You can also redirect all the compiler errors to/dev/null, because you should just be able to spot them by looking at the code.
Hell you don't even need a compiler. It should be obvious what machine code should be generated from a high level language. Just transcribe the machine code directly.
You can't do that now, and frankly I don't see anything on the horizon that will.
I'm not saying that you can see it on the horizon. I'm saying it's highly unlikely that nothing better will replace the keyboard. You don't have to see it to know it's there.
Magical mind-reading device might (or might not) do that, but we can worry about that when we have some.
These already exist. They just aren't very good yet.
and voice recognition is still quite crude twenty years later.
It went from being non-existent to making occasional mistakes (which humans also do when listening), but it is not quite as good as human speech recognition.
There was a time when chess playing computers weren't quite as good as competent human chess players, and then they were beating the best human player within a few decades.
Now at chess tournaments, computers analyze who is ahead and what the best next move is because they are categorically better at chess than humans.
One day you will be asking a computer to do speech recognition on voicemails that you can't understand, because the computer is better at it.
Furthermore it's not clear at this time that humans can easily translate brain signals into text competently.
Brains adapt. Before language it was not clear the humans could speak language. Before math was invented it was not clear that humans could do math.
It is not a prerequisite that a technology be 100% free of errors for it to be more useful than a keyboard.
All that is required is for the technology to work better than a keyboard for a significant portion of the population. It can potentially be better than a keyboard for everyone who can think faster than they can type.
Will there be the "thought"-equivalent of a typographical error? Sure. There is no reason to think that a cogni-graphical errors will be anymore of a deal breaker than typographical errors were for keyboards/typewriters. You will no doubt fix your errors by thought as well, which will probably be faster than the backspace button.
Kids don't need to know how smart phones work to build a smartphone. Kids need to know how a smartphone works to build the next thing.
The people who built the first skyscraper were no doubt familiar with contemporary architecture before building the tallest building ever made.
Kids definitely need to understand today's technology to have the foundation to develop tomorrows technology. However, teaching anything in schools seems unnecessary if they already have a borderline unhealthy interest in it. School is for teaching kids the things aren't already super motivated to learn themselves.
I'm not saying computer science isn't a worthy subject. It is. But classes where you need to learn computer science are different than classes where you get a free ipad and time to screw around on it.
Are you talking about proficiency in terms of turning ideas into language (e.g. writing a book), or in terms of literally transcribing language into it's written form (e.g. handwriting, printing, etc).
One of these seems about a million times more useful than the other, especially in a society where printers cost $30 on sale if you really want to kill trees, and making electronic copies of anything is free.
No not even close. If you are driving passengers for hire you need a valid license, and no your drivers license does not count, you need a TL License (that's Taxi/Livery), you also need to register your car as a commercial vehicle.
Obviously it's not legally enough when you pass a law specifically saying it isn't. I'm saying it's enough from the point of view of preventing people from being stuck with a auto repair bill or a medical bill they can't pay.
You need a commercial insurance policy, because you are on the road for more hours then normal drivers so you have a much higher risk of an accident. Otherwise your asking the rest of us to subsidize your employment.
Shouldn't that be the job of the insurance company to charge you more money based on how many hours you are typically on the road? Why is the government involved in what insurance companies decide to charge their customers?
Not going to happen in my lifetime I think. What will replace it? Dictation? That's a skill you have to train and most people can't do it without a lot of difficulty. Plus nobody wants to dictate everything they are doing out loud.
I never said anything about dictation.
Brain interface? Wake me when we're talking about technologies that aren't science fiction. That falls into the possible but unlikely and certainly a long way off category.
I specifically referenced controlling computers directly by thoughts. And in fact brain/machine interfaces are already a reality, they just aren't very advanced yet. I also specifically gave a lifetime for the death of the qwerty keyboard of 100 years (a long way off).
I can almost guarantee that we'll still be using querty keyboards in 100 years. I'd actually be shocked if we weren't.
I think some people will still be using them. Some people still use trebuchets (for trebuchet competitions). But tebuchets have disappeared as the dominant tool for their original intended use (warfare).
Screens aren't going away either. Certainly not in my lifetime.
I suppose it depends what you define as a screen. Are oculus rift and a google glass "screens"? What about a device that sits right up next to an eyeball that only shoots light through the pupil and onto the retina. What if it is in the eyeball itself? What if the computer never even converts the electrical video signal to photons, and merely converts the signal to be readable by the human brain (mimicking what the eye does), and bypasses the eye entirely by injecting signals to the optic nerve.
