"You don't need it, therefore you shouldn't have it" is the most authoritarian argument I've ever heard. By that logic, you can ban just about anything.
Why would it stop? Just because 80 mph is the highest limit on the continent, doesn't mean they can't save another life by dropping it down to 79 mph. Heck, the logic applies all the way until it goes down to 0 mph, at which point you can't lower the limit anymore.
Where do you draw the line? Can they try cocaine? Heroin? Why not? What about alcohol? Alcohol seems to be one of the most addictive substances around.. How much alcohol damages, or simply mildly stunts, a developing brain?
Alcohol is an acquired taste and kids hate it. Let them try it. Or better yet, force them to drink PBR as a punishment. They won't be going near that again until well into adulthood.
I've read study after study that appears to show that social media is addictive.. Dopamine hits.. etc.. Maybe it's not unreasonable to suggest that it be limited to adults.. This is the first generation growing up with it.
Crime is down, reading proficiency is improving, and the world is more peaceful than ever, all despite stagnant wages and a growing trend of single-parenthood. Guess being stuck to the screen all day keeps them out of trouble. The only people who have a problem with this are the older generations who think they're the best and everyone who lives differently aren't living correctly.
Nice on on pulling pedophilia out of your ass though.... Fuck head..
Haha, what did you expect after calling me spineless? I can trade insults all day. Would you like round 2?
That's my point exactly. But despite that, there's millions of working websites out there using JS, written by people who don't know exactly how each bit got flipped. As long as the people writing JS engines know how it works, everyone else can rely on the abstraction.
I draw the line at not getting addicted. Trying it in moderation is fine. Kids will be curious and your banning it just makes them even more curious.
To be brutally honest, you sound like one of those weak-willed defeatists who'll cave to their children's demands because you don't have the spine to draw the line and walk it.
With all due respect, you make the same argument as those people who promote abstinence. You know, the kind that pretends to be all about chastity, but then turn around and rapes the kids.
The “prone to mistakes” is a hiring issue (gov’t at its best), not a software issue. They’ve got a lot of errors in how docs are recorded and indexed that reveal sloppy and lazy work.
If people are making different mistakes all the time, then it's a problem with the people. If they're consistently making the same mistakes, then there's a problem with the process.
Good software can catch a lot of issues with the process. Not the least of which is automatically verifying the values appear reasonable, e.g. a 1500 sqft. apartment does not cost 5x the median house in the area, or showing a warning about what appears to be a very creative first name. It can eliminate a lot of the error-prone manual calculations by doing them in software. Good data visualization tools can help discover unusual trends. And exposing the data to the property owner through a website allows an additional pair of eyes to cross check it.
Or they realized having footage of the property from years ago would've been useful in resolving disputes. When I rent an apartment, I take photos and videos of the interior so shitty landlords can't blame me for damage left by previous tenants. I imagine a similar rationale applies to assessing property.
So they end up with systems that work as originally designed but fail to keep pace with improvement in technology.
And this matters why, exactly?
Because no software is ever complete in the sense that you wouldn't ever want new features added to it. At some point, the requirements change, and if your system is so old that you can't find developers, or even development toolchains for it, you won't be able to update the software. And that's assuming it's bug free.
Now imagine trying to update a machine that ran on punch cards. Even if you knew which holes to punch, can you even find the tools they used to punch those cards? Where do you even buy blank cards? Do you need to start a new card-making factory too?
Would you use Windows 95 as your primary OS though? Why not?
Is it the fact that it constantly crashes for no reason? Or that it limited to 16 bits of color and one monitor? Or that you had such great file system choices as FAT12 and FAT16? Or that it didn't come with a networking stack or a 3D graphics library?
All of those cost memory and CPU time. It's very easy to write hello world in assembly and have it come out to 400 bytes of machine code and the same amount of memory. It's not very easy to write a browser in the same amount of space.
For one, they actually had a working understand of the hardware on a conceptual level and could relate how their code would interact with the system. Ask your average JS coder how a computer works and grab some popcorn.
There's definitely a lot more going on nowadays with both the OS and application layer libraries. I doubt anyone can understand the entire stack the way people did back then.
In fact, I'll bet you can't figure out what machine code a simple line of JS code turns into either. And even if you did, that answer would be wrong in a few weeks when the next release of V8 comes out.
Due to the limitations of distribution methods and storage media of the time software was also far less bloated and much more stable at launch. You couldn't easily patch something post launch like you can now so you had to get it mostly right the first time. There is no such thing as bug free code but there is code with some bugs and then there is code that is mostly bugs.
