You are only going to be in the fight if you care.
My point is that the statement "The full distance. Anything less, and it shows you don't really care in the long run." is a bit extreme, and has an attacking point of view to it. Just because you think that everyone should be extremists about everything, doesn't mean that you have the right to gloat over everyone who don't feel like they need to be extreme in all cases.
I can really care about a lot of things, but just not have enough time in the day to fight the full distance for all of them. My lack of resources, time and money, shouldn't be a reflections about what I really care about.
When OS/2 was struggling for market share, IBM decided that they could bring along more customers by allowing Windows programs to run on OS/2. So they put a whole lot of effort into it and the result was a disaster. The few programs that used to have an OS/2 version no longer did. The program maker didn't see a reason to make an OS/2 version if their Windows version ran on OS/2 too. And customers saw that Windows programs ran better on Windows than on OS/2, so why buy an OS/2 machine if all of the programs you want to run, run better on this cheaper Windows machine?
If I understand your point correctly, then it would be easy for someone bilingual in Chinese and English to test this by Googling on the same terms, once in each language. Alas, I do not understand Chinese.
Anyone want to take that on? See if the same thing happens with Google as with Bing?
That's not quite an Apples to Apples comparison, because Google doesn't do a filter for China, and Google might be better at factoring in other language click through's than Bing is.
You could take the check up front and pay, instead of having to wait around for forever for the waiter to come back. Or (like in every other country in the world) the waiter brings a device to the table and you pay there. It'll be the end of a waiter dropping of the check and you have to wait and sit around for 30 min for the waiter to magically appear again.
But why would the US move to chip and pin when it could leapfrog ahead to biometrics.
Because biometrics actually kind of suck. All of the ways of identifying via biometrics change over time: voice, retina, fingerprint, etc.
Plus, there's no guarantee of uniqueness.
In addition, every finger print reader I've had to deal with usually takes 2-3 attempts before it accepts me. Something that I would not stand for at a checkout.
I would like to see the filesystem of an OS partitioned into several levels: read-only disk drives where stuff never changes unless an update occurs (kernel, device drivers, configuration files), read-write disks where log files are update by the minute, hour or day, and local/user partition which is updated by the user.
That's called every file system that exists on any computer today. If you want to see it, only log in as a user who doesn't have administrative rights.
It's possible that we're still using text to represent our ideas, because we think in words. Right now my two year old son is behind the curve in talking. His mouth doesn't seem to have any physical limitations in making the necessary sounds for English speaking, but he rarely attempts any words anyway. After lots of observation, I'm currently thinking that the problem isn't that he can't say worse, it's that he isn't thinking words. Some concepts are represented as words, and he can say those words (ie ball, shoe, Super Mario), but concepts which words yet in his head are what's preventing him from speaking more.
So the reason why I think we code in text, is because we think in words, which map really well to text.
We've had sad experience though in some people pulling scams or abusing employees with fake types af money. So we've made laws about what can and can't be used as tender to protect ourselves from these wrongs.
The government "company" has the benefit of mandatory "customers" (taxpayers), which means people who don't want to be customers are forced to help pay for those who do, and those who are customers of the private company are actually paying twice.
Competition works great, until you get into the category of utilities. If the majority of the population decides that the free market isn't serving its needs, it can decide to create a utility. The reason why companies may not be entering a market is because the only way to give the product a reasonable cost (such has ones involving infrastructure) is to have everybody pay for it. Is there a free market where you get your water from or your electricity from? I highly doubt it. A company competes for a contract with the municipality, and then because the municipality is creating a monopoly for that company, it heavily regulates it to ensure that its citizens are receiving a reasonable deal. Why would municipalities do that? Perhaps because it's beneficial to that municipality to have all of the buildings in its borders to have that service. There are some cities still in first world countries that don't have power and water as utilities, but most do because it is a positive return on investment for them to do so.
Say what you will, but Comcast is the only broadband provider in some of my very urban-one-of-the-largest-cities-in-the-US area. Not the suburbs, but minutes from downtown. Verizon is building huge in the area, but not everywhere. ATT is building huge in the area, but not everywhere. So there is clear oppotunity for a third party to come in and compete and acutaly make life better for many people.
Then Comcast probably has a monopoly contract with the city disallowing any competition.
Comcast_blackhat_01: "They've got a better product, we'd better lobby to have them kept out for no reason. We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph!"
It's not just that Google has a better product, but Google is playing by different rules. Being classified as an ISP in the US means that the FCC enforces rules which say that you can't mine your customers data. Now Google is coming along, saying their not an ISP, and can mine their customers data to subsidize the service.
We can't even get them to include backup cameras in all cars, something that's been required in ALL new cars for several years. How do you expect this to ever be installed in every car?
The same way that smog standards are enforced. If you can't get your annual/bi-annual tabs, you get ticked when driving.
So, my car won't allow me to get closer than 2 seconds behind the car in front of me. Great. Now what happens when a car wizzed by and cuts in front of me. Does my car suddenly jam on brakes and cause an accident behind me?
You'll have the id of the person who swerved in front of you in your cars records.
