Absolutely not. I live in a city where bike messengers switch from being a pedestrian (on the sidewalk), to in-traffic, to riding on the road against traffic in a fraction of a second. They honestly ride as if (a) the rules don't apply to them and (b) there is nothing else on the road.
Now, most of them are really good at what they do, and typically don't make these kind of transitions unless it is safe, but I've seen them get hit / bumped in circumstances where it was 100% the cyclists fault.
Would you say we should do the same thing for car accidents? Why not? Cars are far easier to see and predict movement of than a bike.
I agree 100%, but it makes me wonder: How do you test a system like this?
You can't just put in in a test environment & try it out, as you need the rest of the market to exist. You can't just simulate it's responses based on current market conditions as the trades your system makes likely result in changes to the market, which wouldn't happen with simulated trades.
It still looks like there is plenty of blame here, but it would be interesting to see how these systems are tested at other institutions....
Directors can be held liable if they are particularly negligent or criminal.
Can they? I thought the standard was that executives could only be charged for criminal offenses.
i.e. if you demonstrated gross negligence that caused physical harm, then sure, as that is a criminal act. I can't think of any time when an executive has been criminally charged for being financially negligent.
But being bad at your job is not a crime... But if it was just their negligence, arrogance, lack of caring, gaming the system, etc. that caused the problem, they didn't commit any crimes.
Unfortunately, for financial matters this is true.
However, IMHO there should be a class of criminal liability equivalent to criminal negligence, only for property crimes.
As it is, Knight Capital will likely get sued out of existence, but it's executives will walk away with no harm whatsoever, despite being shockingly uncaring towards their governorship of other people's money.
Only if they hand me an envelope with the discussion we're about to have on it, then we have the conversation, then I open it up, and there is it, line for line.
By those criteria, you can't prove that dice don't have free will.
Yes, instead of discussing how a company has made an asinine decision to not include backward compatibility in their products, let's all...uhh....do something different that will help the third-world in some vague unspecified way that your incredibly insightful post doesn't elucidate us on.
Or to put it another way: Your problem with my first-world problems is a first-world problem. It's turtles the rest of the way down.
now allows cows to choose when and how they are milked.
Facinating!
So, using this system, if cows choose to be milked, say, by Seth Rogen in a thong (ha, made you think of it....now you can't unsee it!), they can choose this?
I'd say this system allows cows to choose when they are milked, not how.
A more apt food analogy is that the OP eats a balanced diet of organic food that provides him with nutrition and energy, represented by useful and informative websites
Given that we are all on Slashdot here, I don't think this is a very apt analogy at all.
All kidding aside, I think a much better analogy would be someone complaining that the power button on their TV remote is difficult to reach, with the GP's response being "then don't watch TV".
It's an intellectually vapid response designed to make the poster seem superior to those posting the question, while at the same time communicating no useful information whatsoever other than the fact that the person posting it is a jerk.
It's fairly standard across the Web and has been for quite some time..
No, it isn't standard when the text the user is entering is frequently multi-line....like, say, for comments.
Just checked: Slashdot -> enter works Youtube -> enter works Engadget -> enter works Ars -> enter works Gizmodo -> enter works Any forum I can think of -> enter works
The problem with the smaller approaches is that they have all failed to reach the break even point, and there is no indication that they even can reach break-even at their current scales.
It's a little like the old joke: "We'll lose 2 cents on every sale, but we'll make it up in volume!"
The idea behind insurance is that it is a personal choice to have it or not. Now it's just a tax that unfairly impacts young healthy people.
Yes, and police services are a tax that unfairly impact people in low-crime neighborhoods. Fire services are a tax that unfairly impact people in concrete houses. Parks are a tax on people who stay inside. The military is a tax on people with their own guns. Education a tax on people with no children Highways are a tax that unfairly impact people who stay at home alone with their gun in a concrete bunker, locked away from those evil left-wing criminals.
Living in a society means sacrificing some personal gain for the common good. It's pretty sad that the tea-party crowd is so arrogant, selfish, and uncaring that they fail to see that helping their fellow man is actually a good thing.