I seem to recall a lot of older software that had a final version named something like 1.0.4. And those were only made available months after the initial release. In other words, you'd have software with glaring flaws that you'd have to put up with for months. Versus now, any major bug would be quickly patched up post launch and it's a matter of a few days, or even just a few hours of waiting.
You're just setting them up to get addicted to it once they're free from your control. I've always been allowed to play video games, and when I went to college, it was business as usual. Other people weren't allowed to play at all at home. Guess what they did once they were out of their parents control?
If you have a process where only one guy knows how to do it, you already have a problem. If that guy gets hit by a truck, or even just take a vacation, the entire business would come to a halt.
You can certainly test a patch of skin or a section of an intestine. I think most people are fine with testing up to the organ level with the exception of a brain.
Yeah and when your skill level is close to "can be automated by a simple script", you're not a software engineer. It's only when you get past "can write a script to automate your work" that you can be considered one. At that point, you're no longer doing grunt work.
Genes are basically software for living things. If you make patches to it without a good understanding how it works, it might do something completely unexpected. Of course, you can implement good software engineering practices such as iterative development, refactoring, code review and unit testing to reduce the chances of that.
In your example, it might be a good idea to create hermetic test environments within which you can deterministically reproduce those rare occurrences and study them in depth.
CRISPR-edited babies, combined with the massive wealth divides of a class-based society, will further stratify humans into Morlocks and Eloi.
Depends on how it's implemented. This could be a state-run program that provides everyone the same set of enhancements. CRISPR made its mark in biotech for being relatively cheap so it wouldn't even cost all that much. Though given how much push back there is for mandatory vaccines, I imagine GM babies will spur even more conspiracies.
Slashdot Mirror
Better yet, just don't include an engine or wheels. Can't kill anyone if it can't move.
"You don't need it, therefore you shouldn't have it" is the most authoritarian argument I've ever heard. By that logic, you can ban just about anything.
TV? Banned. Go spend that time being productive.
Meat? Banned. Eat rice and beans.
Sex? For procreation only.
Why would it stop? Just because 80 mph is the highest limit on the continent, doesn't mean they can't save another life by dropping it down to 79 mph. Heck, the logic applies all the way until it goes down to 0 mph, at which point you can't lower the limit anymore.
Was there a measurable change when China shuttered their factories for the 2008 Beijing Olympics?
Or you could put up a camera where the soda is and record anyone stealing. Just need to fire one of them before the rest gets the idea.
Oh really? Maybe you should've spent 5 seconds to Google it before shooting off your mouth.
Where do you draw the line? Can they try cocaine? Heroin? Why not? What about alcohol? Alcohol seems to be one of the most addictive substances around.. How much alcohol damages, or simply mildly stunts, a developing brain?
Alcohol is an acquired taste and kids hate it. Let them try it. Or better yet, force them to drink PBR as a punishment. They won't be going near that again until well into adulthood.
I've read study after study that appears to show that social media is addictive.. Dopamine hits.. etc.. Maybe it's not unreasonable to suggest that it be limited to adults.. This is the first generation growing up with it.
Crime is down, reading proficiency is improving, and the world is more peaceful than ever, all despite stagnant wages and a growing trend of single-parenthood. Guess being stuck to the screen all day keeps them out of trouble. The only people who have a problem with this are the older generations who think they're the best and everyone who lives differently aren't living correctly.
Nice on on pulling pedophilia out of your ass though.... Fuck head..
Haha, what did you expect after calling me spineless? I can trade insults all day. Would you like round 2?
That's my point exactly. But despite that, there's millions of working websites out there using JS, written by people who don't know exactly how each bit got flipped. As long as the people writing JS engines know how it works, everyone else can rely on the abstraction.
Hahahahaha, modern software that is quickly patched is also broken about 99% of the time.
And somehow Slashdot is working for you? Or did you try to post this 100 times and only succeeded once?
I draw the line at not getting addicted. Trying it in moderation is fine. Kids will be curious and your banning it just makes them even more curious.
To be brutally honest, you sound like one of those weak-willed defeatists who'll cave to their children's demands because you don't have the spine to draw the line and walk it.
With all due respect, you make the same argument as those people who promote abstinence. You know, the kind that pretends to be all about chastity, but then turn around and rapes the kids.
Direct3D came out in 1996, a year after Win95's release. The network stack was a separate product.
