Is it just me, or has "science fiction" basically come to mean action/adventure/horror/whatever with rayguns and aliens?
What ever happened to science fiction that used the premise as a tool to tell us something unpleasant about ourselves? Or to explore human behavior taken to extremes? Or to give us a unique perspective on the world around us?
Looking back on what science fiction used to be... I'd suggest that District 9 is the only sci-fi movie of 2009...
This film should vault Neill Blomkamp into sci-fi stardom, on par with George Lucas and the Wachowski Brothers (of Matrix fame).
Are you saying that this movie is as good/groundbreaking as Star Wars orThe Matrix? I am somewhat dubious.
Don't get me wrong, it looks a whole lot better than most sci-fi movies. I especially like how the first commercials I saw for it were public service announcements about District 9. Then commercials with non-human sympathizers being arrested. Then later you see a commercial with "glick gluck mcglorlock" (translation: "We just want to go home.") and you kinda realize that there's going to be more depth to the story than Starship Troopers (the movie, not the book). Looks interesting, I'll definitely Netflix it.
It might be the best sci-fi movie of '09 but you've still got...
Are we talking about Science Fiction movies? Or Science Fantasy?
If we're talking about good old-fashioned hard sci-fi, I might suggest that it's the only sci-fi movie of 2009.
Most sci-fi movies these days are nothing more than action movies or horror movies dressed up with aliens and rayguns. District 9 actually uses the premise to tell us something about ourselves. I don't recall the last "sci-fi" movie I watched that did that.
I'm a manager at a startup, and decided recently to outsource to an outside IT firm to set up a network domain and file server. Trouble is, they (and all other IT companies we could find) insist on administering it all remotely. They now obviously have full access to all our data and PC's, and I'm concerned they could steal all our intellectual property, source code and customers. Am I being overly paranoid and resistant to change? Should we just trust our administrator because they have a reputation to uphold? Or should we lock them out and make them administer the network in person so we can stand behind and watch them?
IT companies like to do remote work because it is more efficient. I can log into a half-dozen servers simultaneously and get productive work done on all of them at the same time. While I'm waiting for some task to complete on one server I can work on another. It is much better than driving over on-site and twiddling my thumbs while the machines do their thing.
As far as trusting your administrator... Honestly, as an administrator, I just don't care about my clients' data.
I mean, I care in as much as it involves my job duties... Making backups, verifying the backups, setting up shares and permissions and whatnot... But what am I going to do with 100 GB of confidential accounting information? Or medical records? Or resumes? Or whatever it is that this company does. I'm an IT guy, not an accountant.
The odds of me actually being able to grasp the value of this data is pretty slim. And even if I recognize it as terribly valuable, top-secret information... It better be really valuable because I'm going to lose my job and any kind of reputation I have if I do anything with that data.
So, no, I'm not going to steal your data and run with it. I've got better things to do with my time.
Really, though, you're going to have the same trust issues with some outsourced guy doing the work on-site... He could throw your confidential data on a USB drive easier on-site than he could remotely. I suppose you might see him doing something suspicious... But would you actually realize what he was doing?
Even if you don't outsource - if you hire your own IT staff - you're going to have to trust them with your data. In-house guys can steal your secrets just as easily as outsourced folks.
If you're truly paranoid you'll just have to do your own IT work. There's no other way around it.
If you're just vaguely worried about trusting other people you can take some sensible precautions. You can have your IT folks use their own login instead of the generic administrator/root account. You can have them sign a confidentiality agreement. You can have them sign a contract that very clearly states what they are expected to do, and what they are not allowed to do. You can make sure you're hiring a bonded company. You can ask for references, and speak to some of the other folks this IT company supports.
why the hell would an artificial human work tirelessly 24/7 to build a smarter artificial human? What would its motivation be?
I'm not claiming that it would work to build a smarter artificial human, only that it could. For all I know it would have the exact same motivations that we do... In which case it would probably waste all its time downloading porn.
And why would they be capable of building something smarter than their self?
It isn't a matter of building something smarter, it's a matter of optimization.
With my own innate abilities there is a very serious limit to precisely I can measure something. But I can build a tool that lets me measure things more accurately. And with those more accurate measurements I can then build an even more accurate tool that lets me measure things even more accurately. So on and so forth, until I've got one hell of a measuring device.
There will be no intelligence explosion. A snail cannot design a smarter snail. Humanity has not yet designed a smarter human. Furthermore, all we know is that meat makes thinking brains. Computers just switch bits on and off, and certainly don't know what bits are or anything for that matter since they don't think.
What is intelligence?
Is it raw processing power? Is it creativity? Is it the ability to assimilate data? Is it persistence?
What makes one person smarter than another?
We have already built specialized machines that are, generally speaking, better at their task than humans are. Machines that can life more than a human, or that can add numbers faster than a human. We already use computers to refine human creations - to find design flaws in our creations, to test new ideas in simulated environments.
We don't need to build a smarter human, we just need to build an artificial human. And then that artificial human can work tirelessly, 24/7, with access to any and all knowledge that's ever been recorded, with perfect recall and develop a new artificial human that is just slightly smarter than itself. And that new one can do the same. Over and over again. Each version just slightly better than the last.
I couldn't really tell from the video, and the article didn't specify. Are the touchable holograms 3D, or are they just 2D images floating in mid-air? I suspect the latter. Still impressive, though.
It's a 3D rendered object, being projected onto a concave mirror. This gives the illusion of a 3D object floating in space because as you move your head, the perspective of the image changes as well.
They then use a couple WiiMotes to track your hand and use that data to interact with the image. So you can actually manipulate the image with your hand.
They also use some kind of ultrasound thing to give the impression of tactile feedback on your hand. So when you touch the image, you feel something on your hand.
So, let me get this straight. A graduate from a [insert random no-name college here] obtains a [rather generic, non-specific] degree in "IT", and automagically expects to be hired in 3 months or less?
Forget economy or GPA for a second, what the hell ever happened to getting your damn feet wet in IT outside of a fucking classroom?
You want someone to hire you? Drop the ego and intern for a short while. Find out how good you are in the real world before you start assuming a piece of paper is your automagic meal ticket. Might also want to pick up a newspaper every now and then to see how long it's taking the average job with experience to land a job.
Took me about two years to land my first "IT" job.
Spent those two years doing retail work and teaching Microsoft Office at a community college.