This will never fly because it's everyone's right to drive like they want.
No it's not. We have rules and regulations to increase the probability of safe driving. You only have the right to drive how society dictates how you can drive. Drive outside of what society deems safe; we give you ticket. Keep driving dangerously, we throw you in jail.
If each vehicle just acts as a "bubble" with fixed radius, and each vehicle can brake such that its bubble cannot completely compress, then in principle no collisions can occur.
That's only true if no vehicle has an interest in lying about itself in the system. The principle only works if you trust the information you receive from the other participants in the radius.
You're missing the point. A business that did this would be at a disadvantage because of the dissatisfied employees (especially competent ones) who would go elsewhere.
My in-laws were shocked to learn that my employer doesn't ban digital frames in the office. The reason is because my father-in-laws employer (Boeing) does (or at least did at the time). Apparently some bean counter calculated that if every employee brought in a digital frame into the workplace it would cost the company X many dollars. So they banned them. I asked about employee moral, etc, and my father-in-law looked at me and said "Where else would they go?"
The question is not "Should schools teach X?" but rather "What should we remove from the curriculum to make room for X?"
Pre-algebra. Whatever gets taught in the first year of math where math uses letters in addition to numbers, can be taught with some simple programs/scripts. So not only will students learn the concepts necessary for the math they'll be getting taught later anyway, there will be less of students claiming that they've never been asked to solve for X. They'll programming and math at the same time!
It is just like requiring everybody to play a musical instrument.
I don't know about that. While learning to play the Recorder and the Trumpet were nice, I don't see how they ever helped me with any of my other studies. But a year of programming around 7th grade, would have really helped me with my math classes.
True, but learning how to code around 7th grade would have helped me in other classes, and particularly would have helped me understand my math classes better. Learning all of the ins and outs of car maintenance.... not so much.
I was good at math in High School. I got a 5 on the Calculus AP test. But I never did understand that whole 'f(x)' thing. Why not just put 'y='. I basically gave up trying to wrap my head around why someone would ever write 'the f of x'. Then one day in University in my Introduction to Computer Science class the professor shorthanded a function declaration on the white board as 'f(x)', and years of middle and high school math all of a sudden made a whole lot more sense. I think that many students would be able to grasp the concepts of variables in math class sooner if they had a chance to use them in a couple of simple programs first. Plus they would enjoy a little bit of programming a lot more than pre-algebra.
Slashdot Mirror
You are only going to be in the fight if you care.
My point is that the statement "The full distance. Anything less, and it shows you don't really care in the long run." is a bit extreme, and has an attacking point of view to it. Just because you think that everyone should be extremists about everything, doesn't mean that you have the right to gloat over everyone who don't feel like they need to be extreme in all cases.
I can really care about a lot of things, but just not have enough time in the day to fight the full distance for all of them. My lack of resources, time and money, shouldn't be a reflections about what I really care about.
When OS/2 was struggling for market share, IBM decided that they could bring along more customers by allowing Windows programs to run on OS/2. So they put a whole lot of effort into it and the result was a disaster. The few programs that used to have an OS/2 version no longer did. The program maker didn't see a reason to make an OS/2 version if their Windows version ran on OS/2 too. And customers saw that Windows programs ran better on Windows than on OS/2, so why buy an OS/2 machine if all of the programs you want to run, run better on this cheaper Windows machine?
If I understand your point correctly, then it would be easy for someone bilingual in Chinese and English to test this by Googling on the same terms, once in each language. Alas, I do not understand Chinese.
Anyone want to take that on? See if the same thing happens with Google as with Bing?
That's not quite an Apples to Apples comparison, because Google doesn't do a filter for China, and Google might be better at factoring in other language click through's than Bing is.
What would have happened if he would have instead made a blog post and then linked to the documents? Would that still have been unethical?
You could take the check up front and pay, instead of having to wait around for forever for the waiter to come back. Or (like in every other country in the world) the waiter brings a device to the table and you pay there. It'll be the end of a waiter dropping of the check and you have to wait and sit around for 30 min for the waiter to magically appear again.
But why would the US move to chip and pin when it could leapfrog ahead to biometrics.
Because biometrics actually kind of suck. All of the ways of identifying via biometrics change over time: voice, retina, fingerprint, etc. Plus, there's no guarantee of uniqueness. In addition, every finger print reader I've had to deal with usually takes 2-3 attempts before it accepts me. Something that I would not stand for at a checkout.
How far? The full distance. Anything less, and it shows you don't really care in the long run.
Is there anything wrong with having the correct knowledge, and not really caring?
I would like to see the filesystem of an OS partitioned into several levels: read-only disk drives where stuff never changes unless an update occurs (kernel, device drivers, configuration files), read-write disks where log files are update by the minute, hour or day, and local/user partition which is updated by the user.
That's called every file system that exists on any computer today. If you want to see it, only log in as a user who doesn't have administrative rights.
Remember, never assume the reality you experience is the same as everybody elses.
Then they're experiencing it wrong!
