing out there so far (else post links) that indicates that seat belts (or their lack) played any role in the outcome. Shut up.
It's a silly insinuation that him wearing/not wearing the seat belt had any influence on the outcome. I'm tempted to think that he was either dead or dying for a bit before that turn came up. Let's wait for the police report to come out.
We don't know if he died "stupidly", whatever that may mean. For all I know he had stroke/heart attack and was unconscious when it was time to turn the steering wheel.
By the way, Bob was coming back from a memorial service for Jim Williams, another of analog circuit design great minds. He missed the end of the service by half an hour.
I'm getting drunk tonight in their memory. All I know in analog circuit design I've learned from my dad and them, I'd say they all share equal influence on me. Bob and Jim were great teachers, seriously down-to-Earth, no-bullshit guys.
Instincts should be overcome because, ultimately, we're not savages. I don't mean that all instincts are bad, sometimes they align with what's reasonable or simply pleasurable and otherwise OK to do. But when instinct is all that drives you, without anything else, then I think it's somewhat dangerous.
There must be a reason, though, that most women regard bearing children as "unrivalled life experience". It's probably a combination of groupthink and instincts. It's an important lesson in self discovery I think to first of all identify them as such, and then to be able to steer yourself clear if needed.
Pregnancy is, on the face of it, a physically miserable experience. Our own bodies have to make, in essence, psychotropic drugs that make you forget after the fact. So you can of course make it feel, to you, as a great thing, but you have to be aware that it's only you who did that. Objectively it's still miserable. Recognizing that you have the ability to turn something unpleasant into something unrivalledly pleasant is the first step. The second step is being able to apply the same method to just anything else that you do, in absence of endocrine helpers. In principle, that life's experiences are what you make of them. You don't necessarily have to do X to have a great experience because the consensus says it is one. Anything you do, even the most mundane things, can become an great experiences. It's up to you.
You probably realize that majority of what most "people group X" do is something you will miss on. Whether it's mothers, sports champions, astronauts, Nepalese trekkers, etc. -- there's plenty of sufficiently large groups of people out there who do something you won't ever do. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with it, just a fact of life in the sense that we have limited lifespans and there are physically limited resources available to us.
Slashdot Mirror
I think someone missed the point. Methinks it should be modded +5, Funny
Life is full of tradeoffs. Being seen in real time from a public right of way is the least of my concerns.
I don't get what the problem is with a f*ing worldwide Panopticon. I seriously wouldn't mind. Even if the lot surrounding our house has no fence, and you could see us, say, sleeping outside on the hammock. Big f*ing deal.
Agreed.
I think you truly believe what you say, but it's just FUD spread by certification agencies and standard body shills. I don't know if you're one knowingly or not. It's a bunch of BS. If something cheap and poorly done starts a fire, there's usually no way of telling what it was. It'll melt and you won't be able to even tell what the heck it was. Nobody cares, really. As long as it's not fraudulently done (on purpose to get insurance money), you'll be in the clear.
So you're saying there are idiots out there who do PCB layout without having all that put down in design rules that get automatically checked? WTF?! When I do layout, I first check what limits are placed by the board maker and assembly house, then applicable standards and good engineering practice, then everything gets put into the DRC rule set. From that point onwards it's easy sailing.
You're doing it wrong. Get in touch with a company that does consulting, contract with someone who has done hundreds of those devices. For $10k extra you'll pass. BTDT.
This can still be done with plenty of lip service. Just like building that's done to minimum code requirements is often a crappy place to live, designs done to minimum standard requirements usually suck.
Maybe they are uniformly high-quality cogs. Then perhaps it'd work. I presume in most companies the quality of engineering staff is at best variable, with uselessness quotient rising as you climb the ladder. If you have a very highly skilled team, then people have so much skill and motivation that they can pick up easily after someone else. You still can't exactly play roulette with them since team morale still exists. Alas, quality of pay and benefits can improve morale, so if Google pays very well, provides good benefits, and hires very good people, then sure they can be exchanged with much less ado than otherwise possible. You still need to value them, though, and not treat them like shit. Perhaps Google found a way of not treating people like shit yet still allowing for some turnover?
The problem with the idea of "cogs" is that it's someone's pipe dream -- someone who doesn't know jack shit about people. I'm not saying that irreplaceable people, the other extreme, are any good either, as this promotes complacency and makes your business vulnerable to one's whims. There's a middle road that works. People should be respected and valued. Yes, if you treat them like cogs, you can inflate the balance sheets for a couple of quarters. Then it all goes to hell. And we see that over and over. And yet people still believe the "cog" idea.
It is only with the lowest denominator, high-on-training, almost mechanical jobs where the idea of a cog somewhat works. Of course you end up with burger chain morons who go into an endless loop when you, say, pay them in cash and the amount of payment is more than the amount to be paid (say you want a specific set of change back). This is but an example. You can only train people so far, there comes a moment where either they have to bring value of their own or you're toast as a corporation.