What if we have brain implants that simply provide an additional video signal? It is not only eyes that are capable of transmitting visual information. People have learned to echo locate. People have learned to see images by devices that transfer signals through their tongue.
I don't think a mind meld with computers will even be the desired input method ever.
Ever? That's a pretty bold prediction.
The QWERTY layout has been around for 140 years.
So it will be around forever? Like trebuchet's and catapults?
I don't think there's any reason for it to change.
The only reason to change anything is that the new thing is better in some way.
There are other input methods, but nothing that matches the speed and consistency of a skilled typist.
That's the way it has been, so that's the way it will be forever?
Remember, the keyboard is not simply a tool for entering English words. It let's us communicate all types of information with the computer. Simple key combinations can be used to express many different things to the computer.
I'm not sure why you think a keyboard is the only input method capable of doing this. Certainly human minds are also capable of thinking thoughts other than English words, as they are the things ultimately controlling the keyboards.
. Also, I can type while looking out the window at the trees blowing in the wind and still get the correct output to the computer. I think that a computer trying to read our brain signals would get very confused with all the "noise" in our heads. They have enough trouble just trying to get speech recognition working in a quiet room.
Your brain sends different signals to different destinations. This is why your fingers don't get confused by you looking out the window. Presumably your brain will also learn not to send signals intended for the HMI to other areas of your body and vice versa.
Until pushing mechanical buttons to transfer symbols from a human to a machine becomes obsolete. There may be some kids that will use typing skills until they die (i.e. not forever), but more importantly I doubt that the qwerty keyboard will still be around in 100 years. Surely by then we will be able to just think about what we want to type and have it appear on the (whatever replaces screens).
That's not true. The health insurance will pay once the auto insurance payments are exhausted (or non-existent). The need for the car to be insured is to protect the driver from being sued for damages, which the health insurance company can still do even after they have paid for medical care of the passenger. Also it is illegal in many states not to have auto insurance.
The auto insurance protects the driver. The health insurance protects the passenger (and the driver's health insurance protects the driver).
If the car has no insurance, and the passenger has no health insurance, the passenger can still sue the driver for damages, but there is no guarantee that the driver can pay.
As long as the passenger has health insurance (i.e. the one insurance they can control), they are protected from medical costs of injury, even in an uninsured uber car.
I think the benefit of a cheap taxi service outweighs the risk that is mitigated by having better insurance. The drivers should already have basic auto insurance, and the passengers should already have health insurance. Isn't that enough?
Does having a strong female character carry the implication that men and women are equally string in general? No of course not.
Even if we are to assume that men in general are physically stronger than women, having a woman defeat a man takes no more suspension of disbelief than having a smaller man defeating a larger man (which happens all the time in movies). It's not feminism for a character to be stronger than their outward appearance might suggest. It's just Hollywood.
Could the best female mixed martial artist defeat the best male mixed martial artist? Definitely not. But she could probably defeat me along with most men. The fact that the best female mixed martial artist can defeat lots of men, does not imply that women are just as good at fighting in general, and I don't see why any reasonable person would try to infer this.
If you are a girl/woman, the fact is that if your goal is to be stronger than the average man, you are going to have a tougher road to travel than if you were a man (on average). But this is true of all kinds of situations. If you are a short person, and you want to be in the NBA, you will have a tougher road to travel as well. Trying to overcome adversity is part of what life is about.
1. that's not strictly true, using techniques like "deniable encryption" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
2. I think there are much bigger problems than potential coercion, and I think these bigger problems are more important to solve. I rank potential voter coercion to be about s serious as voter fraud (i.e. not that serious).
I would say that the "person" is not the victim, except that in the process of stealing the money, they identity fraudster also ruins the person's credit, making it impossible or just very hard to correct.
If somebody steals money from a bank, but also causes me to lose the ability to borrow money to good interest rates for years, while I must spend countless hours trying to fix information about myself by dealing with various bureaucracies with no real motivation to help me, then I am also a victim.
In a lot of cases of identity fraud the amount of money that is stolen is worth less than the time and effort it takes to repair your reputation.
1. Insinuate that someone is guilty if they are not willing to take a polygraph test, and note how enthusiastic they are to take the test.
2. If they take the test, tell them they failed the polygraph test, and see if they are willing to confess to something, even if it is not the thing yu thought they may have done.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you use something that doesn't do any of the work?
So you don't use syntax highlighting/validation?
You can also redirect all the compiler errors to /dev/null, because you should just be able to spot them by looking at the code.
Hell you don't even need a compiler. It should be obvious what machine code should be generated from a high level language. Just transcribe the machine code directly.
