Well, if you're a programmer feeling like you may not be a programming rockstar and are afraid to contribute... consider that most projects are not written by programming rockstars either. The codebases might be large and intimidating because people have put in a lot of time getting lots of things to work, but it's often packed with cases of, "it's good enough for now". And that's not necessarily a bad thing, it keeps things moving forward.
I know Steve Jobs isn't the right character to invoke here, but he once said:
Once you discover one simple fact; and that is everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you. And you can change it, you can influence it, you can build your own things that other people can use. Once you learn that, you'll never be the same again.
I lean on that from time to time, and it's usually right. The only trick is knowing when it's wrong.;)
I'm all for the education bit. When I was in school we were required to take courses and pass exams on American history and our political system, just to make it through Jr. High (grades 6-8, where I lived). I feel this practice should be made more... repetitive throughout a child's education. It seems most learn it as well as they need to, then forget it all.
The voter testing idea still seems dangerous though. I like the idea on the surface, as I dislike being saddled with decisions made by poorly informed people.
For instance, I live in Illinois, where the vote always goes to one particular party because of the extraordinarily large population of, poor, uneducated people in Chicago. The entire rest of the state votes the other way, and always loses.
But I'm not sure I'd want to cut those people out of the vote because they're dumb. That seems like a slippery slope, would absolutely target very specific ethnic groups, and in a place where we can't manage to keep our roads intact, I'm not sure I trust much of anyone to produce a near-miraculously well-designed testing program. It just seems like a minefield we're not prepared to navigate.
The article says he was laid off because the project was winding down.
Though if they chose him among the first, I wouldn't be surprised if it was because he was, "that annoying asshat that constantly aggravates all of his coworkers."
I wasn't suggesting that robots are a bad idea for firefighting. Just that we might, sometimes, go a little overboard trying to mimic human characteristics in robots when it's not the best solution to a problem.
I was just trying to point out that there are good moral people and complete ass hat evil fucks in all organizations. Greed is a powerful thing and it is always around even when you least expect it. It just rubs me the wrong way when someone only points out the negative side of a group or organization when there are arguments going both ways.
We're certainly agreed on that. Except maybe national politics. I'm not sure there are any genuinely good people there.
And I wouldn't be surprised to hear the good stuff got less coverage than the more sensational, nasty stuff. It'd certainly be consistent with what I see in the news. So no worries, your point stands, as far as I'm concerned.
From what the linked article (if you could call it that) said, I'd guess you're right and that was the idea on paper.
Though again, I'd think there are better, simpler ways to deal with a fire hose if you're not trying to puzzle two discreet jobs together with one tool that isn't best at either.
Either way, as a proof of concept that's meant to be somewhat practical, it'd be neat to see. And it should go without saying, but I'm not one of the robotics geniuses working on the project... I'm sure they've considered all this.
Maybe there's a good reason, but I haven't been able to figure out why you wouldn't just use a little mortar tube for the grenade part. Like a potato gun without the pyro.
Store a compressed air tank, bypass the complicated hand and arm movements, and skip the power requirements for that part... no?
It just seems like sometimes we try too hard to make things humanoid when that might not be the best mechanical way to do a job.
Yeah I never saw it (I was a little kid then), but my guess is, "It did all those things badly, phone time wasn't free, it was expensive and trial users, when asked, said they wouldn't pay what they'd have to charge."
I think it might be a little naive to think Google is any less willing or capable of correlating all the same (or more) data with adsense, doubleclick, g+ widgets, and all the regular services that they operate.
And while I don't really care to use words like good and evil for this kind of thing, I can't help but wonder if there's any real difference between what the two are doing with that data.
Of course not, and neither does Facebook or they wouldn't be worth anything.
Which brings it all back to the merits of the two services to the end users. I'm sorry to say it, but Facebook is very well done and already has everyone you know, while G+ brings nothing to the table.
On rare occasions I pull G+ up, and it's the same thing... people I don't know saying crap I don't care about, and no obvious way to change that. I'd wager that's where the 3 minute figure comes from... people occasionally looking to see if it sucks less.
So why would I use it? And why isn't anyone at Google asking themselves that question?
That was my assumption, but the study seems to be saying the opposite. Take a person that's poor and make them feel wealthier or more important, and they "begin to behave unethically".
During interviews just proceeding the product announcement at AGBT 2012, Clive Brown, the Chief Technology Officer of Oxford Nanopores, revealed that the expected $900 price tag for the MinION has a good bit of margin built in. We can thus expect prices to fall quickly as production becomes routine in its challenges.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to say, isn't this a felony?
Sounds like an easy way to get everyone that opposes you in a whole heap of trouble, all in one hit. So let's not do them any favors, eh?
Well, if you're a programmer feeling like you may not be a programming rockstar and are afraid to contribute... consider that most projects are not written by programming rockstars either. The codebases might be large and intimidating because people have put in a lot of time getting lots of things to work, but it's often packed with cases of, "it's good enough for now". And that's not necessarily a bad thing, it keeps things moving forward.
I know Steve Jobs isn't the right character to invoke here, but he once said:
Once you discover one simple fact; and that is everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you. And you can change it, you can influence it, you can build your own things that other people can use. Once you learn that, you'll never be the same again.