Yes, but the way it'll be used is that synthetic focus will be applied during post production / editing, and it will end up as a "regular" film. IOW: nothing interactive about the end product, when used for movies.
So what, you expected them to recode their algorithms in flash, send you a source image that's dozens of megabytes in size, and have you wait tens of seconds, possibly minutes, while the whole thing is recalculated after each click? Haha.
The problem is this: this is not how movies work. It'll cost a fortune to make a movie where you can "look around". Shots are usually planned in detail, so if something is out of focus and is a prop/set, it's way cheaper that way. Even in CG movies, there are still digital props, sets, etc, and they are planned according to the needs of script and director's ideas. The level of detail varies and usually is only enough to do the job, doing otherwise would be a waste of money -- if it doesn't end on film, it's a waste.
Here, suddenly, you'll need sets with way more detail, all props will be subject to potential scrutiny even if artistically they're not very important, and it'll be way more work for continuity and to make sure there's no guffaws in the recorded material.
I don't see it happening, not without a major mental shift in the moviemaking business.
And the problem, as almost always, lies in understanding, or rather lack thereof. Many people still view technology like black magic. This is a widespread phenomenon. This includes "engineers" at many asian device makers. They don't understand what quality entails, they don't understand how easy/smooth a device should be to operate, their management doesn't understand what they are selling either. They are happy that they got this magic technology from Google, and since google is the big wizard, they are happy that they got the magic wand going at all.
Maybe I let inlaws ride in the front ;) I did get worked up, yes.
The figure you cite is an aggregate statistic. You cannot infer anything from that figure as it relates to a single accident post-facto. Before the accident happens, the 50% figure tells you something, after it happened: not anymore. You need to look at what's in front of you.
Sorry. You don't know what happened, blaming not wearing seatbelts at this point is very silly.
I find it incredible that people can twist someone's words so badly. I never said, nor implied, that seatbelts are unproven or provide no safety benefits. Never in my life did I drive without wearing seatbelts; what little biomechanics I know is enough to understand how they help.
I just claim that their lack most likely didn't play a role in this accident. If someone gets killed during a home robbery, it makes neither a pro nor a con argument for having smoke detectors. The latter would improve your chances under different circumstances.
Yeah, talk about coincidences. They both died within a week of each other. Someone selected nice pictures of both of them.
You're a damned fool in making assumptions. There's nothing out there so far (else post links) that indicates that seat belts (or their lack) played any role in the outcome. Shut up.
All true, but there's a reason he didn't make the turn, and I think that seatbelts had nothing to do with the outcome.
It's a silly insinuation that him wearing/not wearing the seat belt had any influence on the outcome. I'm tempted to think that he was either dead or dying for a bit before that turn came up. Let's wait for the police report to come out.
We don't know if he died "stupidly", whatever that may mean. For all I know he had stroke/heart attack and was unconscious when it was time to turn the steering wheel.
By the way, Bob was coming back from a memorial service for Jim Williams, another of analog circuit design great minds. He missed the end of the service by half an hour.
I'm getting drunk tonight in their memory. All I know in analog circuit design I've learned from my dad and them, I'd say they all share equal influence on me. Bob and Jim were great teachers, seriously down-to-Earth, no-bullshit guys.
Instincts should be overcome because, ultimately, we're not savages. I don't mean that all instincts are bad, sometimes they align with what's reasonable or simply pleasurable and otherwise OK to do. But when instinct is all that drives you, without anything else, then I think it's somewhat dangerous.
There must be a reason, though, that most women regard bearing children as "unrivalled life experience". It's probably a combination of groupthink and instincts. It's an important lesson in self discovery I think to first of all identify them as such, and then to be able to steer yourself clear if needed.
Pregnancy is, on the face of it, a physically miserable experience. Our own bodies have to make, in essence, psychotropic drugs that make you forget after the fact. So you can of course make it feel, to you, as a great thing, but you have to be aware that it's only you who did that. Objectively it's still miserable. Recognizing that you have the ability to turn something unpleasant into something unrivalledly pleasant is the first step. The second step is being able to apply the same method to just anything else that you do, in absence of endocrine helpers. In principle, that life's experiences are what you make of them. You don't necessarily have to do X to have a great experience because the consensus says it is one. Anything you do, even the most mundane things, can become an great experiences. It's up to you.
You probably realize that majority of what most "people group X" do is something you will miss on. Whether it's mothers, sports champions, astronauts, Nepalese trekkers, etc. -- there's plenty of sufficiently large groups of people out there who do something you won't ever do. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with it, just a fact of life in the sense that we have limited lifespans and there are physically limited resources available to us.
I agree. I was talking about college.