That's *real* programming.
You can't do that now, and frankly I don't see anything on the horizon that will.
I'm not saying that you can see it on the horizon. I'm saying it's highly unlikely that nothing better will replace the keyboard. You don't have to see it to know it's there.
Magical mind-reading device might (or might not) do that, but we can worry about that when we have some.
These already exist. They just aren't very good yet.
You still get spam?
and voice recognition is still quite crude twenty years later.
It went from being non-existent to making occasional mistakes (which humans also do when listening), but it is not quite as good as human speech recognition.
There was a time when chess playing computers weren't quite as good as competent human chess players, and then they were beating the best human player within a few decades.
Now at chess tournaments, computers analyze who is ahead and what the best next move is because they are categorically better at chess than humans.
One day you will be asking a computer to do speech recognition on voicemails that you can't understand, because the computer is better at it.
Furthermore it's not clear at this time that humans can easily translate brain signals into text competently.
Brains adapt. Before language it was not clear the humans could speak language. Before math was invented it was not clear that humans could do math.
It is not a prerequisite that a technology be 100% free of errors for it to be more useful than a keyboard.
All that is required is for the technology to work better than a keyboard for a significant portion of the population. It can potentially be better than a keyboard for everyone who can think faster than they can type.
Will there be the "thought"-equivalent of a typographical error? Sure. There is no reason to think that a cogni-graphical errors will be anymore of a deal breaker than typographical errors were for keyboards/typewriters. You will no doubt fix your errors by thought as well, which will probably be faster than the backspace button.
So you think people should learn how to learn technology specific to microsoft windows?
Kids don't need to know how smart phones work to build a smartphone. Kids need to know how a smartphone works to build the next thing.
The people who built the first skyscraper were no doubt familiar with contemporary architecture before building the tallest building ever made.
Kids definitely need to understand today's technology to have the foundation to develop tomorrows technology. However, teaching anything in schools seems unnecessary if they already have a borderline unhealthy interest in it. School is for teaching kids the things aren't already super motivated to learn themselves.
I'm not saying computer science isn't a worthy subject. It is. But classes where you need to learn computer science are different than classes where you get a free ipad and time to screw around on it.
Are you talking about proficiency in terms of turning ideas into language (e.g. writing a book), or in terms of literally transcribing language into it's written form (e.g. handwriting, printing, etc).
One of these seems about a million times more useful than the other, especially in a society where printers cost $30 on sale if you really want to kill trees, and making electronic copies of anything is free.
There's a country out there with criminals in it? We should really do something about that.
No not even close. If you are driving passengers for hire you need a valid license, and no your drivers license does not count, you need a TL License (that's Taxi/Livery), you also need to register your car as a commercial vehicle.
Obviously it's not legally enough when you pass a law specifically saying it isn't. I'm saying it's enough from the point of view of preventing people from being stuck with a auto repair bill or a medical bill they can't pay.
You need a commercial insurance policy, because you are on the road for more hours then normal drivers so you have a much higher risk of an accident. Otherwise your asking the rest of us to subsidize your employment.
Shouldn't that be the job of the insurance company to charge you more money based on how many hours you are typically on the road? Why is the government involved in what insurance companies decide to charge their customers?
We have flying cars. They are called airplanes.
Not going to happen in my lifetime I think. What will replace it? Dictation? That's a skill you have to train and most people can't do it without a lot of difficulty. Plus nobody wants to dictate everything they are doing out loud.
I never said anything about dictation.
Brain interface? Wake me when we're talking about technologies that aren't science fiction. That falls into the possible but unlikely and certainly a long way off category.
I specifically referenced controlling computers directly by thoughts. And in fact brain/machine interfaces are already a reality, they just aren't very advanced yet. I also specifically gave a lifetime for the death of the qwerty keyboard of 100 years (a long way off).
I can almost guarantee that we'll still be using querty keyboards in 100 years. I'd actually be shocked if we weren't.
I think some people will still be using them. Some people still use trebuchets (for trebuchet competitions). But tebuchets have disappeared as the dominant tool for their original intended use (warfare).
Screens aren't going away either. Certainly not in my lifetime.
I suppose it depends what you define as a screen. Are oculus rift and a google glass "screens"? What about a device that sits right up next to an eyeball that only shoots light through the pupil and onto the retina. What if it is in the eyeball itself? What if the computer never even converts the electrical video signal to photons, and merely converts the signal to be readable by the human brain (mimicking what the eye does), and bypasses the eye entirely by injecting signals to the optic nerve.
