Which is why we recently ended up with McCain, and then Romney. Both were more or less electable, and would have probably done a passable job, but were saddled with toeing the party line, as shaped by the primary process. And as you note, Palin's inclusion on the ticket with McCain really sunk him.
McCain stabbed his party in the back every chance he got, and was associated with a lot of things regarding ilegal immigration in arizona that made republicans upset. I'd argue that Palin was the only reason he got so much initial support in the presidential run, and that slacked off once more information came out and the "palin is a kook" meme took hold. Probably didn't help either that SNL had such a good look alike. I have co-workers who keep attributing lines from those skits to Palin no matter how many times I show them the clips where it's clearly not.
The republicans gave up too easily. Look how long and drawn out their battle against Obamacare was. In comparison, this measure seems to have been abandoned without much fight. I can't help but wonder why.
Maybe they realized that net neutrality doesn't actually go against their philosophy and decided to do the right thing?
Of course, you can always read the Last Lecture, and do what that tells you to do.
Heh, I clicked this story with the idea of mentioning that book as the author was pretty much in exactly the OPs situation. Glad to see someone else was thinking along the same lines.
The big error is assuming the the accelleration will continue at the same rate it currently is. It won't.
Look at the curve for other technologies now considered "mature" fields. When they were initially discovered there were huge leaps and bounds made, then it all started to dry up once the low hanging fruit was picked. Now there's little new development except for highly specialized breakthroughs that effect some niche uses as the technology starts to encounter hard limits oh physics or limitations from other fields (e.g. manufacturing technology)
we'll see the same thing happen with computers. Eventually transistors hit the smallest physical size possible, and that's the end of moors law. Most of the really interesting things in computer science (such as these learning algorithms) are very non-linear in their computing requirements (usually some O(2^n) or worse), so all the work to increase computing power isn't going to be as much of a payoff as it's historically been. Quantum computing is only fast at certain kinds of things and so isn't going to be the savior a lot of people think it is.
Then they are taught to internalize the blame for all the shortcomings of the system. If you are poor and starving it is because you are greedy and lazy, not because your formerly well paying job was outsourced to China.
Are you sure it's not because you were too lazy to start developing a new skillset, and too greedy to get out while the getting was good and take a slightly lower paying job once the warning signs of imminent outsorcing started to appear?
Sounds like the last time you installed Linux was 14 years ago.
Last time I installed linux was 6 months ago. I ran debian off the ISOs, connecting it to the internet during the instal would have been nice except that the network drivers were one of the things I was having problems with.
The only time I ever installed "retail box" MS Windows was (over 10 years ago) when helping a friend who was "building" his own PC. We had to do a lot of searching and visit several component vendors' websites to find all the drivers needed. I can't speak to the current situation.
I've been building my own computers for the last 14 years and never once had to do any kind of excessive searching. Go to vendors site->find driver->download->run installer->done.
Contrasting to my typical linux driver experience which was usually look at vendor site->find driver->download->installation script doesn't work->google->find forum thread with same problem ending in "oh nevermind guys I solved it"->ask for help on IRC, get told to follow the directions on the vendor site. Get called an idiot after saying they don't work->try in desperation to recreate steps outlined in thread before OP left it hanging->break a few other bits of my linux install->post on forum asking for help->get called a moron for attempting to fix it and breaking it->someone finally links a working version of it from some obscure linux repo that I never would have found otherwise->driver works now->need to reinstall to fix damage inflicted during driver hunt.
The correct answer is "it depends". Some sort of ranking spread across multiple attributes (e.g. gameplay, visuals, story, etc) is more useful than a single number and expecially useful when accompanied by a sentence or two summing up the reason (e.g. "the story was contrived and uninspired afterthought").
In absence of that, I find negative reviews to be vastly more helpful than positive ones. The games marketing can handle selling me the game, and people are better at articulating why they don't like something than they are at articulating why they do like it. It's easy enough to look at a list of complaints and pick out which things might apply to my enjoyment of the game and which things I don't care about.