What eventually got me hired at the "IT" job was the fact that I tinkered in my free time. I had a half-dozen computers at home set up in a network... Had a small Windows server set up doing file sharing and Active Directory, had a small Linux server doing file and print sharing... Was familiar with a lot of the stuff they were looking for, despite it not coming from professional experience. More familiar, apparently, than the other applicants.
A piece of paper isn't going to get you a job. Your knowledge will.
Can anyone explain what is a C in the US in the percentile range? Is this synonymous with miserable failure? What about the reputation of Monroe College?
A == 90 - 100% == 3.5 - 4.0 GPA B == 80 - 89% == 2.5 - 3.49 GPA C == 70 - 79% == 1.5 - 2.49 GPA D == 60 - 69% == 1.0 - 1.49 GPA F == 0 - 59% == 0.0 GPA
So... A 2.7 is C+/B- range, depending on the school and the instructor. Not terrible, but not outstanding either.
Last I heard, the national average was somewhere around 3.2 - which would put her a bit below average.
Bottom line is that a 2.7 does not show outstanding academic achievement. You can easily get that simply by showing up to class and doing what you are told. You don't have to study hard, you don't have to work hard, you don't need any special talents/gifts/passions. Just about anyone can get a 2.7 GPA.
Whatever her GPA is, she has worked hard for four years
Negative.
She's got a 2.7 GPA. That isn't outstanding, that's average. That isn't hard work, that's showing up to class and doing what you're told. I'd accept that she'd worked hard if she walked out of there with a 3.0+ GPA. A 2.7? Nope.
spent $70k on it
So?
If I spent $100k on a college education am I now more deserving of a job than she is? What if I go to a community college and only spend $20k? Am I less deserving?
very willing and able to work
Maybe.
I don't know her, you don't know her. We don't know how badly she wants a job. Maybe she feels this lawsuit is a better way to get some money than flipping burgers is. And able to work? I guess we'd have to sit her down in some kind of workplace environment to evaluate that, wouldn't we? Just because you've got a degree doesn't mean you're actually capable of doing the work.
I don't know how many bachelor degree holders there is
There are lots of folks with a Bacheolor's in something. It really doesn't mean much. Four years isn't really enough time to teach you a whole lot of specialization... And a four-year degree isn't going to focus on a specific set of skills either. There'll be lots of general education, lots of theory...
I always tell people that a Bachelor's degree proves one thing - a capacity to learn. Nothing more.
she likely has more education than 70% of the population
Education is borderline meaningless once you enter the job market. Nobody cares what book you read or how you scored on your exams - they want to know if you can do the job. Someone with 2 years experience doing the job (but no degree) has a better track record than someone with a 4.0 GPA coming right out of college. That's why internships are critically important. That's why you want to tinker in your free time and build up a portfolio that you can show potential employers. That's why folks take crap jobs right out of college to build up their resume.
And she can't get a job
Sure she can. Just not the job she wants.
I guarantee you there are jobs that she's qualified to do, but doesn't want - like WalMart, or McDonald's. I guarantee you there are jobs available that she's not qualified to do - like civic engineering or carpentry or something. The trick isn't finding a job, the trick is finding a job that you want.
I worked at Electronics Boutique for a year after I graduated with my BS in Computer Science... Then I worked as an Adjuct Professor at a local community college for another year... Then I finally found a job that actually involved doing what I went to school for - two years after graduation.
It just is not fair
Welcome to the real world. No, it isn't fair. Nothing is. Fairness is an artificial construct. In the real world nobody is going to give you a job just to be fair. You've got to earn your keep, just like everyone else out there.
Kids today aren't entitled, they are screwed over
I disagree.
The vast majority of "kids" I deal with these days have a crippling sense of entitlement. Interviewing people is downright painful. The attitude seems to be "I've show up to claim my job" instead of "let me prove to you that I'll be a good investment"
The older generation didn't have to take bullshit like this. There were no trouble getting a job back then
Despite the obvious problems with your overgeneralization... I do, mostly, agree. There was a time when this nation was built on the backs of skilled laborers. If you were willing to sweat, you were able to get a job. And there weren't usually enough bodies
I'm guessing everyone going 'omg she's stupid!' has never heard a college/uni promise to find you a job after you graduate. Of course, I heard the promise and knew it for what it was: Nothing. But I did briefly wonder at the time if there was any recourse after spending 10's of thousands of dollars and having them break their promise.
In fact, I didn't find a job for a year and a half after I graduated. My 'degree' didn't help me get the job -at all-. It ended up being knowledge that I had before I even went to college that got me the job.
I hope she wins.
My school promised to help me find a job, but I just ignored that.
Pretty much every college has some kind of employment search assistance... They'll host job fairs, or send your resume out to big employers that they're partnered with, or they'll point you at some decent internships... But, really, they can't guarantee much.
They certainly can't guarantee that they'll be able to find a job for someone with only a 2.7 GPA in a job market that's gone to hell.
Unless it's in writing, in a legally binding contract, I doubt if it means much.
... People who might be working on a Mac or some kind of *nix box....
MS Office is available for Mac as well, and has been for nearly a decade. It's even available at the Apple Store when you buy a Mac. The *nix install base is really the compatibility problem, although (as mentioned several times above) OpenOffice has rendered that nearly non-existent.
I am aware of that. However, that doesn't address the difficulties I outlined originally:
People who might not have the same version of Word that I do, or might not have Word installed at all. People who might be working on a Mac or some kind of *nix box. People I don't necessarily trust with an easily edited document.
If someone is running a different version of Word than I am I'll either need to install a compatibility pack or save it in a compatible format.
If they don't have Word installed at all then I'm going to have to save it in something they can read.
If I don't want them to make changes to my document, I'll need to add a password at the very least, or convert it to a PDF anyway (depending on what software they actually have installed and whether it can deal with Word's password protection).
Sure, there's a version of Word available for the Mac... But that doesn't help me if they've got a different version or if they don't have it installed at all.
Yup, Open Office generally opens Word documents just fine. And of all the folks who can probably deal with getting a format they can't currently read, *nix users are probably the most likely to be able to fix that problem.
But a PDF is pretty much guaranteed to work on just about any machine. Doesn't matter if it's an old Windows 98 machine with Adobe Reader 5.0 on it or a shiny new Mac Pro with Acrobat Standard. Doesn't matter if you've got Sumatra or GhostScript or FoxIt or Adobe or what. PDFs, generally speaking, just work.
