If you buy the theory that current American military strategy is constant and sustained long-distance bombing (eg: hyperwar), then it stands to reason that the only way to defeat this is to get rid of the devices that help guide this tactic.
This needs to be done in orbit. There's probably going to be a cold-war style conflict up there, unless the American military can fuel this potential conflict into mass paranoia and use that to justify a pre-emptive strike on the Chinese. That'll be tricky with all of the Western nations out there trying to play nice with China trade-wise.
Actually, given some of the complicated poses that you have to attain in some martial arts demonstrative routines (kata or pumsae or gombop, depending upon whatever they decide to teach these things), these robots will probably do a lot better than just move around in real world environments. Some of these poses leave you sore for days. If robots can move into these, there's probably nothing preventing them from fluid regular movement.
The article says the thing's already doing somersaults. And, of course, I for one welcome our sumo-fighting robotic overlords.
It's the only subgenre of comedy open to those with no sense of humour.
I used to have writing workshops with people who would submit something, everybody would be scratching their heads trying to figure out what he was saying, at which point he triumphantly proclaims "It's SATIRE!" as though this is going to solve all the problems of shoddy writing style, etc. Usually people would roll their eyes and spend more time on stories where the author wasn't trying to show off how clever he is.
Don't get me wrong, normally I think the author is pretty funny and I like dry humour, but satire is a very difficult thing to do well, and if the central value of the article rests on knowing whether or not it's satire, chances are it needs a bit of work.
I did a very quick reading of TFA, and wasn't able to figure out if a gripe from past man-v-machine matches (that the man wasn't allowed to review the machine's playing tendencies, whereas the machine had a database full of the man's matches) was going to be true again for this matchup.
Take this for what it's worth: not related to IT, but it is related to a field that's currently experiencing the same demand for employees that IT was going through during the tech boom.
I used a headhunter looking for a job teaching English in Korea. Not related to IT, but that said, some of the risks were the same, I think. The possibility that you get placed somewhere that isn't compatible with you, the possibility that the headhunter is only in it for the finder's fee, the possibility that the headhunter gets paid out of your salary for the privilege of the placement (don't know how common that one is in the North American IT field...). There were plenty of people getting set up for jobs in Korea who were unhappy with their placements, and being halfway around the world can be an added problem.
The thing that was interesting about our situation was this. Anybody can be a headhunter. The finder's fees that a headhunter can command are sometimes a little pricey, and as such, if the company can find someone recommended from a reliable staff member or contact for a little less money, they might take it, especially since the risks of dealing with a lousy headhunter go both ways (company and potential employee).
What this means is that the onus is on the potential employee to properly network, which probably isn't all that different from the advice you'd get anyway.
In my situation, the headhunter was somebody I could trust (my cousin), who wasn't a traditional headhunter (hence the "anybody can be one" comment above) in that he just happened to know a lot of people looking for work, and who was also teaching himself so he couldn't devote his time to the headhunter's usual chores. But, after a few years of having successfully placed people and making an honest reputation for himself, things were looking pretty good, and he's pocketed close to thirty grand based solely on wise referrals.
Here was a guy who was plugged into the hidden job market (what they call the arena of companies looking for employees without wanting to advertise about the positions publically), and yet he wasn't a traditional headhunter. I don't know from experience, but I find it hard to imagine that there aren't similar people in the tech field...?
Of course, where the parallel breaks down is that teaching English in Korea is booming, while the IT field is decidedly not so, so companies might not be willing to take the risks to fill a position. That said, I just thought I'd throw it out there in case there were possibilities of stories of non-traditional headhunters that could apply.
What's keeping Red Hat from trying to market its brand in the mass media? Are you relying on your relationship with companies like IBM to do that marketing for you? Is there a Super Bowl ad in the cards?
...when most of the acting is going to be done by the CGI characters anyway.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm trolling. But Episode 1 was so disheartening that I didn't even bother seeing Episode 2, and Episode 3 has elicited zero excitement from me. So, whoopeedoo, we've got the stonefaced lines-reciting from Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman. Big deal.
I don't mean to sound like I'm knocking you as being ignorant, but have you ever tried programming both a server ap and a 3d game ap for Linux?
There's a huge difference between programming a server engine and programming a graphics engine. Linux is highly evolved when it comes to the former, but for the latter the tools are still in development. If they wanted to produce something that worked as well on Linux as it does on Microsoft, they'd probably need to spend most of their time developing the necessary drivers instead of actually programming the game. The cost of developing the engine versus developing artistic content might be minimal if developing for Microsoft, but it's not like all there is to it is a five-minute rewrite of the model->render(); method. Even the situation with NWN is instructive, in that there were all sorts of headaches just trying to get in-game movies to work, and those have nothing to do with the game engine per se.