I don't think that their intentions are nefarious, but I do expect that logging everything you say near your TV to a remote server will be abused by someone, sooner or later.
Yeah, and that's something a lot of people don't seem to understand about companies collecting your data. Even if it's most ethical company in the world and completely above accusation, they could still store the data improperly and have someone else steal it. All it takes is one screw-up on the part of someoen you don't know and have zero control over and now your data (along with millions of other customers) is god knows where.
As long as we consider corporate greed to be a replacement for regulating them, this is exactly what happens. If corporations have zero penalty for doing a crappy job of security, they'll keep doing a crappy job of security.
And no idiotic "free market" will change that.
So Impose a financial penalty for screwing up and let the free market do the rest?
But for some reason people seem to think it's unnatural to make companies accountable.
Not that I necessarily disagree with your overall point, but there's a fuzzy line between holding a company accountable and making them unreasonably liable for things. e.g. obviously my bank should be expected to keep my information safe, but what if I use a weak password? Or if an attacker wins the lottery and randomly guesses my password on the first try (because I'm old and can't comprehend how to use 2-factor authentication)? Or what if someone claiming to be me provides the appropriate credentials and goes through a password reset?
There are definitely things that companies should be held accountable for, but I think a lot of the resistance to it that you see is because that line is often prepetuated by people who want to stick it to the corporations no matter what the cost is to innocent bystanders (e.g. a smalltime bank that can't aqfford an army of lawyers to make sure they aren't liable when joe moron gives his account information to a nigerian prince). There obviously needs to be a reasonable and well defined line as to what a corporation is and isn't accountable for in terms of security
I would like them to explain why a recording function is needed in the first place.
Probably for the voice recognition. The way smartphones have been doing it (and the way I'd suspect this TV works as well) is that they record your spoken commands, then send them out over the internet for a more powerful machine to crunch. After a few milliseconds of processing time, the interpretation is sent back to the phone and it performs the commands.
The reality is that this is probably a tempest in a teapot and samsung isn't doing anything more nefarious than apple does with siri or google does with the "ok google" feature on android phones. That said, samsung deserves all the flak they get over this. They should have known better than to leave that kind of blanket statement in their license agreement as it clearly allows for abuse on the part of samsung or their 3rd parties.
I took a programming class in clojure last semester and I remember some oddities due to this. Mainly that clojure has a function called (recur ) that's used to recursivly call the function that uses it. It was necessary to use so that the clojure compiler could optimize it into a loop before the JVM got its hands on the thing.
You're an idiot if you're implying there's no difference between taking out a civilian who wandered into a combat zone vs filming yourself deliberately pouring gasoline on someone in a cage and then setting them on fire.
And if before you bring up that guy who went nuts on the village in afghanistan or the bus that was hit with an airstrike on bad intel, I'd like to point out that the american military most definitely did not videotape and then celebrate those events. This is in stark contrast to ISIS which seems to be quite thrilled by the fact that some of their people put a man in a cage and then set him on fire.
I generally agree with the post you're replying to, but I think the phrasing could have been better in that it's not so much level of disgust as it is what opinion you form about the people whos actions were depicted in the video. You (as well as I) aren't necessarily shocked by the fact that people who have a long history of doing these kinds of things went out and did it again. However, I suspect that neither of us saw the video and said "oh god that looks awesome and fun! Where do I sign up for ISIS so I can do that sort of thing too!".
I've seen this so many times in the last few years. Cheap smartphones == addicted pre-schoolers. Kids in high chairs are being given the phone to look at and watch youtube videos, the parents are also on phones and tablets, and half the time when I call all I get is the kid who thinks it's just another game.
Yeah, and they really shouldn't be doing that. They should be interacting with the kid face to face. Which goes back to my previous point: if they can't be bothered to interact with their kid face to face and instead give them a tablet with a movie to keep them quiet while they do their own thing, they really have no business trying to homeschool as they clearly aren't willing to invest the time.
If the kids would rather play games and are addicted to facebook games (I've seen this with pre-schoolers) it's going to be a challenge to get their attention, to say the least.