The “prone to mistakes” is a hiring issue (gov’t at its best), not a software issue. They’ve got a lot of errors in how docs are recorded and indexed that reveal sloppy and lazy work.
If people are making different mistakes all the time, then it's a problem with the people. If they're consistently making the same mistakes, then there's a problem with the process.
Good software can catch a lot of issues with the process. Not the least of which is automatically verifying the values appear reasonable, e.g. a 1500 sqft. apartment does not cost 5x the median house in the area, or showing a warning about what appears to be a very creative first name. It can eliminate a lot of the error-prone manual calculations by doing them in software. Good data visualization tools can help discover unusual trends. And exposing the data to the property owner through a website allows an additional pair of eyes to cross check it.
Or they realized having footage of the property from years ago would've been useful in resolving disputes. When I rent an apartment, I take photos and videos of the interior so shitty landlords can't blame me for damage left by previous tenants. I imagine a similar rationale applies to assessing property.
And this matters why, exactly?
Because no software is ever complete in the sense that you wouldn't ever want new features added to it. At some point, the requirements change, and if your system is so old that you can't find developers, or even development toolchains for it, you won't be able to update the software. And that's assuming it's bug free.
Now imagine trying to update a machine that ran on punch cards. Even if you knew which holes to punch, can you even find the tools they used to punch those cards? Where do you even buy blank cards? Do you need to start a new card-making factory too?
Would you use Windows 95 as your primary OS though? Why not?
Is it the fact that it constantly crashes for no reason? Or that it limited to 16 bits of color and one monitor? Or that you had such great file system choices as FAT12 and FAT16? Or that it didn't come with a networking stack or a 3D graphics library?
All of those cost memory and CPU time. It's very easy to write hello world in assembly and have it come out to 400 bytes of machine code and the same amount of memory. It's not very easy to write a browser in the same amount of space.
For one, they actually had a working understand of the hardware on a conceptual level and could relate how their code would interact with the system. Ask your average JS coder how a computer works and grab some popcorn.
There's definitely a lot more going on nowadays with both the OS and application layer libraries. I doubt anyone can understand the entire stack the way people did back then.
In fact, I'll bet you can't figure out what machine code a simple line of JS code turns into either. And even if you did, that answer would be wrong in a few weeks when the next release of V8 comes out.
Due to the limitations of distribution methods and storage media of the time software was also far less bloated and much more stable at launch. You couldn't easily patch something post launch like you can now so you had to get it mostly right the first time. There is no such thing as bug free code but there is code with some bugs and then there is code that is mostly bugs.
I seem to recall a lot of older software that had a final version named something like 1.0.4. And those were only made available months after the initial release. In other words, you'd have software with glaring flaws that you'd have to put up with for months. Versus now, any major bug would be quickly patched up post launch and it's a matter of a few days, or even just a few hours of waiting.
You're just setting them up to get addicted to it once they're free from your control. I've always been allowed to play video games, and when I went to college, it was business as usual. Other people weren't allowed to play at all at home. Guess what they did once they were out of their parents control?
AI doesn't get PTSD, or at least, no AI we can create in the foreseeable future will have such a capability.
No one mentions it because everyone who's fed up with that and the keyboard has stopped buying Macs.
If you have a process where only one guy knows how to do it, you already have a problem. If that guy gets hit by a truck, or even just take a vacation, the entire business would come to a halt.
Despotic governments all over the world: Don't worry about this law, we'll only use it on really bad people.
Also despotic governments: We don't like you, here's 20 laws that you violated. Enjoy prison.
You can certainly test a patch of skin or a section of an intestine. I think most people are fine with testing up to the organ level with the exception of a brain.
Yeah and when your skill level is close to "can be automated by a simple script", you're not a software engineer. It's only when you get past "can write a script to automate your work" that you can be considered one. At that point, you're no longer doing grunt work.
Genes are basically software for living things. If you make patches to it without a good understanding how it works, it might do something completely unexpected. Of course, you can implement good software engineering practices such as iterative development, refactoring, code review and unit testing to reduce the chances of that.
In your example, it might be a good idea to create hermetic test environments within which you can deterministically reproduce those rare occurrences and study them in depth.
CRISPR-edited babies, combined with the massive wealth divides of a class-based society, will further stratify humans into Morlocks and Eloi.
Depends on how it's implemented. This could be a state-run program that provides everyone the same set of enhancements. CRISPR made its mark in biotech for being relatively cheap so it wouldn't even cost all that much. Though given how much push back there is for mandatory vaccines, I imagine GM babies will spur even more conspiracies.