What if we have brain implants that simply provide an additional video signal? It is not only eyes that are capable of transmitting visual information. People have learned to echo locate. People have learned to see images by devices that transfer signals through their tongue.
I don't think a mind meld with computers will even be the desired input method ever.
Ever? That's a pretty bold prediction.
The QWERTY layout has been around for 140 years.
So it will be around forever? Like trebuchet's and catapults?
I don't think there's any reason for it to change.
The only reason to change anything is that the new thing is better in some way.
There are other input methods, but nothing that matches the speed and consistency of a skilled typist.
That's the way it has been, so that's the way it will be forever?
Remember, the keyboard is not simply a tool for entering English words. It let's us communicate all types of information with the computer. Simple key combinations can be used to express many different things to the computer.
I'm not sure why you think a keyboard is the only input method capable of doing this. Certainly human minds are also capable of thinking thoughts other than English words, as they are the things ultimately controlling the keyboards.
. Also, I can type while looking out the window at the trees blowing in the wind and still get the correct output to the computer. I think that a computer trying to read our brain signals would get very confused with all the "noise" in our heads. They have enough trouble just trying to get speech recognition working in a quiet room.
Your brain sends different signals to different destinations. This is why your fingers don't get confused by you looking out the window. Presumably your brain will also learn not to send signals intended for the HMI to other areas of your body and vice versa.
Yeah that too. And all the other languages that are spoken in countries with better work ethics.
Until pushing mechanical buttons to transfer symbols from a human to a machine becomes obsolete. There may be some kids that will use typing skills until they die (i.e. not forever), but more importantly I doubt that the qwerty keyboard will still be around in 100 years. Surely by then we will be able to just think about what we want to type and have it appear on the (whatever replaces screens).
They need to be able to do that kind of writing where the letters are all jumbled together and are indecipherable.
That's not true. The health insurance will pay once the auto insurance payments are exhausted (or non-existent). The need for the car to be insured is to protect the driver from being sued for damages, which the health insurance company can still do even after they have paid for medical care of the passenger. Also it is illegal in many states not to have auto insurance.
The auto insurance protects the driver. The health insurance protects the passenger (and the driver's health insurance protects the driver).
If the car has no insurance, and the passenger has no health insurance, the passenger can still sue the driver for damages, but there is no guarantee that the driver can pay.
As long as the passenger has health insurance (i.e. the one insurance they can control), they are protected from medical costs of injury, even in an uninsured uber car.
From the passengers
I think the benefit of a cheap taxi service outweighs the risk that is mitigated by having better insurance. The drivers should already have basic auto insurance, and the passengers should already have health insurance. Isn't that enough?
Does having a strong female character carry the implication that men and women are equally string in general? No of course not.
Even if we are to assume that men in general are physically stronger than women, having a woman defeat a man takes no more suspension of disbelief than having a smaller man defeating a larger man (which happens all the time in movies). It's not feminism for a character to be stronger than their outward appearance might suggest. It's just Hollywood.
Could the best female mixed martial artist defeat the best male mixed martial artist? Definitely not. But she could probably defeat me along with most men. The fact that the best female mixed martial artist can defeat lots of men, does not imply that women are just as good at fighting in general, and I don't see why any reasonable person would try to infer this.
If you are a girl/woman, the fact is that if your goal is to be stronger than the average man, you are going to have a tougher road to travel than if you were a man (on average). But this is true of all kinds of situations. If you are a short person, and you want to be in the NBA, you will have a tougher road to travel as well. Trying to overcome adversity is part of what life is about.
The FBI admits this is the main purpose of the polygraph during job interviews.
Can one not confess to something during a job interview?
1. that's not strictly true, using techniques like "deniable encryption" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
2. I think there are much bigger problems than potential coercion, and I think these bigger problems are more important to solve. I rank potential voter coercion to be about s serious as voter fraud (i.e. not that serious).
The root cause is not greed... Unless you think nothing causes greed.
I would say that the "person" is not the victim, except that in the process of stealing the money, they identity fraudster also ruins the person's credit, making it impossible or just very hard to correct.
If somebody steals money from a bank, but also causes me to lose the ability to borrow money to good interest rates for years, while I must spend countless hours trying to fix information about myself by dealing with various bureaucracies with no real motivation to help me, then I am also a victim.
In a lot of cases of identity fraud the amount of money that is stolen is worth less than the time and effort it takes to repair your reputation.
1. Insinuate that someone is guilty if they are not willing to take a polygraph test, and note how enthusiastic they are to take the test. 2. If they take the test, tell them they failed the polygraph test, and see if they are willing to confess to something, even if it is not the thing yu thought they may have done.