If they're already at that point by preschool, then you've failed your job as a parent tbqf. And if you actually did spend time with your kid rather than plopping them down in front of a screen but they're still addicted to it by preschool, then the kid clearly isn't cut out for a homeschooling environment.
Home schooling is a great way to ensure that your children get the same singular viewpoint and misinformation that their parents grew up with, and that they aren't burdened by the intellectual challenge of deciding which of the conflicting ideas they might encounter from classmates and teachers, is correct.
As opposed to the advantage of public school, which is that there's no danger of them developing ideas of their own as they'll be swiftly disciplined by their peers if they go against the groupthink?
Also, she should see if she can handle the teaching alongside the caregiving. Have her teach them a specific number of hours a day to get a taste of what it's really like.
nooooo. This is not how how it works. One on one instruction is completely different from "teaching". If you're trying to emulate a school environment, you're doing it wrong and should definitely not be trying to homeschool. In fact, homeschooling done right is usually heavy on the independent study with minimal one on one instruction. The "teaching" experience (if any) will be more akin to sitting down and helping your public school kid do his homework.
I'm sure there are exceptions and I haven't met a statistically significant sample, blah blah blah, whatever... I'm just callin' it likes I sees it.
Counterpoint: My sister and I were homeschooled, as well as were several of our friends. To my knowledge we're all pretty well adjusted and successful, and none of us were considered "social mutants" by anyone. But here's the interesting part: none of us advertise that we were homeschooled. My boss didn't even realize I was (despite a pre-employment background check being performed and the name of my "highschool" being known) until after I'd been working for them for years and it came up in conversation. It's quite possible that several of the most "normal" people you've ever met were homeschooled and you never knew it.
Also keep in mind that statistically speaking, those majority of those crazy people you see all over the street when you go downtown are likely products of the public education system.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why we recently ended up with McCain, and then Romney. Both were more or less electable, and would have probably done a passable job, but were saddled with toeing the party line, as shaped by the primary process. And as you note, Palin's inclusion on the ticket with McCain really sunk him.
McCain stabbed his party in the back every chance he got, and was associated with a lot of things regarding ilegal immigration in arizona that made republicans upset. I'd argue that Palin was the only reason he got so much initial support in the presidential run, and that slacked off once more information came out and the "palin is a kook" meme took hold. Probably didn't help either that SNL had such a good look alike. I have co-workers who keep attributing lines from those skits to Palin no matter how many times I show them the clips where it's clearly not.
The republicans gave up too easily. Look how long and drawn out their battle against Obamacare was. In comparison, this measure seems to have been abandoned without much fight. I can't help but wonder why.
Maybe they realized that net neutrality doesn't actually go against their philosophy and decided to do the right thing?
Of course, you can always read the Last Lecture, and do what that tells you to do.
Heh, I clicked this story with the idea of mentioning that book as the author was pretty much in exactly the OPs situation. Glad to see someone else was thinking along the same lines.
The big error is assuming the the accelleration will continue at the same rate it currently is. It won't.
Look at the curve for other technologies now considered "mature" fields. When they were initially discovered there were huge leaps and bounds made, then it all started to dry up once the low hanging fruit was picked. Now there's little new development except for highly specialized breakthroughs that effect some niche uses as the technology starts to encounter hard limits oh physics or limitations from other fields (e.g. manufacturing technology)
we'll see the same thing happen with computers. Eventually transistors hit the smallest physical size possible, and that's the end of moors law. Most of the really interesting things in computer science (such as these learning algorithms) are very non-linear in their computing requirements (usually some O(2^n) or worse), so all the work to increase computing power isn't going to be as much of a payoff as it's historically been. Quantum computing is only fast at certain kinds of things and so isn't going to be the savior a lot of people think it is.
No, it makes about as much sense as sailing an aircraft carrier into range of the target and then launching the aircraft to go drop bombs on it.
I thought this was the reason a lot of SSDs now have a collection of capacitors to finish out the writes with in the event of a power loss?
Then they are taught to internalize the blame for all the shortcomings of the system. If you are poor and starving it is because you are greedy and lazy, not because your formerly well paying job was outsourced to China.