With that argument, PDFs would be the thing to die, not MS Word.
I find myself working with PDFs more often than Word documents.
I seldom have to print anything out these days... But I'm constantly sending stuff to other people. People who might not have the same version of Word that I do, or might not have Word installed at all. People who might be working on a Mac or some kind of *nix box. People I don't necessarily trust with an easily edited document.
So, I turn everything into PDFs and send it out that way. Pretty much anyone on any platform can read a PDF, and there's at least a token attempt to make it read-only.
And when your paper, project, etc. is due Monday morning, and your CPU fan or PSU dies Friday night, you really have time for a online purchase...
There are some things that you just have to have *now* and even if it costs you $5-10 more than the online item, having it after a 30 min drive and short walk is worth it.
Are you kidding me?
Staples has a better selection of computer hardware than my local Radio Shack does.
In the last decade or so, Radio Shack seems to have been really pushing to become more of a "boutique electronics retailer", ditching their image as a "parts store" for hobbyists.
The problem is that the marketplace is already crowded with stores selling consumer electronics.
If I decide that I need to buy a cell phone or a DVD player I've got a ton of options right here in town - Target, WalMart, Best Buy, Sam's Club... Maybe even Sears or Staples depending on the specific piece of hardware I'm looking for.
So, why would I go to Radio Shack? They don't have any exclusive products... Their prices aren't especially good... Their sales people aren't knowledgeable... Why would I go to them instead of one of their competitors?
because there's not a lot of profit in individual sales when your customers want a package of resistors, a spool of wire, or some $10 pliers or cutter tool.
There may not be a whole lot of profit in such a sale... But at least you're making a sale.
There was a time when I knew Radio Shack would have the parts I needed for whatever it was that I was fixing. I'd stop there first, and frequently wouldn't need to make a second stop. They might not have made a lot of profit off my purchases, but they were getting my purchases.
These days I don't bother to go to Radio Shack at all. They don't have the obscure bits I need. I'll find those bits elsewhere or order them on-line.
And the consumer electronics that they do carry? I'd rather buy those at Best Buy or WalMart or Sam's Club - they typically have a better selection, better prices, and more knowledgeable staff.
Most of the time when I got to radio shack for a component, I need it now. Not in two days.
For instance, movie night with my buds a few weeks ago. DVD player popped a cap (blah, that sounded ghetto. magic smoke instead). A trip the Radio Crack and 20 mins later, we were back in business.
That's great if your Radio Shack actually carries such things. I can assure you that is no longer typical.
We have two Radio Shacks in town, neither one of them sells capacitors.
One of them is purely consumer electronics. It is located right next door to a Verizon store and is obviously trying to compete with them for cell phone sales. Half of their store is devoted to cell phones and cell phone accessories. The other half of the store has an assortment of DVD players and remote controlled robot toys. Nothing even remotely related to electronics repair.
The second one is a little better... It carries an assortment of cables and adapters. They even stock soldering irons, solder, and various types of wire. But they don't carry capacitors, or LEDs, or resistors, or breadboards, or any of the stuff that used to make Radio Shack my first (and frequently only) stop. And the selection of wire/cables/adapters is unimpressive. Most of their floorspace is taken up by remote controlled toys and overpriced audio/video equipment.
Indeed, I believe they are being too conservative in this renaming. For regular customers of Radio Shack, we know the new name is too high class. The only possible remedy for this situation is to name the chain "Electronics Shanty," because we all know that's what they are.
Electronics Shanty?
If we're going to be honest we'll have to rename it the "Refuse Heap"
A very unusual project at work required me to make a mono audio jack to RJ11 cable.
My first thought was 'Radio Shack.' I'm digging through the drawers of connectors and the salesman came over and asked if I needed any help. (I was the only one in the store, he was probably bored.) I explained the project and got a blank stare.
I wanted to hook up my laptop's S-Video to my TV's RCA video.
I know such cables and adapters exist, I've used them before and seen them online for just a few dollars. But I didn't have any handy, and didn't want to wait for something to ship. I figured Radio Shack would have what I needed.
My wife and I were the only customers there, so the sales people kept hovering around. I shoo'ed them away a couple times, but I was having a genuinely difficult time locating the part. Eventually I got tired of them asking to help me and I told them what I was looking for.
One of them gave me a blank look, the other one looked amused. He then carefully explained that there was no such simple adapter and that I'd have to purchase some kind of RF converter box. He showed me a device with inputs for everything under the sun... S-Video, RCA, component... And outputs in RCA and coax. The box cost around $100.
I noticed right next to this RF converter box an S-Video to RCA cable. Exactly what I'd been looking for. Except that it was about 10 feet long and gold plated. The cable itself was $30 or so.
I didn't buy either item at Radio Shack. I went to WalMart instead. Found a little adapter for $2 and a 5 foot cable for $7 or so. Spent about $10 total and it works great.
I didn't realize there was any hate out there. Frankly, I didn't realize there were any Segways out there. I saw the big unveiling and thought "That's it?" I haven't really heard a whole lot since then... Certainly haven't encountered one in my day-to-day life...
But I can speculate on why people might object. Why folks might laugh or toss insults. Why they might not be selling well.
1) The thing is expensive. I don't recall the actual price tag, and I'm too lazy to look it up, but I remember thinking that I could buy a car for that. Maybe not a shiny, new car... But a decent used car. I could certainly purchase a more conventional form of transportation like a bicycle, or motorcycle, or scooter. Which means that folks are paying extra for a Segway, basically, because they can.
2) It is also completely impractical. From the summary:
Also, IT is surprisingly effective for certain uses, including real cops and mall cops.
No it isn't. As soon as a cop (mall or otherwise) has to chase someone up a flight of stairs it has just lost all utility. And I'd suggest that a cop on a bicycle would be better able to catch someone than a cop on a Segway.
3) It is aimed at folks who don't need it. You have to be able to stand upright to operate the thing, which means you've got two working legs. Why not use them to walk? It isn't going to go crazy-fast... It doesn't have a huge range... You aren't going to use the thing to communte 60 miles to work... You'll basically be operating it, more or less, within walking distance. So why not just walk?
So... We've got an expensive, useless thing that you don't need. And people are surprised that sales are limited? Or that folks toss insults when they see someone riding one?