Meh. Just read the article....it sounds like the whole Gartner conference boiled down to: "The future is scary. All these new technologies are going to cause massive upheaval. Unless you know how to best implement them, your company is toast. Give us money and we will make the scary future go away".
Here are some other incredible "nuggets of wisdom" Gartner provided at the same conference: - By 2018, 3D printing will result in the loss of at least $100 billion a year in intellectual property globally. This could be particularly hard on a small business. "It's now easy to steal an entire business. Wow the tiny plastic widget market must be a lot bigger than I thought. Are they using the same statisticians as the MPAA / RIAA?
- By 2017, more than half of consumer goods manufacturers will get 75% of their consumer innovation and R&D capabilities from crowd-sourcing. Yep, we're all gonna be buying stuff on Kickstarter.
- By 2020, enterprises and government will fail to protect 75% of sensitive data. And where did they get the 75% number? How does one quantify "amount of sensitive data?" Is my fingerprint 1% of my sensitive data? 10%? Seriously, they're pulling numbers out of their asses here....
- By 2020, smart machines will disrupt knowledge workers in both positive and negative ways. Imagine training your replacement, a machine, to take over your job. Companies have a hard time training actual people to take over the jobs of knowledge workers. I call complete BS on this one.
- By 2017, 10% of computers will be learning. Yeah, I think I saw that in a Sci-Fi movie once. Didn't end well.
- By 2020, consumer data collected from wearable devices will drive 5% of sales from the global 1000 firms.
oooo, we're all going to be cyborgs too! Sounds keen!
Hopefully the "Digital Revolution" kills off companies like Gartner. Seriously, how hard would it be? Track the latest & greatest technologies getting a lot of buzz on the tech sites, make some random predictions about them, publish some insanely flawed "top quadrant" studies, and over-charge gullible companies for your wisdom.
Once the BSA found out about the name, they sent some of their older members over to intimidate, physically threaten, and wedgie the heck out of the HS kids until they agreed to the name change.
Wait...no, they didn't.
Ahh, they verbally abused the HS group, calling them a bunch of whiny geeks with no right to the name.
No, they didn't do that either.
Oh....they sent a letter, asking that the HS change their name as they felt it may be confusing with their organization. If they failed to comply, they were willing to allow the courts (you know, that group your tax dollars go to partially in order to settle this kind of dispute?) decide on the matter.
Yep, that's quite the "bullying" there.
I've gotta start keeping score on Slashdot. 1 point for every misleading, sensationalist, or simply factually incorrect headline I see. At 10 points a month my reward is to quit reading this stupid site.
Thank you so very much for this awesome new feature Valve. I feel so grateful that you have graciously allowed me to share my purchases from your company with my friends and family.
In other news, book publishers are going to be providing us with the same fantastically free and open benefits.
From now on, you will be able to share your books with other people. The only catch is that if you have loaned a book to a friend and want to read a different book, your friend will be notified and have a few minutes to finish reading the page they are on before the book is magically yanked from their hands and put back in your library.
Imagine the freedom! The things we own* will finally be able to shared with others! With the almost complete absence of annoyingly restrictive limitations!
Valve, I really can't explain how appreciative I am of the fact that you are allowing me to do what I want with the things I own*. Truly a great day for openness and freedom.
* Yes, I keep using the word own. When they use the word "Buy" rather than "Rent" or "Lease", that should imply ownership.
I live in a country that will greatly benefit from global warming in terms of agricultural output, tourism, and available land.
You have absolutely no way of knowing how global climate change will affect your country in particular.
Additionally, I have no children and want no children and hence don't see any value in making efforts to change a world in which I'm burried.
Wow, great sense of morality you have there. If it doesn't affect you, and doesn't affect your offspring, you see no reason to make an effort. I suppose if you were walking down the street and saw some stranger about to step off the curb in front of the bus, you'd also say "I don't see any value in making efforts" to save him.
You live your way. I won't stop you. But I probably have zero interest in your ways. I don't intend to follow them. Most call this democracy.
And unfortunately, democracy is not the right solution to every problem. It would be democratic if we all voted that anyone with two "o's" in their slashdot handle should be used as slave labor, but it wouldn't be right.