Are you sure it's not because you were too lazy to start developing a new skillset, and too greedy to get out while the getting was good and take a slightly lower paying job once the warning signs of imminent outsorcing started to appear?
You clearly don't want to admit to having made some mistakes in parenting.
Sounds like the last time you installed Linux was 14 years ago.
Last time I installed linux was 6 months ago. I ran debian off the ISOs, connecting it to the internet during the instal would have been nice except that the network drivers were one of the things I was having problems with.
The only time I ever installed "retail box" MS Windows was (over 10 years ago) when helping a friend who was "building" his own PC. We had to do a lot of searching and visit several component vendors' websites to find all the drivers needed. I can't speak to the current situation.
I've been building my own computers for the last 14 years and never once had to do any kind of excessive searching. Go to vendors site->find driver->download->run installer->done.
Contrasting to my typical linux driver experience which was usually look at vendor site->find driver->download->installation script doesn't work->google->find forum thread with same problem ending in "oh nevermind guys I solved it"->ask for help on IRC, get told to follow the directions on the vendor site. Get called an idiot after saying they don't work->try in desperation to recreate steps outlined in thread before OP left it hanging->break a few other bits of my linux install->post on forum asking for help->get called a moron for attempting to fix it and breaking it->someone finally links a working version of it from some obscure linux repo that I never would have found otherwise->driver works now->need to reinstall to fix damage inflicted during driver hunt.
The correct answer is "it depends". Some sort of ranking spread across multiple attributes (e.g. gameplay, visuals, story, etc) is more useful than a single number and expecially useful when accompanied by a sentence or two summing up the reason (e.g. "the story was contrived and uninspired afterthought").
In absence of that, I find negative reviews to be vastly more helpful than positive ones. The games marketing can handle selling me the game, and people are better at articulating why they don't like something than they are at articulating why they do like it. It's easy enough to look at a list of complaints and pick out which things might apply to my enjoyment of the game and which things I don't care about.
It does if you haven't failed miserably as a parent.
I don't think that their intentions are nefarious, but I do expect that logging everything you say near your TV to a remote server will be abused by someone, sooner or later.
Yeah, and that's something a lot of people don't seem to understand about companies collecting your data. Even if it's most ethical company in the world and completely above accusation, they could still store the data improperly and have someone else steal it. All it takes is one screw-up on the part of someoen you don't know and have zero control over and now your data (along with millions of other customers) is god knows where.
As long as we consider corporate greed to be a replacement for regulating them, this is exactly what happens. If corporations have zero penalty for doing a crappy job of security, they'll keep doing a crappy job of security.
And no idiotic "free market" will change that.
So Impose a financial penalty for screwing up and let the free market do the rest?
But for some reason people seem to think it's unnatural to make companies accountable.
Not that I necessarily disagree with your overall point, but there's a fuzzy line between holding a company accountable and making them unreasonably liable for things. e.g. obviously my bank should be expected to keep my information safe, but what if I use a weak password? Or if an attacker wins the lottery and randomly guesses my password on the first try (because I'm old and can't comprehend how to use 2-factor authentication)? Or what if someone claiming to be me provides the appropriate credentials and goes through a password reset?
There are definitely things that companies should be held accountable for, but I think a lot of the resistance to it that you see is because that line is often prepetuated by people who want to stick it to the corporations no matter what the cost is to innocent bystanders (e.g. a smalltime bank that can't aqfford an army of lawyers to make sure they aren't liable when joe moron gives his account information to a nigerian prince). There obviously needs to be a reasonable and well defined line as to what a corporation is and isn't accountable for in terms of security
Parents don't control their children's access 24/7. Never have, never will. If you believe a parent can do so, you're living in a fantasyland.
Which is why you teach your kids not to go seaching for stuff they really shouldn't be viewing.
I would like them to explain why a recording function is needed in the first place.
Probably for the voice recognition. The way smartphones have been doing it (and the way I'd suspect this TV works as well) is that they record your spoken commands, then send them out over the internet for a more powerful machine to crunch. After a few milliseconds of processing time, the interpretation is sent back to the phone and it performs the commands.