The fact that it's coming out on XBox doesn't mean anything more than they can program for two different Microsoft-dominated environments, and, considering the XBox's need for hot titles, they probably got a ton of help from MS to make it happen.
Don't get me wrong. I love Linux. LOVE it. But there are times when that old cliche about using the right tool for the job applies, and it definitely applies in this case. Case in point: I developed a search engine for a message board database in under a couple of weeks for Linux. Despite missing some features, it positively smoked, and that was my first foray into socket programming. I tried making a tackle handball game for Linux, and after three weeks, it still looked like something worse than what the original Nintendo was offering.
The amount of paranoia and blind hatred way surpasses the paranoia and blind hatred the right had with Clinton.
That explains the overwhelming Republican voice behind a Clinton impeachment for lying about blowjobs which only hurt maybe three people, and the lack of a Democratic voice behind a Bush impeachment for lying about WMDs in Iraq, which has started a war that has killed hundreds of American servicemen and thousands of Iraqi civilians...
There's a multi-pronged approach being taken here. It's a mistake to think that ESR's words are to be taken as representative of what the whole community thinks, or that, perhaps, ESR himself even believes that his words are that representative.
If you want to fight a cause these days, you need more than one approach (eg: feminism (Steinhem & Guerilla Girls) or the black rights movement (MLK & Malcolm X)). That means you need to have lawyers (thanks IBM and Redhat), you need the zealots (thanks ESR and Stallman), and you need the calm charismatic types (thanks Linus) if you want to make sure that the widest possible audience is getting the message that it best understands.
ESR isn't ranting to get SCO shaking in its boots, he's ranting to rally the Linux community, ie: preaching to the choir. For those who don't really like that sort of thing, best to just ignore it as soapboxing and focus on what the lawyers or Linus are saying. That said, I'd like it if Linus spoke up a little more on it, or if the mega-media-corps were clamoring for his opinion more, but whatever.
But the situation you're talking about is a bilateral (right word?) one, in which two parties are dealing with each other. In this case, the important situation involves SCO and IBM, with Bruce Perens on the sideline. Whether or not IBM would choose to fight on Linux's behalf doesn't have much to do with what Bruce Perens has to say on the matter.
Piss off enough people, and the damage will accumulate to the point that it will eventually matter.
While I agree that this is a good rule of thumb when it comes to diplomacy and helping your own personal cause, I fail to see how Bruce can screw anything up with the type of criticisms he's done so far. They are functionally irrelevent to what IBM's going to do. I think it would only matter if Bruce was himself spearheading a cause and trying to get IBM in on it, but this isn't that sort of situation.
As much as it would be nice to romanticize IBM's intentions with this counter-suit -- and maybe some of it is some sort of default benevolence towards the Linux community -- each and every thing they do (just like any corporation) is to help their bottom line. This move is no different.
In other words, Bruce Perens could call every person inside IBM headquarters by name an uncle fucker and it wouldn't change their tactics. This is about IBM dealing with SCO before they create long-term liabilities against a business unit IBM has invested in. It's not like Bruce is going to be sitting down at the table with the lawyers themselves as they hash this thing out.
And while it's nice that a bully is on your side for once, remember, part of the problem is the amount of power and sway that these bullies have, period, no matter what side they're on. So you can't discount the need and necessity of criticism and dissent towards all the tactics taken by all the parties, even the guys on our side. To not do this is to give into a false dichotomy along the lines of "You're either with us or your helping the terrorists". Besides, if Bruce Perens is able to criticize IBM's tactics, you know that SCO's lawyers (and all the Micro^h^h^h^h^h questionably-funded third-party studies which will be serving as peanut gallery commentary throughout this case) probably are too.
Assuming that SCO really does have some specific code in mind that they're saying has been lifted from them and put into Linux, and assuming all the relevent Linux parties are sure that their code is clean and this hasn't happened, maybe it's possible that SCO's got it backwards, and that THEY have code that's been lifted from Linux, and by subsequently releasing binaries without the code, they're in violation of the GPL...?
Has this possibility been brought up and addressed elsewhere yet? Sorry, but these SCO threads have been so traffic-heavy maybe I missed it.
While it wouldn't surprise me, if, given equal effort at making a case in the media, the open source option got the short end of the editorial bias stick, it's not like IBM and Red Hat have been properly playing the media on this issue. IBM's been basically playing the role of a company ignoring SCO. Red Hat's counter-suit is a good start, but it's going to take a lot more than that to get people to realize the full extent of SCO's laughability on the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Sun Tzu said that the best way to win is to disrupt your opponent's strategy.