And yes, after seeing the original Alien in an evening movie showing without knowing what it was really about ahead of time, I left the bathroom light on that night afterwards just in case. I'm sure I wasn't the only one.
I first saw this movie when I was entirely too young to be watching such things. It was on TV one night and I was watching it with my father. Unfortunately, my mother decided it was time for bed right about the time Ripley was setting the ship to self-destruct. The last thing I saw, before going to bed, was Ripley stumbling across the Alien as she fled for the lifeboat.
I had horrible nightmares that night.
The first thing I asked my father, upon waking the next morning, was whether they had killed the Alien or not.
That movie continued to haunt my dreams... I eventually decided that wrapping a blanket over my head like a hood would somehow keep the facehuggers from getting a good grip, and started sleeping that way. To this day I feel most comfortable with a blanket looped over my head like a hood.
Interestingly enough, I have since grown to absolutely love both the Alien movies and HR Giger's artwork.
amen to that. 1979's 'alien' is good, but the 1986 'aliens' is what made my heart thump and want to be a space marine.
GAME OVER MAN! GAME OVER!
They're almost two entirely different genres...
I love both movies, but comparing them just isn't fair.
Alien is tense, claustrophobic, suspenseful... You've got a single creature stalking and killing the crew of the ship, one by one. It's more of a traditional stalker/slasher movie in that respect.
Aliens is fast-paced, action-filled, loud, intense... Piles of aliens popping out of corners, getting mowed down, ripping people apart. Despite the fact that some of it is downright terrifying, it's more of an action movie than a horror film.
Everybody even remotely involved with movies or music from the beginning probably assumed that new formats would come along with new opportunities for both creativity, as well as profit; companies could be angry that the phonograph was stealing money away from their piano roll business, until they jumped into the phonograph business themselves.
Now with music and movies, and everything, being nothing more than a pile of bits, there's simply nowhere to go. Digital is the perfect medium insofar as there's nothing that anyone can conceive of coming after; people could imagine smaller records, color movies, etc., no one has even hinted at the possibility of something to replace a digital file.
You've missed the point entirely.
The recording industry does not manufacture anything. They act as middle-men. Some guy makes music, some other guy puts the music on a disc, and the recording industry helps the two people meet each-other. Yeah, it's a bit more complicated than that... There's marketing and advances and stuff like that. But, basically, the recording industry is just a middle man.
The recording industry never cared too much about phonographs or records or casettes or whatever. You want your music on a record? They find a guy to put it on a record. You want your music on a CD? They find a guy to put it on a CD. They were still middle-men. They still stood between the artists and the folks manufacturing the media.
The problem is that these days they are not needed. An artist can record music right on their own computer and distribute it on-line. You can advertise yourself on MySpace or YouTube or just create your own website. You can sell your stuff on-line and collect payments through PayPal. You can burn your own discs and sell them at concerts. You don't need the recording industry at all anymore.
That's why the recording industry is so worried about all this. That's why they're trying so hard to keep your music tied to some kind of media. That's why they want DRM - so that they're still needed.
Mr. Metalitz's view allows online store operators to simply go out of business, start a new store under a different name and maybe even with different names on the corporate charter, and go on about selling the same exact things over again.
You don't even have to do that though.
Throw together a media player thingamabob... Include it right on the same disc as your movies/music/whatever... Encrypt your movies/music/whatever in some weird format that only your media player thingamabob can read... Don't worry about documenting the standard or anything like that - it is only supposed to work with your own player...
Now, a year later, release a new version of the media player thingamabob.
Gee, sorry, our authentication server only talks to the newest version. Yeah, I know the new player can't read the old format. I guess you'll just have to buy your movies/music/whatever again.
Being somewhat devils advocatish - what about all those people who find that their CDs stop working after a few years due to small scratches? Should they be allowed to demand free replacement in perpetuity?
In theory, if I maintain the discs properly, I should be able to play a CD for the rest of eternity... Or at least close enough to it that I'll be too dead to care.
If I do not properly maintain the disc, it will obviously stop working. Just as if I feed it to a paper shredder it will stop working. That's my own fault and nobody else's. If I wanted the CD to keep working forever I could probably do something to make that happen.
With DRM, that is all out of my control. If the DRM server gets shut down I cannot play my music, no matter how careful I am to maintain the disc or whatever. That isn't my fault, or my choice - it's the choice of the folks running the DRM server.
In theory, they could shut down the DRM server for no other reason than to make people buy a new copy of their music. And then they could shut down that new DRM server and make people buy the music again. And again, and again... Starts sounding more like a subscription-based service.
If I buy a subscription to something - HBO for example - I do not expect it to keep working after my subscription runs out. It makes sense.
If I buy a DVD of a series that originally aired on HBO, however, I expect it to continue working basically forever.
I wouldn't mind a refresh of the original Marathon. Upgrade the engine and graphics but keep the game play and sounds, other than converting to true surround sound. Was totally creepy playing that at 3am, even with just a stereo setup.
I remember one of the first encounters I had with the S'pht...
That motion tracker they gave you was frequently useless. It'd show stuff moving, but you couldn't tell if it was above or below you.
And at that point in time, most shooters were pretty two-dimensional. You didn't really have to do a whole lot of looking up or down. Most critters were on the same level you were.
So I was making my way down a hall towards a terminal. Could see stuff on my motion tracker, but there was absolutely nothing in the room with me.
Then one of those robed S'pht things dropped out of the ceiling right in front of me. Scared the crap out of me.
I can only imagine what that would be like with better graphics and sound...
Anyone know how on earth Google expects to make money off of this thing? It looks amazing, but how do you make money off of this if it's open sourced, free, and took a ton of development time to build (and presumably support in the future)?
Well, look at DNS and SMTP and HTTP... Those are open, documented, universally available protocols. Anyone can implement them. I don't know how much anybody made simply by inventing SMTP... But plenty of people have cashed in on it since then.
Some people rent hosted mailservers... Other people sell the server software... Other folks sell support for free mailserver software... And then there's all sorts of add-on things like spam filtering and web front-ends and email clients and everything else... The protocol itself might be too open to cash in on, but all the assorted tools that make use of that protocol are making people plenty of money.
I'm sure Google will offer some kind of hosted Wave service. There'll probably be a free (ad supported) version as well as a paid (Google Apps) version. And they'll likely be one of the first to have a functioning Wave service, so I'm sure there'll be lots of people rushing to try it out.