Fact: Less than a third of published, peer-reviewed studies in the source study cited take the position that global warming is a real and man-made phenomena.
Only if you include studies that make no conclusion at all regarding AGW, which makes absolutely no sense.
For example, suppose I did a study on blogs that include the words "strawberry ice cream". In those blogs I find that 66% express no position on whether they like or dislike strawberry ice cream, 33% indicate they like strawberry ice cream, and 1% indicate they do not like strawberry ice cream (heathens!)
I do not conclude then that: Fact: Less than a third of published blogs take the position that strawberry ice cream is good.
As there is an implied assumption in that statement that you are only analyzing blogs that express an opinion on strawberry ice cream
The proper conclusion would be: Fact: 97% of published blogs (that express an opinion on ice cream) indicate that strawberry ice cream is good.
Or similarly: Fact: 97% of scientists (who expressed an opinion on AGW in a peer-reviewed article) indicate that AGW is real.
Heck, if you want to skew your anti-AGW numbers so badly, why not just study all peer-reviewed articles (regardless of whether they have anything to do with climate or not), and just use those results? It would make as much sense as your numbers.
So you really believe that increasing the price on 30mpg cars is just going to cause people to buy fewer cars? What, they are suddenly going to decide to walk?
Artificial inefficiency doesnt actually fix problems, it just pretends to.
Strange, it completely helped to dissuade people from smoking (in my country at least).
Deaths due to government-mandated inefficiency arent just theoretical.
Ahh, taxes kill people. Exactly what color is the sky in your world?
I work hard. I worry about retirement, about having kids. I can't AFFORD to spend "extra" to go green
Bullshit. If you are middle-income or higher in western society, you can obviously afford to spend extra. We don't need cable tv, smartphones, internet, cell phone plans, netflix, etc etc etc. We do need a climate that is bearable to live in.
You come a lot closer in your third paragraph: "Westerners want cheap goods."
And I'll admit, I'm no better. Could I spend more on going green? Sure. I do a small amount (mass transit to/from work, LED bulbs, recycling, etc), but in the end, I still want my smartphone, tablet, fast internet, television, etc, and I'm willing to sacrifice "green choices" to get these.
I have absolutely no faith that we can come through this, unless we get somebody who makes the decisions who isn't paid by Multi-Corp Corporation.
Oh, I have perfect faith we will come through this. I just doubt we will come through this unscathed. But it's really hard to get leaders to act on projects that may only see fruition in 30-40 years, when most politicians don't care past the next 4 year term, and most CEO's don't care past the next quarter.
If climate models are correct, a leveling off or small reduction in emissions won't do anything to help
And that's the exact problem with environmental extremists....they screw up the message to the point that people say "why bother?"
Some models indicate that a small reduction in emissions won't help. others indicate that a 2% decrease per year will stabilize CO2 concentrations by 2050.
In any case, regardless of emissions, climate change, etc, we should start making these changes cause eventually we are going to run out of fossil fuels. It'd be really nice to have something else in place before that happens.
What happens when the cheap American gas runs out, or demand begins to become large enough to influence the price? The US would then be saddled with hundreds of power stations using a fuel which is suddenly 3-4 times more expensive than it used to be. The consequences for the economy will be disastrous.
Well it's a good thing hydrocarbons won't "suddenly run out"
Don't get me wrong, I think we should be seriously cutting down on the number of dead prehistoric plants that we burn for fuel, and looking at all other alternatives (nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc). My point is more that:
1) We have time to make this transition
2) We should use this time to invest in new technologies. As hydrocarbons become more expensive, governments should be subsidizing the alternatives, so that these alternatives are proven and ready by the time we need them.
3) There is going to be a transition period where were are still primarily using hydrocarbons. This is ok
4) Mistakes will be made with the new technologies (e.g. Fukushima). This doesn't mean we should stop using them....it means we should use them more wisely. We also have made mistakes with the existing technologies (e.g. BP Gulf Oil Spill), but we keep using those.