If you buy the theory that current American military strategy is constant and sustained long-distance bombing (eg: hyperwar), then it stands to reason that the only way to defeat this is to get rid of the devices that help guide this tactic.
This needs to be done in orbit. There's probably going to be a cold-war style conflict up there, unless the American military can fuel this potential conflict into mass paranoia and use that to justify a pre-emptive strike on the Chinese. That'll be tricky with all of the Western nations out there trying to play nice with China trade-wise.
Romero... Romero... Nope. No Romero!
And I'm appalled. APPALLED, I say. We're all his bitches, you know.
Or maybe this is just like in Soviet Russia...
Actually, given some of the complicated poses that you have to attain in some martial arts demonstrative routines (kata or pumsae or gombop, depending upon whatever they decide to teach these things), these robots will probably do a lot better than just move around in real world environments. Some of these poses leave you sore for days. If robots can move into these, there's probably nothing preventing them from fluid regular movement.
The article says the thing's already doing somersaults. And, of course, I for one welcome our sumo-fighting robotic overlords.
Scary that's not just a joke at this point, hey?
Oh lord, we all know where this thread is going to go...
It's the only subgenre of comedy open to those with no sense of humour.
I used to have writing workshops with people who would submit something, everybody would be scratching their heads trying to figure out what he was saying, at which point he triumphantly proclaims "It's SATIRE!" as though this is going to solve all the problems of shoddy writing style, etc. Usually people would roll their eyes and spend more time on stories where the author wasn't trying to show off how clever he is.
Don't get me wrong, normally I think the author is pretty funny and I like dry humour, but satire is a very difficult thing to do well, and if the central value of the article rests on knowing whether or not it's satire, chances are it needs a bit of work.
With a car, at least there's no chance of being caught in something that looks like a Monty Python skit.
...you know those two poor souls would be getting sued by the company right about now.
I guess people are deciding that they're no longer into it?
Read it once more if you didn't get it.
Anybody know?
...must now be done in Aaahnold's voice.
In Soviet Rassha, tha moovee watches ten aoahs of yoo!
"Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun." -Mr. Burns
Take this for what it's worth: not related to IT, but it is related to a field that's currently experiencing the same demand for employees that IT was going through during the tech boom.
I used a headhunter looking for a job teaching English in Korea. Not related to IT, but that said, some of the risks were the same, I think. The possibility that you get placed somewhere that isn't compatible with you, the possibility that the headhunter is only in it for the finder's fee, the possibility that the headhunter gets paid out of your salary for the privilege of the placement (don't know how common that one is in the North American IT field...). There were plenty of people getting set up for jobs in Korea who were unhappy with their placements, and being halfway around the world can be an added problem.
The thing that was interesting about our situation was this. Anybody can be a headhunter. The finder's fees that a headhunter can command are sometimes a little pricey, and as such, if the company can find someone recommended from a reliable staff member or contact for a little less money, they might take it, especially since the risks of dealing with a lousy headhunter go both ways (company and potential employee).
What this means is that the onus is on the potential employee to properly network, which probably isn't all that different from the advice you'd get anyway.
In my situation, the headhunter was somebody I could trust (my cousin), who wasn't a traditional headhunter (hence the "anybody can be one" comment above) in that he just happened to know a lot of people looking for work, and who was also teaching himself so he couldn't devote his time to the headhunter's usual chores. But, after a few years of having successfully placed people and making an honest reputation for himself, things were looking pretty good, and he's pocketed close to thirty grand based solely on wise referrals.
Here was a guy who was plugged into the hidden job market (what they call the arena of companies looking for employees without wanting to advertise about the positions publically), and yet he wasn't a traditional headhunter. I don't know from experience, but I find it hard to imagine that there aren't similar people in the tech field...?
Of course, where the parallel breaks down is that teaching English in Korea is booming, while the IT field is decidedly not so, so companies might not be willing to take the risks to fill a position. That said, I just thought I'd throw it out there in case there were possibilities of stories of non-traditional headhunters that could apply.
XXX!
Don't tell me Linux will still be low profile if its windowing system has THAT name.
What's keeping Red Hat from trying to market its brand in the mass media? Are you relying on your relationship with companies like IBM to do that marketing for you? Is there a Super Bowl ad in the cards?
...when most of the acting is going to be done by the CGI characters anyway.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm trolling. But Episode 1 was so disheartening that I didn't even bother seeing Episode 2, and Episode 3 has elicited zero excitement from me. So, whoopeedoo, we've got the stonefaced lines-reciting from Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman. Big deal.