I lean on that from time to time, and it's usually right. The only trick is knowing when it's wrong. ;)
I'm all for the education bit. When I was in school we were required to take courses and pass exams on American history and our political system, just to make it through Jr. High (grades 6-8, where I lived). I feel this practice should be made more... repetitive throughout a child's education. It seems most learn it as well as they need to, then forget it all.
The voter testing idea still seems dangerous though. I like the idea on the surface, as I dislike being saddled with decisions made by poorly informed people.
For instance, I live in Illinois, where the vote always goes to one particular party because of the extraordinarily large population of, poor, uneducated people in Chicago. The entire rest of the state votes the other way, and always loses.
But I'm not sure I'd want to cut those people out of the vote because they're dumb. That seems like a slippery slope, would absolutely target very specific ethnic groups, and in a place where we can't manage to keep our roads intact, I'm not sure I trust much of anyone to produce a near-miraculously well-designed testing program. It just seems like a minefield we're not prepared to navigate.
Just my .02.
The article says he was laid off because the project was winding down.
Though if they chose him among the first, I wouldn't be surprised if it was because he was, "that annoying asshat that constantly aggravates all of his coworkers."
It's Sir Isaac Newton.
And he lived nearly 300 years ago. He probably thought you could turn lead into gold with the proper application of liquefied horse dung, too.
All of which is beside the point. The idea of a magician creating the universe is, in all ways, ridiculous.
I wasn't suggesting that robots are a bad idea for firefighting. Just that we might, sometimes, go a little overboard trying to mimic human characteristics in robots when it's not the best solution to a problem.
I was just trying to point out that there are good moral people and complete ass hat evil fucks in all organizations. Greed is a powerful thing and it is always around even when you least expect it. It just rubs me the wrong way when someone only points out the negative side of a group or organization when there are arguments going both ways.
We're certainly agreed on that. Except maybe national politics. I'm not sure there are any genuinely good people there.
And I wouldn't be surprised to hear the good stuff got less coverage than the more sensational, nasty stuff. It'd certainly be consistent with what I see in the news. So no worries, your point stands, as far as I'm concerned.
From what the linked article (if you could call it that) said, I'd guess you're right and that was the idea on paper.
Though again, I'd think there are better, simpler ways to deal with a fire hose if you're not trying to puzzle two discreet jobs together with one tool that isn't best at either.
Either way, as a proof of concept that's meant to be somewhat practical, it'd be neat to see. And it should go without saying, but I'm not one of the robotics geniuses working on the project... I'm sure they've considered all this.
Have you ever seen a news story about the CP websites they have helped bring down? Of course not.
Yes. Gawker, BBC, Ars, PC Mag, etc. covered it.
Maybe there's a good reason, but I haven't been able to figure out why you wouldn't just use a little mortar tube for the grenade part. Like a potato gun without the pyro.
Store a compressed air tank, bypass the complicated hand and arm movements, and skip the power requirements for that part... no?
It just seems like sometimes we try too hard to make things humanoid when that might not be the best mechanical way to do a job.
Indeed. They've been talking this up for years now, though the implied "enemy" is usually China. I'm not sure it's news though.
We've had this since 2009:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cyber_Command
Not to mention the various NSA resources (etc) that have been dealing with this stuff since forever.
[...] this is reply number 5 to my post and so far we've only achieved nitpickery
You can't possibly be surprised by this. :)
Second paragraph. I'm biting my tongue on the possibility you're not from the US. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States
Or we remember what happened when we did require voters to test first, and think the implications are scary.
Well yeah, I guess if the deflector dish isn't working to keep those particles from accumulating in the warp field.
The downside, of course, will be that pesky warp signature you're going to leave behind.
This is tactically problematic... if the bad guys can track us, we'd best develop cloaking tech for when we drop to impulse.
Yeah I never saw it (I was a little kid then), but my guess is, "It did all those things badly, phone time wasn't free, it was expensive and trial users, when asked, said they wouldn't pay what they'd have to charge."
Just a guess though.
So he took the position there just in time to find out the place is shady, take a bunch of heat, and resign?
That sucks.
Then I'm going to have to start browsing at 0, cause that shit is dead-on.
Harsh, but true.
I think it might be a little naive to think Google is any less willing or capable of correlating all the same (or more) data with adsense, doubleclick, g+ widgets, and all the regular services that they operate.
And while I don't really care to use words like good and evil for this kind of thing, I can't help but wonder if there's any real difference between what the two are doing with that data.
Of course not, and neither does Facebook or they wouldn't be worth anything.
Which brings it all back to the merits of the two services to the end users. I'm sorry to say it, but Facebook is very well done and already has everyone you know, while G+ brings nothing to the table.
On rare occasions I pull G+ up, and it's the same thing... people I don't know saying crap I don't care about, and no obvious way to change that. I'd wager that's where the 3 minute figure comes from... people occasionally looking to see if it sucks less.
So why would I use it? And why isn't anyone at Google asking themselves that question?
That was my assumption, but the study seems to be saying the opposite. Take a person that's poor and make them feel wealthier or more important, and they "begin to behave unethically".
I was thinking instrumental Girl from Ipanema.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOJzahgbVUg
Presently, picture, in you're head, graeter then 20 folks copying you.
Gah... there gunna git me every time.
During interviews just proceeding the product announcement at AGBT 2012, Clive Brown, the Chief Technology Officer of Oxford Nanopores, revealed that the expected $900 price tag for the MinION has a good bit of margin built in. We can thus expect prices to fall quickly as production becomes routine in its challenges.