The problem will be, How will the government "Control" what people think? IF people have telepathy, forget about national security. IF people can just think something to someone else, or connect to a globle internet of thoughts well then
Theres no way the government can easily say "You cannot think this, its illegal" But i'm sure they will try.
It really seems to have no real purpose
I know brain to computer interface sounds good, meaning you can think and the computer translates thoughts into action.
However, direct physical interface is not the way.
Perhaps a patch which goes onto your skin is ok, but directly to your brain cells? Why make yuor braincells attach to a CPU?
Its easy for anyone to learn to control their dreams and dream about whatever they want really. I dream about what I want usually, when i dont, thats when its a nightmare.
The reason most people cant dream about what they want is because they dont know they are dreaming.
This thing wont be any good unless people believe its part of the dream, perhaps if it were in goggles it would work but if its on the wall i dont really know.
I need some tests.
I do think dreams can be influenced somewhat by the enviornment you sleep in but what i really want to see is a brain to computer interface, which can sense what a person is dreaming and based on this, send various images to the goggles to try to control it.
If the media says the Columbine kids learned from doom, Why cant our military? Afterall Doom isnt just a game, Its training for teenage psycho murderers!
It would be better to give the military guys paintball guns and let them reherse marine tactics on each other
Then give them a REAL virtual reality combat sim, not some fancy looking movie
I'm sorry but i looked at the picture and it looked like virtual cop 2 with a special movie screen
Ok maybe the screen is nice and its a decent similator, but tell me how do a group of soldiers actualy interact with it if its just a screen? At least if you wear a body suit and goggles you interact with it with your body so its actually realistic.
Hes right, The US military doesnt do anything out of the kindness of their hearts, Theres always a motive.
Alot of people dont support this war in the USA, then you have people who only partially support it like myself. Giving food to afganstans gets the people who partially support it to not join the people who dont support it at all.
IF i were watching millions of afganastan people die, then i'd be pissed off at my government and at this war, we'd have another vietnam situation.
So what this man said makes sense.
Whats the top complaint about Mozilla?
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 1
SPEED.
If you want apps that run slow, You are better off using Java than Mozilla, while java is slow, at least a fast virtual machine will make java seem fast.
XUL is slow no matter how fast the comp is you are running on.
People complain already about Mozillas lack of speed. You cant use XUL, its just too slow, if its slow on Mozilla and Komodo its going to be slow on anything else.
ITs a good idea, but its not practical, Java would be more practical than that.
Bullshit. You dont need to go to engineers school to learn how to design. Theres the internet, theres a ton of open source projects, and a ton of very good software engineers who you can talk to, learn from, on your own, you do not need to go to school for this, pay money to do this.
This is stupid to even think you need to do this. To build a house you need money. To write some software, or design it, you just need a good mind, and a good book along with some practice.
Some things you can test with an exam, some things you cant.
You cant have someone build a house and judge their house so you must give them an exam.
Computer programming is diffrent, you can force someone to build a program and grade their program, if they do well they are an engineer, if not, then they arent.
This means a program with no bugs, which is designed based on certain standards.
You just dont get it. Programming is not like building a house.
When you build a house, you cannot freely learn from millions of other houses built by taking it apart peice by peice and putting it back together.
Programming allows ANYONE to learn on their own and become a good software engineer.
Passing a test wont prove that you are good, It just proves you are good at passing tests.
The proof should be in your source code.
Perhaps as a test, requiring people write several programs and submit them to a review group, (similar to the driving test) so people can SEE they have skill, would actually be a better idea.
But to give a standard TEST, it doesnt come down to skill, it comes down to how much of the text book you memorized.
Its stupid.
The source code should prove someones worth, not a test.
Having a license does not make you a better programmer.
A better programmer may not have a license.
The source code is what decides how good of a programmer you are, its not like driving where they need to prove you are a better programmer, just look at the code.