5) Alarmism doesn't help the cause of getting off of fossil fuels. Absurd statements like "fuel suddenly costing 3-4 times what it used to" just make people disregard the real concerns of incremental inflation due to fuel costs, and climate issues to due burning fossil fuels.
Not really. I believe the author's biggest beef is that the user should not be providing the app with their credentials to Tesla Motors.
This is true, and with OAuth they don't have to. All the third-party app get's is an access token. The access token can have completely different rights than the user account, and can be revoked/controlled by the user.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely not. I live in a city where bike messengers switch from being a pedestrian (on the sidewalk), to in-traffic, to riding on the road against traffic in a fraction of a second. They honestly ride as if (a) the rules don't apply to them and (b) there is nothing else on the road.
Now, most of them are really good at what they do, and typically don't make these kind of transitions unless it is safe, but I've seen them get hit / bumped in circumstances where it was 100% the cyclists fault.
Would you say we should do the same thing for car accidents? Why not? Cars are far easier to see and predict movement of than a bike.
I agree 100%, but it makes me wonder: How do you test a system like this?
You can't just put in in a test environment & try it out, as you need the rest of the market to exist. You can't just simulate it's responses based on current market conditions as the trades your system makes likely result in changes to the market, which wouldn't happen with simulated trades.
It still looks like there is plenty of blame here, but it would be interesting to see how these systems are tested at other institutions....
Can they? I thought the standard was that executives could only be charged for criminal offenses.
i.e. if you demonstrated gross negligence that caused physical harm, then sure, as that is a criminal act. I can't think of any time when an executive has been criminally charged for being financially negligent.
Unfortunately, for financial matters this is true.
However, IMHO there should be a class of criminal liability equivalent to criminal negligence, only for property crimes.
As it is, Knight Capital will likely get sued out of existence, but it's executives will walk away with no harm whatsoever, despite being shockingly uncaring towards their governorship of other people's money.
By those criteria, you can't prove that dice don't have free will.
How insightful!
Yes, instead of discussing how a company has made an asinine decision to not include backward compatibility in their products, let's all...uhh....do something different that will help the third-world in some vague unspecified way that your incredibly insightful post doesn't elucidate us on.
Or to put it another way:
Your problem with my first-world problems is a first-world problem. It's turtles the rest of the way down.
Facinating!
So, using this system, if cows choose to be milked, say, by Seth Rogen in a thong (ha, made you think of it....now you can't unsee it!), they can choose this?
I'd say this system allows cows to choose when they are milked, not how.
Given that we are all on Slashdot here, I don't think this is a very apt analogy at all.
All kidding aside, I think a much better analogy would be someone complaining that the power button on their TV remote is difficult to reach, with the GP's response being "then don't watch TV".
It's an intellectually vapid response designed to make the poster seem superior to those posting the question, while at the same time communicating no useful information whatsoever other than the fact that the person posting it is a jerk.
No, it isn't standard when the text the user is entering is frequently multi-line....like, say, for comments.
Just checked:
Slashdot -> enter works
Youtube -> enter works
Engadget -> enter works
Ars -> enter works
Gizmodo -> enter works
Any forum I can think of -> enter works
There is no reason for Facebook to be different.
Your parents spent at least a couple of decades of their lives NOT producing you.
They should have stopped while they were ahead.
The problem with the smaller approaches is that they have all failed to reach the break even point, and there is no indication that they even can reach break-even at their current scales.
It's a little like the old joke: "We'll lose 2 cents on every sale, but we'll make it up in volume!"
Yes, and police services are a tax that unfairly impact people in low-crime neighborhoods.
Fire services are a tax that unfairly impact people in concrete houses.
Parks are a tax on people who stay inside.
The military is a tax on people with their own guns.
Education a tax on people with no children
Highways are a tax that unfairly impact people who stay at home alone with their gun in a concrete bunker, locked away from those evil left-wing criminals.
Living in a society means sacrificing some personal gain for the common good. It's pretty sad that the tea-party crowd is so arrogant, selfish, and uncaring that they fail to see that helping their fellow man is actually a good thing.