If they wanted to they could probably roll up a piece of hardware or software to sell to people, but that doesn't really seem to be the way Google operates.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it just me, or has "science fiction" basically come to mean action/adventure/horror/whatever with rayguns and aliens?
What ever happened to science fiction that used the premise as a tool to tell us something unpleasant about ourselves? Or to explore human behavior taken to extremes? Or to give us a unique perspective on the world around us?
Looking back on what science fiction used to be... I'd suggest that District 9 is the only sci-fi movie of 2009...
This film should vault Neill Blomkamp into sci-fi stardom, on par with George Lucas and the Wachowski Brothers (of Matrix fame).
Are you saying that this movie is as good/groundbreaking as Star Wars orThe Matrix? I am somewhat dubious.
Don't get me wrong, it looks a whole lot better than most sci-fi movies. I especially like how the first commercials I saw for it were public service announcements about District 9. Then commercials with non-human sympathizers being arrested. Then later you see a commercial with "glick gluck mcglorlock" (translation: "We just want to go home.") and you kinda realize that there's going to be more depth to the story than Starship Troopers (the movie, not the book). Looks interesting, I'll definitely Netflix it.
It might be the best sci-fi movie of '09 but you've still got...
Are we talking about Science Fiction movies? Or Science Fantasy?
If we're talking about good old-fashioned hard sci-fi, I might suggest that it's the only sci-fi movie of 2009.
Most sci-fi movies these days are nothing more than action movies or horror movies dressed up with aliens and rayguns. District 9 actually uses the premise to tell us something about ourselves. I don't recall the last "sci-fi" movie I watched that did that.
IT companies like to do remote work because it is more efficient. I can log into a half-dozen servers simultaneously and get productive work done on all of them at the same time. While I'm waiting for some task to complete on one server I can work on another. It is much better than driving over on-site and twiddling my thumbs while the machines do their thing.
As far as trusting your administrator... Honestly, as an administrator, I just don't care about my clients' data.
I mean, I care in as much as it involves my job duties... Making backups, verifying the backups, setting up shares and permissions and whatnot... But what am I going to do with 100 GB of confidential accounting information? Or medical records? Or resumes? Or whatever it is that this company does. I'm an IT guy, not an accountant.
The odds of me actually being able to grasp the value of this data is pretty slim. And even if I recognize it as terribly valuable, top-secret information... It better be really valuable because I'm going to lose my job and any kind of reputation I have if I do anything with that data.
So, no, I'm not going to steal your data and run with it. I've got better things to do with my time.
Really, though, you're going to have the same trust issues with some outsourced guy doing the work on-site... He could throw your confidential data on a USB drive easier on-site than he could remotely. I suppose you might see him doing something suspicious... But would you actually realize what he was doing?
Even if you don't outsource - if you hire your own IT staff - you're going to have to trust them with your data. In-house guys can steal your secrets just as easily as outsourced folks.
If you're truly paranoid you'll just have to do your own IT work. There's no other way around it.
If you're just vaguely worried about trusting other people you can take some sensible precautions. You can have your IT folks use their own login instead of the generic administrator/root account. You can have them sign a confidentiality agreement. You can have them sign a contract that very clearly states what they are expected to do, and what they are not allowed to do. You can make sure you're hiring a bonded company. You can ask for references, and speak to some of the other folks this IT company supports.
why the hell would an artificial human work tirelessly 24/7 to build a smarter artificial human? What would its motivation be?
I'm not claiming that it would work to build a smarter artificial human, only that it could. For all I know it would have the exact same motivations that we do... In which case it would probably waste all its time downloading porn.
And why would they be capable of building something smarter than their self?
It isn't a matter of building something smarter, it's a matter of optimization.
With my own innate abilities there is a very serious limit to precisely I can measure something. But I can build a tool that lets me measure things more accurately. And with those more accurate measurements I can then build an even more accurate tool that lets me measure things even more accurately. So on and so forth, until I've got one hell of a measuring device.
There will be no intelligence explosion. A snail cannot design a smarter snail. Humanity has not yet designed a smarter human. Furthermore, all we know is that meat makes thinking brains. Computers just switch bits on and off, and certainly don't know what bits are or anything for that matter since they don't think.
What is intelligence?
Is it raw processing power? Is it creativity? Is it the ability to assimilate data? Is it persistence?
What makes one person smarter than another?
We have already built specialized machines that are, generally speaking, better at their task than humans are. Machines that can life more than a human, or that can add numbers faster than a human. We already use computers to refine human creations - to find design flaws in our creations, to test new ideas in simulated environments.
We don't need to build a smarter human, we just need to build an artificial human. And then that artificial human can work tirelessly, 24/7, with access to any and all knowledge that's ever been recorded, with perfect recall and develop a new artificial human that is just slightly smarter than itself. And that new one can do the same. Over and over again. Each version just slightly better than the last.
I couldn't really tell from the video, and the article didn't specify. Are the touchable holograms 3D, or are they just 2D images floating in mid-air? I suspect the latter. Still impressive, though.
It's a 3D rendered object, being projected onto a concave mirror. This gives the illusion of a 3D object floating in space because as you move your head, the perspective of the image changes as well.
They then use a couple WiiMotes to track your hand and use that data to interact with the image. So you can actually manipulate the image with your hand.
They also use some kind of ultrasound thing to give the impression of tactile feedback on your hand. So when you touch the image, you feel something on your hand.
So, let me get this straight. A graduate from a [insert random no-name college here] obtains a [rather generic, non-specific] degree in "IT", and automagically expects to be hired in 3 months or less?
Forget economy or GPA for a second, what the hell ever happened to getting your damn feet wet in IT outside of a fucking classroom?
You want someone to hire you? Drop the ego and intern for a short while. Find out how good you are in the real world before you start assuming a piece of paper is your automagic meal ticket. Might also want to pick up a newspaper every now and then to see how long it's taking the average job with experience to land a job.
Took me about two years to land my first "IT" job.
Spent those two years doing retail work and teaching Microsoft Office at a community college.
What eventually got me hired at the "IT" job was the fact that I tinkered in my free time. I had a half-dozen computers at home set up in a network... Had a small Windows server set up doing file sharing and Active Directory, had a small Linux server doing file and print sharing... Was familiar with a lot of the stuff they were looking for, despite it not coming from professional experience. More familiar, apparently, than the other applicants.