If the license for being a programmer requires you write specific programs, THIS would be just fine i suppose, however it still your skill level.
And if the license is what i expect, its a stupid test which asks random questions about random stuff which most people dont know, so people who memorize the text books become the programmers and not the people with the actual skill.
This idea is just plain stupid. Its an attempt to make programming as esoteric as other scientific fields.
Problem is, we need more programmers not less, why make it hard as hell now to become one by requiring people go to special schools like a doctor has to go to medical school, and requiring they pass all these overly difficult tests ?
I dont want software engineering to become some esoteric type of thing like quantum physics, or math, I want it to be something everyone can take part in.
Thats what open source is all about, allowing anyone with knowledge to contribute.
We shouldnt even have "licenses" and so on and so forth because in the real world, its not how many licenses you have, but what you can contribute that matters.
I say its an art and a science, and we shouldnt swing one way or the other, but if people are pushing it toward science, then i'm going to push it toward art, and i'm sure anyone whos a programmer for open source will agree that its an art, unless they work for microsoft and then perhaps its a science.
Slashdot Mirror
The second we have a brain to computer interface.
The problem will be, How will the government "Control" what people think? IF people have telepathy, forget about national security. IF people can just think something to someone else, or connect to a globle internet of thoughts well then
Theres no way the government can easily say "You cannot think this, its illegal" But i'm sure they will try.
Is going to work. I mean I think we need to develop a brain to computer interface but directly to braincells? This guarentees no one will use it.
IT has to be something on the skin, or something on the head, not on the brain.
It really seems to have no real purpose
I know brain to computer interface sounds good, meaning you can think and the computer translates thoughts into action.
However, direct physical interface is not the way.
Perhaps a patch which goes onto your skin is ok, but directly to your brain cells? Why make yuor braincells attach to a CPU?
And Then, theres some people like me who dont kill because its WRONG.
Its easy for anyone to learn to control their dreams and dream about whatever they want really. I dream about what I want usually, when i dont, thats when its a nightmare.
The reason most people cant dream about what they want is because they dont know they are dreaming.
This thing wont be any good unless people believe its part of the dream, perhaps if it were in goggles it would work but if its on the wall i dont really know.
I need some tests.
I do think dreams can be influenced somewhat by the enviornment you sleep in but what i really want to see is a brain to computer interface, which can sense what a person is dreaming and based on this, send various images to the goggles to try to control it.
You can suggest something
but you cannot "Make" people do something they wouldnt normally do to begin with.
Someone who can be suggested into killing someone, was capable of it in the first place or else it wouldnt work.
If the media says the Columbine kids learned from doom, Why cant our military? Afterall Doom isnt just a game, Its training for teenage psycho murderers!
It would be better to give the military guys paintball guns and let them reherse marine tactics on each other
Then give them a REAL virtual reality combat sim, not some fancy looking movie
I'm sorry but i looked at the picture and it looked like virtual cop 2 with a special movie screen
Ok maybe the screen is nice and its a decent similator, but tell me how do a group of soldiers actualy interact with it if its just a screen? At least if you wear a body suit and goggles you interact with it with your body so its actually realistic.
I dont know about this
terrorists dont care about the internet
they will do what they have to do without it like they've been doing
Hes right, The US military doesnt do anything out of the kindness of their hearts, Theres always a motive.
Alot of people dont support this war in the USA, then you have people who only partially support it like myself. Giving food to afganstans gets the people who partially support it to not join the people who dont support it at all.
IF i were watching millions of afganastan people die, then i'd be pissed off at my government and at this war, we'd have another vietnam situation.
So what this man said makes sense.
SPEED.
If you want apps that run slow, You are better off using Java than Mozilla, while java is slow, at least a fast virtual machine will make java seem fast.
XUL is slow no matter how fast the comp is you are running on.
Lets just say XUL sucks.
People complain already about Mozillas lack of speed. You cant use XUL, its just too slow, if its slow on Mozilla and Komodo its going to be slow on anything else.