I don't mean to sound like I'm knocking you as being ignorant, but have you ever tried programming both a server ap and a 3d game ap for Linux?
There's a huge difference between programming a server engine and programming a graphics engine. Linux is highly evolved when it comes to the former, but for the latter the tools are still in development. If they wanted to produce something that worked as well on Linux as it does on Microsoft, they'd probably need to spend most of their time developing the necessary drivers instead of actually programming the game. The cost of developing the engine versus developing artistic content might be minimal if developing for Microsoft, but it's not like all there is to it is a five-minute rewrite of the model->render(); method. Even the situation with NWN is instructive, in that there were all sorts of headaches just trying to get in-game movies to work, and those have nothing to do with the game engine per se.
The fact that it's coming out on XBox doesn't mean anything more than they can program for two different Microsoft-dominated environments, and, considering the XBox's need for hot titles, they probably got a ton of help from MS to make it happen.
Don't get me wrong. I love Linux. LOVE it. But there are times when that old cliche about using the right tool for the job applies, and it definitely applies in this case. Case in point: I developed a search engine for a message board database in under a couple of weeks for Linux. Despite missing some features, it positively smoked, and that was my first foray into socket programming. I tried making a tackle handball game for Linux, and after three weeks, it still looked like something worse than what the original Nintendo was offering.
The amount of paranoia and blind hatred way surpasses the paranoia and blind hatred the right had with Clinton.
That explains the overwhelming Republican voice behind a Clinton impeachment for lying about blowjobs which only hurt maybe three people, and the lack of a Democratic voice behind a Bush impeachment for lying about WMDs in Iraq, which has started a war that has killed hundreds of American servicemen and thousands of Iraqi civilians...
There's a multi-pronged approach being taken here. It's a mistake to think that ESR's words are to be taken as representative of what the whole community thinks, or that, perhaps, ESR himself even believes that his words are that representative.
If you want to fight a cause these days, you need more than one approach (eg: feminism (Steinhem & Guerilla Girls) or the black rights movement (MLK & Malcolm X)). That means you need to have lawyers (thanks IBM and Redhat), you need the zealots (thanks ESR and Stallman), and you need the calm charismatic types (thanks Linus) if you want to make sure that the widest possible audience is getting the message that it best understands.
ESR isn't ranting to get SCO shaking in its boots, he's ranting to rally the Linux community, ie: preaching to the choir. For those who don't really like that sort of thing, best to just ignore it as soapboxing and focus on what the lawyers or Linus are saying. That said, I'd like it if Linus spoke up a little more on it, or if the mega-media-corps were clamoring for his opinion more, but whatever.
Because America didn't win in Vietnam.
Just a thought.
<sound of jokes writing themselves>
Piss off enough people, and the damage will accumulate to the point that it will eventually matter.
While I agree that this is a good rule of thumb when it comes to diplomacy and helping your own personal cause, I fail to see how Bruce can screw anything up with the type of criticisms he's done so far. They are functionally irrelevent to what IBM's going to do. I think it would only matter if Bruce was himself spearheading a cause and trying to get IBM in on it, but this isn't that sort of situation.
In other words, Bruce Perens could call every person inside IBM headquarters by name an uncle fucker and it wouldn't change their tactics. This is about IBM dealing with SCO before they create long-term liabilities against a business unit IBM has invested in. It's not like Bruce is going to be sitting down at the table with the lawyers themselves as they hash this thing out.
And while it's nice that a bully is on your side for once, remember, part of the problem is the amount of power and sway that these bullies have, period, no matter what side they're on. So you can't discount the need and necessity of criticism and dissent towards all the tactics taken by all the parties, even the guys on our side. To not do this is to give into a false dichotomy along the lines of "You're either with us or your helping the terrorists". Besides, if Bruce Perens is able to criticize IBM's tactics, you know that SCO's lawyers (and all the Micro^h^h^h^h^h questionably-funded third-party studies which will be serving as peanut gallery commentary throughout this case) probably are too.
Has this possibility been brought up and addressed elsewhere yet? Sorry, but these SCO threads have been so traffic-heavy maybe I missed it.
While it wouldn't surprise me, if, given equal effort at making a case in the media, the open source option got the short end of the editorial bias stick, it's not like IBM and Red Hat have been properly playing the media on this issue. IBM's been basically playing the role of a company ignoring SCO. Red Hat's counter-suit is a good start, but it's going to take a lot more than that to get people to realize the full extent of SCO's laughability on the issue.
Ugh. Truly terrible in every possible sense. Have a +1 Funny.