A piece of paper isn't going to get you a job. Your knowledge will.
Can anyone explain what is a C in the US in the percentile range? Is this synonymous with miserable failure? What about the reputation of Monroe College?
Is she an average or plain-awful student?
From the Wikipedia article:
A == 90 - 100% == 3.5 - 4.0 GPA
B == 80 - 89% == 2.5 - 3.49 GPA
C == 70 - 79% == 1.5 - 2.49 GPA
D == 60 - 69% == 1.0 - 1.49 GPA
F == 0 - 59% == 0.0 GPA
So... A 2.7 is C+/B- range, depending on the school and the instructor. Not terrible, but not outstanding either.
Last I heard, the national average was somewhere around 3.2 - which would put her a bit below average.
Bottom line is that a 2.7 does not show outstanding academic achievement. You can easily get that simply by showing up to class and doing what you are told. You don't have to study hard, you don't have to work hard, you don't need any special talents/gifts/passions. Just about anyone can get a 2.7 GPA.
Whatever her GPA is, she has worked hard for four years
Negative.
She's got a 2.7 GPA. That isn't outstanding, that's average. That isn't hard work, that's showing up to class and doing what you're told. I'd accept that she'd worked hard if she walked out of there with a 3.0+ GPA. A 2.7? Nope.
spent $70k on it
So?
If I spent $100k on a college education am I now more deserving of a job than she is? What if I go to a community college and only spend $20k? Am I less deserving?
very willing and able to work
Maybe.
I don't know her, you don't know her. We don't know how badly she wants a job. Maybe she feels this lawsuit is a better way to get some money than flipping burgers is. And able to work? I guess we'd have to sit her down in some kind of workplace environment to evaluate that, wouldn't we? Just because you've got a degree doesn't mean you're actually capable of doing the work.
I don't know how many bachelor degree holders there is
There are lots of folks with a Bacheolor's in something. It really doesn't mean much. Four years isn't really enough time to teach you a whole lot of specialization... And a four-year degree isn't going to focus on a specific set of skills either. There'll be lots of general education, lots of theory...
I always tell people that a Bachelor's degree proves one thing - a capacity to learn. Nothing more.
she likely has more education than 70% of the population
Education is borderline meaningless once you enter the job market. Nobody cares what book you read or how you scored on your exams - they want to know if you can do the job. Someone with 2 years experience doing the job (but no degree) has a better track record than someone with a 4.0 GPA coming right out of college. That's why internships are critically important. That's why you want to tinker in your free time and build up a portfolio that you can show potential employers. That's why folks take crap jobs right out of college to build up their resume.
And she can't get a job
Sure she can. Just not the job she wants.
I guarantee you there are jobs that she's qualified to do, but doesn't want - like WalMart, or McDonald's. I guarantee you there are jobs available that she's not qualified to do - like civic engineering or carpentry or something. The trick isn't finding a job, the trick is finding a job that you want.
I worked at Electronics Boutique for a year after I graduated with my BS in Computer Science... Then I worked as an Adjuct Professor at a local community college for another year... Then I finally found a job that actually involved doing what I went to school for - two years after graduation.
It just is not fair
Welcome to the real world. No, it isn't fair. Nothing is. Fairness is an artificial construct. In the real world nobody is going to give you a job just to be fair. You've got to earn your keep, just like everyone else out there.
Kids today aren't entitled, they are screwed over
I disagree.
The vast majority of "kids" I deal with these days have a crippling sense of entitlement. Interviewing people is downright painful. The attitude seems to be "I've show up to claim my job" instead of "let me prove to you that I'll be a good investment"
The older generation didn't have to take bullshit like this. There were no trouble getting a job back then
Really?
Despite the obvious problems with your overgeneralization... I do, mostly, agree. There was a time when this nation was built on the backs of skilled laborers. If you were willing to sweat, you were able to get a job. And there weren't usually enough bodies
I'm guessing everyone going 'omg she's stupid!' has never heard a college/uni promise to find you a job after you graduate. Of course, I heard the promise and knew it for what it was: Nothing. But I did briefly wonder at the time if there was any recourse after spending 10's of thousands of dollars and having them break their promise.
In fact, I didn't find a job for a year and a half after I graduated. My 'degree' didn't help me get the job -at all-. It ended up being knowledge that I had before I even went to college that got me the job.
I hope she wins.
My school promised to help me find a job, but I just ignored that.
Pretty much every college has some kind of employment search assistance... They'll host job fairs, or send your resume out to big employers that they're partnered with, or they'll point you at some decent internships... But, really, they can't guarantee much.
They certainly can't guarantee that they'll be able to find a job for someone with only a 2.7 GPA in a job market that's gone to hell.
Unless it's in writing, in a legally binding contract, I doubt if it means much.
MS Office is available for Mac as well, and has been for nearly a decade. It's even available at the Apple Store when you buy a Mac. The *nix install base is really the compatibility problem, although (as mentioned several times above) OpenOffice has rendered that nearly non-existent.
I am aware of that. However, that doesn't address the difficulties I outlined originally:
People who might not have the same version of Word that I do, or might not have Word installed at all. People who might be working on a Mac or some kind of *nix box. People I don't necessarily trust with an easily edited document.
If someone is running a different version of Word than I am I'll either need to install a compatibility pack or save it in a compatible format.
If they don't have Word installed at all then I'm going to have to save it in something they can read.
If I don't want them to make changes to my document, I'll need to add a password at the very least, or convert it to a PDF anyway (depending on what software they actually have installed and whether it can deal with Word's password protection).
Sure, there's a version of Word available for the Mac... But that doesn't help me if they've got a different version or if they don't have it installed at all.
Yup, Open Office generally opens Word documents just fine. And of all the folks who can probably deal with getting a format they can't currently read, *nix users are probably the most likely to be able to fix that problem.
But a PDF is pretty much guaranteed to work on just about any machine. Doesn't matter if it's an old Windows 98 machine with Adobe Reader 5.0 on it or a shiny new Mac Pro with Acrobat Standard. Doesn't matter if you've got Sumatra or GhostScript or FoxIt or Adobe or what. PDFs, generally speaking, just work.
With that argument, PDFs would be the thing to die, not MS Word.
I find myself working with PDFs more often than Word documents.