Meh. Just read the article....it sounds like the whole Gartner conference boiled down to: "The future is scary. All these new technologies are going to cause massive upheaval. Unless you know how to best implement them, your company is toast. Give us money and we will make the scary future go away".
Here are some other incredible "nuggets of wisdom" Gartner provided at the same conference:
- By 2018, 3D printing will result in the loss of at least $100 billion a year in intellectual property globally. This could be particularly hard on a small business. "It's now easy to steal an entire business.
Wow the tiny plastic widget market must be a lot bigger than I thought. Are they using the same statisticians as the MPAA / RIAA?
- By 2017, more than half of consumer goods manufacturers will get 75% of their consumer innovation and R&D capabilities from crowd-sourcing.
Yep, we're all gonna be buying stuff on Kickstarter.
- By 2020, enterprises and government will fail to protect 75% of sensitive data.
And where did they get the 75% number? How does one quantify "amount of sensitive data?" Is my fingerprint 1% of my sensitive data? 10%? Seriously, they're pulling numbers out of their asses here....
- By 2020, smart machines will disrupt knowledge workers in both positive and negative ways. Imagine training your replacement, a machine, to take over your job.
Companies have a hard time training actual people to take over the jobs of knowledge workers. I call complete BS on this one.
- By 2017, 10% of computers will be learning.
Yeah, I think I saw that in a Sci-Fi movie once. Didn't end well.
- By 2020, consumer data collected from wearable devices will drive 5% of sales from the global 1000 firms.
oooo, we're all going to be cyborgs too! Sounds keen!
Hopefully the "Digital Revolution" kills off companies like Gartner. Seriously, how hard would it be? Track the latest & greatest technologies getting a lot of buzz on the tech sites, make some random predictions about them, publish some insanely flawed "top quadrant" studies, and over-charge gullible companies for your wisdom.
Even when those "facts" are made up, with no source reference to confirm their veracity?
Wow, that's quite the bullying there.
Once the BSA found out about the name, they sent some of their older members over to intimidate, physically threaten, and wedgie the heck out of the HS kids until they agreed to the name change.
Wait...no, they didn't.
Ahh, they verbally abused the HS group, calling them a bunch of whiny geeks with no right to the name.
No, they didn't do that either.
Oh....they sent a letter, asking that the HS change their name as they felt it may be confusing with their organization. If they failed to comply, they were willing to allow the courts (you know, that group your tax dollars go to partially in order to settle this kind of dispute?) decide on the matter.
Yep, that's quite the "bullying" there.
I've gotta start keeping score on Slashdot. 1 point for every misleading, sensationalist, or simply factually incorrect headline I see. At 10 points a month my reward is to quit reading this stupid site.
Thank you so very much for this awesome new feature Valve. I feel so grateful that you have graciously allowed me to share my purchases from your company with my friends and family.
In other news, book publishers are going to be providing us with the same fantastically free and open benefits.
From now on, you will be able to share your books with other people. The only catch is that if you have loaned a book to a friend and want to read a different book, your friend will be notified and have a few minutes to finish reading the page they are on before the book is magically yanked from their hands and put back in your library.
Imagine the freedom! The things we own* will finally be able to shared with others! With the almost complete absence of annoyingly restrictive limitations!
Valve, I really can't explain how appreciative I am of the fact that you are allowing me to do what I want with the things I own*. Truly a great day for openness and freedom.
* Yes, I keep using the word own. When they use the word "Buy" rather than "Rent" or "Lease", that should imply ownership.
You have absolutely no way of knowing how global climate change will affect your country in particular.
Wow, great sense of morality you have there. If it doesn't affect you, and doesn't affect your offspring, you see no reason to make an effort. I suppose if you were walking down the street and saw some stranger about to step off the curb in front of the bus, you'd also say "I don't see any value in making efforts" to save him.
And unfortunately, democracy is not the right solution to every problem. It would be democratic if we all voted that anyone with two "o's" in their slashdot handle should be used as slave labor, but it wouldn't be right.
Only if you include studies that make no conclusion at all regarding AGW, which makes absolutely no sense.