It's possible that we're still using text to represent our ideas, because we think in words. Right now my two year old son is behind the curve in talking. His mouth doesn't seem to have any physical limitations in making the necessary sounds for English speaking, but he rarely attempts any words anyway. After lots of observation, I'm currently thinking that the problem isn't that he can't say worse, it's that he isn't thinking words. Some concepts are represented as words, and he can say those words (ie ball, shoe, Super Mario), but concepts which words yet in his head are what's preventing him from speaking more.
So the reason why I think we code in text, is because we think in words, which map really well to text.
We've had sad experience though in some people pulling scams or abusing employees with fake types af money. So we've made laws about what can and can't be used as tender to protect ourselves from these wrongs.
The government "company" has the benefit of mandatory "customers" (taxpayers), which means people who don't want to be customers are forced to help pay for those who do, and those who are customers of the private company are actually paying twice.
Competition works great, until you get into the category of utilities. If the majority of the population decides that the free market isn't serving its needs, it can decide to create a utility. The reason why companies may not be entering a market is because the only way to give the product a reasonable cost (such has ones involving infrastructure) is to have everybody pay for it. Is there a free market where you get your water from or your electricity from? I highly doubt it. A company competes for a contract with the municipality, and then because the municipality is creating a monopoly for that company, it heavily regulates it to ensure that its citizens are receiving a reasonable deal. Why would municipalities do that? Perhaps because it's beneficial to that municipality to have all of the buildings in its borders to have that service. There are some cities still in first world countries that don't have power and water as utilities, but most do because it is a positive return on investment for them to do so.
Say what you will, but Comcast is the only broadband provider in some of my very urban-one-of-the-largest-cities-in-the-US area. Not the suburbs, but minutes from downtown. Verizon is building huge in the area, but not everywhere. ATT is building huge in the area, but not everywhere. So there is clear oppotunity for a third party to come in and compete and acutaly make life better for many people.
Then Comcast probably has a monopoly contract with the city disallowing any competition.
Comcast_blackhat_01: "They've got a better product, we'd better lobby to have them kept out for no reason. We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph!"
It's not just that Google has a better product, but Google is playing by different rules. Being classified as an ISP in the US means that the FCC enforces rules which say that you can't mine your customers data. Now Google is coming along, saying their not an ISP, and can mine their customers data to subsidize the service.
So what are the security measures when the encryption is broken?
We can't even get them to include backup cameras in all cars, something that's been required in ALL new cars for several years. How do you expect this to ever be installed in every car?
The same way that smog standards are enforced. If you can't get your annual/bi-annual tabs, you get ticked when driving.
So, my car won't allow me to get closer than 2 seconds behind the car in front of me. Great. Now what happens when a car wizzed by and cuts in front of me. Does my car suddenly jam on brakes and cause an accident behind me?
You'll have the id of the person who swerved in front of you in your cars records.
This will never fly because it's everyone's right to drive like they want.
No it's not. We have rules and regulations to increase the probability of safe driving. You only have the right to drive how society dictates how you can drive. Drive outside of what society deems safe; we give you ticket. Keep driving dangerously, we throw you in jail.
If each vehicle just acts as a "bubble" with fixed radius, and each vehicle can brake such that its bubble cannot completely compress, then in principle no collisions can occur.
That's only true if no vehicle has an interest in lying about itself in the system. The principle only works if you trust the information you receive from the other participants in the radius.
You're missing the point. A business that did this would be at a disadvantage because of the dissatisfied employees (especially competent ones) who would go elsewhere.
My in-laws were shocked to learn that my employer doesn't ban digital frames in the office. The reason is because my father-in-laws employer (Boeing) does (or at least did at the time). Apparently some bean counter calculated that if every employee brought in a digital frame into the workplace it would cost the company X many dollars. So they banned them. I asked about employee moral, etc, and my father-in-law looked at me and said "Where else would they go?"
The question is not "Should schools teach X?" but rather "What should we remove from the curriculum to make room for X?"
Pre-algebra. Whatever gets taught in the first year of math where math uses letters in addition to numbers, can be taught with some simple programs/scripts. So not only will students learn the concepts necessary for the math they'll be getting taught later anyway, there will be less of students claiming that they've never been asked to solve for X. They'll programming and math at the same time!
It is just like requiring everybody to play a musical instrument.
I don't know about that. While learning to play the Recorder and the Trumpet were nice, I don't see how they ever helped me with any of my other studies. But a year of programming around 7th grade, would have really helped me with my math classes.
Obligatory XKCD
True, but learning how to code around 7th grade would have helped me in other classes, and particularly would have helped me understand my math classes better. Learning all of the ins and outs of car maintenance.... not so much.
I was good at math in High School. I got a 5 on the Calculus AP test. But I never did understand that whole 'f(x)' thing. Why not just put 'y='. I basically gave up trying to wrap my head around why someone would ever write 'the f of x'. Then one day in University in my Introduction to Computer Science class the professor shorthanded a function declaration on the white board as 'f(x)', and years of middle and high school math all of a sudden made a whole lot more sense. I think that many students would be able to grasp the concepts of variables in math class sooner if they had a chance to use them in a couple of simple programs first. Plus they would enjoy a little bit of programming a lot more than pre-algebra.