I seldom have to print anything out these days... But I'm constantly sending stuff to other people. People who might not have the same version of Word that I do, or might not have Word installed at all. People who might be working on a Mac or some kind of *nix box. People I don't necessarily trust with an easily edited document.
So, I turn everything into PDFs and send it out that way. Pretty much anyone on any platform can read a PDF, and there's at least a token attempt to make it read-only.
And when your paper, project, etc. is due Monday morning, and your CPU fan or PSU dies Friday night, you really have time for a online purchase...
There are some things that you just have to have *now* and even if it costs you $5-10 more than the online item, having it after a 30 min drive and short walk is worth it.
Are you kidding me?
Staples has a better selection of computer hardware than my local Radio Shack does.
In the last decade or so, Radio Shack seems to have been really pushing to become more of a "boutique electronics retailer", ditching their image as a "parts store" for hobbyists.
The problem is that the marketplace is already crowded with stores selling consumer electronics.
If I decide that I need to buy a cell phone or a DVD player I've got a ton of options right here in town - Target, WalMart, Best Buy, Sam's Club... Maybe even Sears or Staples depending on the specific piece of hardware I'm looking for.
So, why would I go to Radio Shack? They don't have any exclusive products... Their prices aren't especially good... Their sales people aren't knowledgeable... Why would I go to them instead of one of their competitors?
because there's not a lot of profit in individual sales when your customers want a package of resistors, a spool of wire, or some $10 pliers or cutter tool.
There may not be a whole lot of profit in such a sale... But at least you're making a sale.
There was a time when I knew Radio Shack would have the parts I needed for whatever it was that I was fixing. I'd stop there first, and frequently wouldn't need to make a second stop. They might not have made a lot of profit off my purchases, but they were getting my purchases.
These days I don't bother to go to Radio Shack at all. They don't have the obscure bits I need. I'll find those bits elsewhere or order them on-line.
And the consumer electronics that they do carry? I'd rather buy those at Best Buy or WalMart or Sam's Club - they typically have a better selection, better prices, and more knowledgeable staff.
Most of the time when I got to radio shack for a component, I need it now. Not in two days.
For instance, movie night with my buds a few weeks ago. DVD player popped a cap (blah, that sounded ghetto. magic smoke instead). A trip the Radio Crack and 20 mins later, we were back in business.
That's great if your Radio Shack actually carries such things. I can assure you that is no longer typical.
We have two Radio Shacks in town, neither one of them sells capacitors.
One of them is purely consumer electronics. It is located right next door to a Verizon store and is obviously trying to compete with them for cell phone sales. Half of their store is devoted to cell phones and cell phone accessories. The other half of the store has an assortment of DVD players and remote controlled robot toys. Nothing even remotely related to electronics repair.
The second one is a little better... It carries an assortment of cables and adapters. They even stock soldering irons, solder, and various types of wire. But they don't carry capacitors, or LEDs, or resistors, or breadboards, or any of the stuff that used to make Radio Shack my first (and frequently only) stop. And the selection of wire/cables/adapters is unimpressive. Most of their floorspace is taken up by remote controlled toys and overpriced audio/video equipment.
Indeed, I believe they are being too conservative in this renaming. For regular customers of Radio Shack, we know the new name is too high class. The only possible remedy for this situation is to name the chain "Electronics Shanty," because we all know that's what they are.
Electronics Shanty?
If we're going to be honest we'll have to rename it the "Refuse Heap"
A very unusual project at work required me to make a mono audio jack to RJ11 cable.
My first thought was 'Radio Shack.' I'm digging through the drawers of connectors and the salesman came over and asked if I needed any help. (I was the only one in the store, he was probably bored.) I explained the project and got a blank stare.
I wanted to hook up my laptop's S-Video to my TV's RCA video.
I know such cables and adapters exist, I've used them before and seen them online for just a few dollars. But I didn't have any handy, and didn't want to wait for something to ship. I figured Radio Shack would have what I needed.
My wife and I were the only customers there, so the sales people kept hovering around. I shoo'ed them away a couple times, but I was having a genuinely difficult time locating the part. Eventually I got tired of them asking to help me and I told them what I was looking for.
One of them gave me a blank look, the other one looked amused. He then carefully explained that there was no such simple adapter and that I'd have to purchase some kind of RF converter box. He showed me a device with inputs for everything under the sun... S-Video, RCA, component... And outputs in RCA and coax. The box cost around $100.
I noticed right next to this RF converter box an S-Video to RCA cable. Exactly what I'd been looking for. Except that it was about 10 feet long and gold plated. The cable itself was $30 or so.
I didn't buy either item at Radio Shack. I went to WalMart instead. Found a little adapter for $2 and a 5 foot cable for $7 or so. Spent about $10 total and it works great.
That was the last time I went to Radio Shack.
I didn't realize there was any hate out there. Frankly, I didn't realize there were any Segways out there. I saw the big unveiling and thought "That's it?" I haven't really heard a whole lot since then... Certainly haven't encountered one in my day-to-day life...
But I can speculate on why people might object. Why folks might laugh or toss insults. Why they might not be selling well.
1) The thing is expensive. I don't recall the actual price tag, and I'm too lazy to look it up, but I remember thinking that I could buy a car for that. Maybe not a shiny, new car... But a decent used car. I could certainly purchase a more conventional form of transportation like a bicycle, or motorcycle, or scooter. Which means that folks are paying extra for a Segway, basically, because they can.
2) It is also completely impractical. From the summary:
Also, IT is surprisingly effective for certain uses, including real cops and mall cops.
No it isn't. As soon as a cop (mall or otherwise) has to chase someone up a flight of stairs it has just lost all utility. And I'd suggest that a cop on a bicycle would be better able to catch someone than a cop on a Segway.
3) It is aimed at folks who don't need it. You have to be able to stand upright to operate the thing, which means you've got two working legs. Why not use them to walk? It isn't going to go crazy-fast... It doesn't have a huge range... You aren't going to use the thing to communte 60 miles to work... You'll basically be operating it, more or less, within walking distance. So why not just walk?
So... We've got an expensive, useless thing that you don't need. And people are surprised that sales are limited? Or that folks toss insults when they see someone riding one?
And yes, after seeing the original Alien in an evening movie showing without knowing what it was really about ahead of time, I left the bathroom light on that night afterwards just in case. I'm sure I wasn't the only one.