ITs a good idea, but its not practical, Java would be more practical than that.
Making games is the most difficult career i can think of.
When you make regular software, it may have a bug but its not such a big deal, when you make a game there can be NO bugs at all.
And you better love serious calculus and math because you'll be writing some very complex algorithms.
Oh and last but not least be prepared to spend at least 2 years, sometimes up to 3 or 4 designing and writing one game.
IT sounds nice, but writing games takes alot of work, for a long time.
Imagine getting 4 hours sleep a day for 3 years of of coding, you'll be a total wreck when its over.
Bullshit. You dont need to go to engineers school to learn how to design. Theres the internet, theres a ton of open source projects, and a ton of very good software engineers who you can talk to, learn from, on your own, you do not need to go to school for this, pay money to do this.
This is stupid to even think you need to do this. To build a house you need money. To write some software, or design it, you just need a good mind, and a good book along with some practice.
This is genius. Yes I agree with you, the answer is to certify the software itself, not the engineer making it.
Some things you can test with an exam, some things you cant.
You cant have someone build a house and judge their house so you must give them an exam.
Computer programming is diffrent, you can force someone to build a program and grade their program, if they do well they are an engineer, if not, then they arent.
This means a program with no bugs, which is designed based on certain standards.
You just dont get it. Programming is not like building a house.
When you build a house, you cannot freely learn from millions of other houses built by taking it apart peice by peice and putting it back together.
Programming allows ANYONE to learn on their own and become a good software engineer.
Passing a test wont prove that you are good, It just proves you are good at passing tests.
The proof should be in your source code.
Perhaps as a test, requiring people write several programs and submit them to a review group, (similar to the driving test) so people can SEE they have skill, would actually be a better idea.
But to give a standard TEST, it doesnt come down to skill, it comes down to how much of the text book you memorized.
Its stupid.
The source code should prove someones worth, not a test.
It will create a bunch of text book programmers who dont have real experience but who know the text book inside and out.
This is stupid.
Having a license does not make you a better programmer.
A better programmer may not have a license.
The source code is what decides how good of a programmer you are, its not like driving where they need to prove you are a better programmer, just look at the code.
If the license for being a programmer requires you write specific programs, THIS would be just fine i suppose, however it still your skill level.
And if the license is what i expect, its a stupid test which asks random questions about random stuff which most people dont know, so people who memorize the text books become the programmers and not the people with the actual skill.
This idea is just plain stupid. Its an attempt to make programming as esoteric as other scientific fields.
Problem is, we need more programmers not less, why make it hard as hell now to become one by requiring people go to special schools like a doctor has to go to medical school, and requiring they pass all these overly difficult tests ?
I dont want software engineering to become some esoteric type of thing like quantum physics, or math, I want it to be something everyone can take part in.
Thats what open source is all about, allowing anyone with knowledge to contribute.
We shouldnt even have "licenses" and so on and so forth because in the real world, its not how many licenses you have, but what you can contribute that matters.
I say its an art and a science, and we shouldnt swing one way or the other, but if people are pushing it toward science, then i'm going to push it toward art, and i'm sure anyone whos a programmer for open source will agree that its an art, unless they work for microsoft and then perhaps its a science.
Software engineering should be an art.
No one should need a license to make software!
As much as it would be nice to have it as a science, and as much as it is a science, its also an art.
To anyone who promotes open source, They know that its an art.
Its just my opinion, Software engineering is an art and a science, but its more important to us to have it as an art.
I think the guys going to kill himself.
Theres no way I'm going to believe one man can ever equal the power of an army of Nasa scientists.
If you want to load big applications and deal with big files and have fast loading of big files raid is good.
but if you want to deal with many little small files then its better to not have raid.
I dont think you'll be dealing with many small files unless you host a server, so for most people raid is better.
Release date must be set for the end of eternity!