The reality is that this is probably a tempest in a teapot and samsung isn't doing anything more nefarious than apple does with siri or google does with the "ok google" feature on android phones. That said, samsung deserves all the flak they get over this. They should have known better than to leave that kind of blanket statement in their license agreement as it clearly allows for abuse on the part of samsung or their 3rd parties.
I took a programming class in clojure last semester and I remember some oddities due to this. Mainly that clojure has a function called (recur ) that's used to recursivly call the function that uses it. It was necessary to use so that the clojure compiler could optimize it into a loop before the JVM got its hands on the thing.
You're an idiot if you're implying there's no difference between taking out a civilian who wandered into a combat zone vs filming yourself deliberately pouring gasoline on someone in a cage and then setting them on fire.
And if before you bring up that guy who went nuts on the village in afghanistan or the bus that was hit with an airstrike on bad intel, I'd like to point out that the american military most definitely did not videotape and then celebrate those events. This is in stark contrast to ISIS which seems to be quite thrilled by the fact that some of their people put a man in a cage and then set him on fire.
I generally agree with the post you're replying to, but I think the phrasing could have been better in that it's not so much level of disgust as it is what opinion you form about the people whos actions were depicted in the video. You (as well as I) aren't necessarily shocked by the fact that people who have a long history of doing these kinds of things went out and did it again. However, I suspect that neither of us saw the video and said "oh god that looks awesome and fun! Where do I sign up for ISIS so I can do that sort of thing too!".
I've seen this so many times in the last few years. Cheap smartphones == addicted pre-schoolers. Kids in high chairs are being given the phone to look at and watch youtube videos, the parents are also on phones and tablets, and half the time when I call all I get is the kid who thinks it's just another game.
Yeah, and they really shouldn't be doing that. They should be interacting with the kid face to face. Which goes back to my previous point: if they can't be bothered to interact with their kid face to face and instead give them a tablet with a movie to keep them quiet while they do their own thing, they really have no business trying to homeschool as they clearly aren't willing to invest the time.
If the kids would rather play games and are addicted to facebook games (I've seen this with pre-schoolers) it's going to be a challenge to get their attention, to say the least.
If they're already at that point by preschool, then you've failed your job as a parent tbqf. And if you actually did spend time with your kid rather than plopping them down in front of a screen but they're still addicted to it by preschool, then the kid clearly isn't cut out for a homeschooling environment.
Home schooling is a great way to ensure that your children get the same singular viewpoint and misinformation that their parents grew up with, and that they aren't burdened by the intellectual challenge of deciding which of the conflicting ideas they might encounter from classmates and teachers, is correct.
As opposed to the advantage of public school, which is that there's no danger of them developing ideas of their own as they'll be swiftly disciplined by their peers if they go against the groupthink?
Also, she should see if she can handle the teaching alongside the caregiving. Have her teach them a specific number of hours a day to get a taste of what it's really like.
nooooo. This is not how how it works. One on one instruction is completely different from "teaching". If you're trying to emulate a school environment, you're doing it wrong and should definitely not be trying to homeschool. In fact, homeschooling done right is usually heavy on the independent study with minimal one on one instruction. The "teaching" experience (if any) will be more akin to sitting down and helping your public school kid do his homework.
I'm sure there are exceptions and I haven't met a statistically significant sample, blah blah blah, whatever... I'm just callin' it likes I sees it.
Counterpoint: My sister and I were homeschooled, as well as were several of our friends. To my knowledge we're all pretty well adjusted and successful, and none of us were considered "social mutants" by anyone. But here's the interesting part: none of us advertise that we were homeschooled. My boss didn't even realize I was (despite a pre-employment background check being performed and the name of my "highschool" being known) until after I'd been working for them for years and it came up in conversation. It's quite possible that several of the most "normal" people you've ever met were homeschooled and you never knew it.
Also keep in mind that statistically speaking, those majority of those crazy people you see all over the street when you go downtown are likely products of the public education system.