I first saw this movie when I was entirely too young to be watching such things. It was on TV one night and I was watching it with my father. Unfortunately, my mother decided it was time for bed right about the time Ripley was setting the ship to self-destruct. The last thing I saw, before going to bed, was Ripley stumbling across the Alien as she fled for the lifeboat.
I had horrible nightmares that night.
The first thing I asked my father, upon waking the next morning, was whether they had killed the Alien or not.
That movie continued to haunt my dreams... I eventually decided that wrapping a blanket over my head like a hood would somehow keep the facehuggers from getting a good grip, and started sleeping that way. To this day I feel most comfortable with a blanket looped over my head like a hood.
Interestingly enough, I have since grown to absolutely love both the Alien movies and HR Giger's artwork.
amen to that. 1979's 'alien' is good, but the 1986 'aliens' is what made my heart thump and want to be a space marine.
GAME OVER MAN! GAME OVER!
They're almost two entirely different genres...
I love both movies, but comparing them just isn't fair.
Alien is tense, claustrophobic, suspenseful... You've got a single creature stalking and killing the crew of the ship, one by one. It's more of a traditional stalker/slasher movie in that respect.
Aliens is fast-paced, action-filled, loud, intense... Piles of aliens popping out of corners, getting mowed down, ripping people apart. Despite the fact that some of it is downright terrifying, it's more of an action movie than a horror film.
Everybody even remotely involved with movies or music from the beginning probably assumed that new formats would come along with new opportunities for both creativity, as well as profit; companies could be angry that the phonograph was stealing money away from their piano roll business, until they jumped into the phonograph business themselves.
Now with music and movies, and everything, being nothing more than a pile of bits, there's simply nowhere to go. Digital is the perfect medium insofar as there's nothing that anyone can conceive of coming after; people could imagine smaller records, color movies, etc., no one has even hinted at the possibility of something to replace a digital file.
You've missed the point entirely.
The recording industry does not manufacture anything. They act as middle-men. Some guy makes music, some other guy puts the music on a disc, and the recording industry helps the two people meet each-other. Yeah, it's a bit more complicated than that... There's marketing and advances and stuff like that. But, basically, the recording industry is just a middle man.
The recording industry never cared too much about phonographs or records or casettes or whatever. You want your music on a record? They find a guy to put it on a record. You want your music on a CD? They find a guy to put it on a CD. They were still middle-men. They still stood between the artists and the folks manufacturing the media.
The problem is that these days they are not needed. An artist can record music right on their own computer and distribute it on-line. You can advertise yourself on MySpace or YouTube or just create your own website. You can sell your stuff on-line and collect payments through PayPal. You can burn your own discs and sell them at concerts. You don't need the recording industry at all anymore.
That's why the recording industry is so worried about all this. That's why they're trying so hard to keep your music tied to some kind of media. That's why they want DRM - so that they're still needed.
Mr. Metalitz's view allows online store operators to simply go out of business, start a new store under a different name and maybe even with different names on the corporate charter, and go on about selling the same exact things over again.
You don't even have to do that though.
Throw together a media player thingamabob... Include it right on the same disc as your movies/music/whatever... Encrypt your movies/music/whatever in some weird format that only your media player thingamabob can read... Don't worry about documenting the standard or anything like that - it is only supposed to work with your own player...
Now, a year later, release a new version of the media player thingamabob.
Gee, sorry, our authentication server only talks to the newest version. Yeah, I know the new player can't read the old format. I guess you'll just have to buy your movies/music/whatever again.
Rinse, repeat.
Being somewhat devils advocatish - what about all those people who find that their CDs stop working after a few years due to small scratches? Should they be allowed to demand free replacement in perpetuity?
In theory, if I maintain the discs properly, I should be able to play a CD for the rest of eternity... Or at least close enough to it that I'll be too dead to care.
If I do not properly maintain the disc, it will obviously stop working. Just as if I feed it to a paper shredder it will stop working. That's my own fault and nobody else's. If I wanted the CD to keep working forever I could probably do something to make that happen.
With DRM, that is all out of my control. If the DRM server gets shut down I cannot play my music, no matter how careful I am to maintain the disc or whatever. That isn't my fault, or my choice - it's the choice of the folks running the DRM server.
In theory, they could shut down the DRM server for no other reason than to make people buy a new copy of their music. And then they could shut down that new DRM server and make people buy the music again. And again, and again... Starts sounding more like a subscription-based service.
If I buy a subscription to something - HBO for example - I do not expect it to keep working after my subscription runs out. It makes sense.
If I buy a DVD of a series that originally aired on HBO, however, I expect it to continue working basically forever.
I wouldn't mind a refresh of the original Marathon. Upgrade the engine and graphics but keep the game play and sounds, other than converting to true surround sound. Was totally creepy playing that at 3am, even with just a stereo setup.
I remember one of the first encounters I had with the S'pht...
That motion tracker they gave you was frequently useless. It'd show stuff moving, but you couldn't tell if it was above or below you.
And at that point in time, most shooters were pretty two-dimensional. You didn't really have to do a whole lot of looking up or down. Most critters were on the same level you were.
So I was making my way down a hall towards a terminal. Could see stuff on my motion tracker, but there was absolutely nothing in the room with me.
Then one of those robed S'pht things dropped out of the ceiling right in front of me. Scared the crap out of me.
I can only imagine what that would be like with better graphics and sound...
Anyone know how on earth Google expects to make money off of this thing? It looks amazing, but how do you make money off of this if it's open sourced, free, and took a ton of development time to build (and presumably support in the future)?
Well, look at DNS and SMTP and HTTP... Those are open, documented, universally available protocols. Anyone can implement them. I don't know how much anybody made simply by inventing SMTP... But plenty of people have cashed in on it since then.
Some people rent hosted mailservers... Other people sell the server software... Other folks sell support for free mailserver software... And then there's all sorts of add-on things like spam filtering and web front-ends and email clients and everything else... The protocol itself might be too open to cash in on, but all the assorted tools that make use of that protocol are making people plenty of money.
I'm sure Google will offer some kind of hosted Wave service. There'll probably be a free (ad supported) version as well as a paid (Google Apps) version. And they'll likely be one of the first to have a functioning Wave service, so I'm sure there'll be lots of people rushing to try it out.
If they wanted to they could probably roll up a piece of hardware or software to sell to people, but that doesn't really seem to be the way Google operates.