For example, suppose I did a study on blogs that include the words "strawberry ice cream". In those blogs I find that 66% express no position on whether they like or dislike strawberry ice cream, 33% indicate they like strawberry ice cream, and 1% indicate they do not like strawberry ice cream (heathens!)
I do not conclude then that:
Fact: Less than a third of published blogs take the position that strawberry ice cream is good.
As there is an implied assumption in that statement that you are only analyzing blogs that express an opinion on strawberry ice cream
The proper conclusion would be:
Fact: 97% of published blogs (that express an opinion on ice cream) indicate that strawberry ice cream is good.
Or similarly:
Fact: 97% of scientists (who expressed an opinion on AGW in a peer-reviewed article) indicate that AGW is real.
Heck, if you want to skew your anti-AGW numbers so badly, why not just study all peer-reviewed articles (regardless of whether they have anything to do with climate or not), and just use those results? It would make as much sense as your numbers.
So you really believe that increasing the price on 30mpg cars is just going to cause people to buy fewer cars? What, they are suddenly going to decide to walk?
Strange, it completely helped to dissuade people from smoking (in my country at least).
Ahh, taxes kill people. Exactly what color is the sky in your world?
Bullshit. If you are middle-income or higher in western society, you can obviously afford to spend extra. We don't need cable tv, smartphones, internet, cell phone plans, netflix, etc etc etc. We do need a climate that is bearable to live in.
You come a lot closer in your third paragraph: "Westerners want cheap goods."
And I'll admit, I'm no better. Could I spend more on going green? Sure. I do a small amount (mass transit to/from work, LED bulbs, recycling, etc), but in the end, I still want my smartphone, tablet, fast internet, television, etc, and I'm willing to sacrifice "green choices" to get these.
Oh, I have perfect faith we will come through this. I just doubt we will come through this unscathed. But it's really hard to get leaders to act on projects that may only see fruition in 30-40 years, when most politicians don't care past the next 4 year term, and most CEO's don't care past the next quarter.
And that's the exact problem with environmental extremists....they screw up the message to the point that people say "why bother?"
Some models indicate that a small reduction in emissions won't help. others indicate that a 2% decrease per year will stabilize CO2 concentrations by 2050.
In any case, regardless of emissions, climate change, etc, we should start making these changes cause eventually we are going to run out of fossil fuels. It'd be really nice to have something else in place before that happens.
They have a word for people like you:
Asshole.
Get used to hearing it.
Well it's a good thing hydrocarbons won't "suddenly run out"
Don't get me wrong, I think we should be seriously cutting down on the number of dead prehistoric plants that we burn for fuel, and looking at all other alternatives (nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc). My point is more that:
1) We have time to make this transition
2) We should use this time to invest in new technologies. As hydrocarbons become more expensive, governments should be subsidizing the alternatives, so that these alternatives are proven and ready by the time we need them.
3) There is going to be a transition period where were are still primarily using hydrocarbons. This is ok
4) Mistakes will be made with the new technologies (e.g. Fukushima). This doesn't mean we should stop using them....it means we should use them more wisely. We also have made mistakes with the existing technologies (e.g. BP Gulf Oil Spill), but we keep using those.
5) Alarmism doesn't help the cause of getting off of fossil fuels. Absurd statements like "fuel suddenly costing 3-4 times what it used to" just make people disregard the real concerns of incremental inflation due to fuel costs, and climate issues to due burning fossil fuels.
Not really. I believe the author's biggest beef is that the user should not be providing the app with their credentials to Tesla Motors.
This is true, and with OAuth they don't have to. All the third-party app get's is an access token. The access token can have completely different rights than the user account, and can be revoked /controlled by the user.
You can use OAuth for mobile/desktop access, it's just not as seamless as it is on the web. Here's a post that has some other perfectly reasonable suggestions for how to use it in these situations:
http://hueniverse.com/2009/02/beyond-the-oauth-web-redirection-flow/
I don't get it (and I did RTFA which didn't help much).
It looks like this API is the API for third-party Android and iOS apps to use.
In order for those apps to log in, the user must provide the app with their Tesla motors username/password.
That isn't good security. Tesla shouldn't trust that every third-party is handling credentials properly.
Am I missing something?