The human musicians don't need to follow the robot's direction for anything more than basic time keeping. It's not as if the robot were running the rehearsals or deciding musical interpretation. Call me when the robot learns to follow a human conductor.
At least Honda paid a reasonably good sum for this blatant product placement.
Just think of widescreen as bonus. Your previous machine had a 4:3 area of 1024x768. Your new machine has a 4:3 area of 1066x800. Plus, it has a 213x800 sidebar. Why are you complaining about that?
What you should be complaining about is the inability of Windows and many of the apps to negotiate a dual-monitor configuration.
Will the dialog box appear (a) centered in monitor 1, (b) centered in monitor 2, or (c) split across them at the mean of the monitor 1 + monitor 2 coordinates?
Got that figured out? OK, now swap the left-right positions of monitors 1 and 2 while the apps are running. Where will that dialog box show up now?
If monitor 2 is removed, how will you get the apps being displayed there to redisplay themselves on monitor 1?
It's long past time that Windows and its apps got some standards of behavior in the multi-monitor world.
O'Brien is cryin' and Murphy's upset. Mulronan is groanin' and hasn't stopped yet. And the tears from O'Leary make ev'rything wet while MacMahon like a banshee is keenin'. While their women chat lightly, the men sit and sob with their eyelids shut tightly and fists in their gob. Not a one's lost his health or his home or his job, but their lives are now empty of meanin', for the worst of all curses is here. And it's...
Oh, no, the beer's runnin' low! The stout is tapped out and there's none in the cellar, boys.' Oh my, this pub's nearly dry, and it's just ten o'clock on a Saturday night!
Based primarily on trust and cost, many here at/. are against any kind of e-voting.
However, by now, everyone on/. can recite the outlines of a plan for trustworthy electronic voting (print results in plaintext and barcode to paper ballots, open code, no accessible machine ports, etc.). If there were vendors building such systems, the trust argument against e-voting would be eliminated.
If trust can be solved, aren't there advantages to e-voting that may be worth the cost?
Logic to enforce rules such as "vote for not more than three".
Logic to enforce rules such as "vote for only one."
Logic to prevent voters skipping races by accident.
Near elimination of improper marking, hanging chads, etc.
Option to use multiple languages.
Quicker counting.
Option to use candidate photos.
Option to use large type for the sight-impaired.
Ability to accommodate the blind.
Allow ballot changes closer to election day (no preprinting needed).
Shills are shills. They have always been with us. We know how to deal with a guy who stands up and takes a position because he's being paid to -- we expose his bias and smart people stop paying attention to him thereafter.
What is not OK is lying. (1) Making a false statement about whether he's accepting funds or (2) making up a fake person to be the speaker are both impermissible.
Women identified friendliness as friendliness almost 9 times out of 10. Yeah women, well done! But guess what, Men identified friendliness as friendliness about 8 times out of 10.
Yes, women did better, but just a little better. Nevertheless, TFA chose to reinforce the stereotype that men are (a) sex hounds and/or (b) clueless by reporting that 68% of women report having been misinterpreted at some time in their lives. A cumulative statistic like that says nothing about the error rate of the median guy. For one thing, all those errors could have been produced by a small subset of really clueless guys. For another thing, no matter how good the guys are at this, a woman will experience an error if she interacts with enough guys.
In fact, given the women's error rate reported, if a guy is friendly towards 12-13 women in his life, there's a 68% chance that one of them will mistake it for sexual interest. Of course, women only have to be friendly towards about 9 guys to have a 68% chance of that.
Try this for a headline: Men Get it Right the Vast Majority of the Time. Or, if you must be negative, stick to the facts: Men Mistake Friendliness For Attraction ~40% More Often Than Women.
We should be able to to see what our police are doing and what our congesspeople are doing with the authority we give them. Why? Because they work for us. . . . But once you grant that assertion, it follows . . . that your employer should be able to watch what you do with the authority they give you.
There, fixed that for you. Scope is important. Just as I may refuse to tell my employer about things I do outside the scope of my employment, we should accept that the government may refuse to tell us about things that it does outside the scope of the mandate we give it to govern on our behalf.
E.g., How did I award that contract? How did the government award that contract? Should I have paid a dividend to our shareholders or granted stock options to our execs? Should government have given a particular tax subsidy or tax break? Was a bribe involved? Etc.
The grandparent wrote: We should be able to to see what our police are doing and what our congesspeople are doing. Why? Because they work for us. . . . But once you grant that assertion, it follows - for all slashdot readers who are not self-employed - that your employer should be able to watch you.
The parent wrote: This is incorrect. It's because they have powers over us.
Exactly. We need transparent government because they have power over us and, if unchecked, will oppress us, whether intentionally or not.
We can get transparent government because they govern us only by our consent (which is what we mean by "they work for us"). If we do not demand to know what they are doing, then our consent or lack thereof is meaningless. Anything we allow them to hide, we cannot stop them doing.
The situation with employers is not analogous. Employers rightly demand to know what we are doing on the job (e.g., how did you increase sales 200%? with bribes? how did you lower costs by 80%? with child labor?). When employers want to know what we are doing off the job, they are usually wrong to do so. Our hidden lives cannot systemically oppress the employer; government's hidden actions can easily oppress us.
(Previewed 3 times and still needed a small edit.)
The grandparent wrote: We should be able to to see what our police are doing and what our congesspeople are doing. Why? Because they work for us. . . . But once you grant that assertion, it follows - for all slashdot readers who are not self-employed - that your employer should be able to watch you.
The parent wrote: This is incorrect. It's because they have powers over us.
Exactly. We need transparent government they have power over us and, if unchecked, will oppress us, whether intentionally or not.
We can get transparent government because they govern us only by our consent (which is what we mean by "they work for us"). If we do not demand to know what they are doing, then our consent or lack thereof is meaningless. Anything we allow them to hide, we cannot stop them doing.
The situation with employers is not analogous. Employers rightly demand to know what we are doing on the job (e.g., how did you increase sales 200%? with bribes? how did you lower costs by 80%? with child labor?). When employers want to know what we are doing off the job, they are usually wrong to do so. Our hidden lives cannot systemically oppress the employer; government's hidden actions can easily oppress us.
Except it wasn't exactly a scientific discussion, it was a semantic one, with political and ego background.
Just so. In one of the groups most likely to behave scientifically and rationally, semantics, politics, and ego got in the way. How much moreso in less elite circles!
Getting people to change their opinions, beliefs, or conclusions is just difficult all over. For example, a group of smart -- really smart (I mean two-plus-standard-deviations-out-of-the-global-mean and scientifically-trained smart) -- people recently debated how to define a planet.
They and their fathers had grown up thinking that Pluto was a planet because of mankind's relative inexperience at astronomy. Recently, mankind learned facts that required rethinking of what "planet" meant so that when the term was used, everyone knew what it did and didn't mean.
Remember how easy and sensible that debate was? When it was "over", the definition had as many footnotes as principles.
And those were scientists. Heaven help us when we have to reteach anything to the general public.
What a great idea! We could have a schedule of taxes or fees due every few years to maintain IP or it would become dedicated to the public. We do that with patents.
Or, if that's too complicated, we could just ask copyright holders to identify which copyrights they care about and submit a simple application to maintain them or let them flow into the public domain. We did that for nearly two centuries until 1976.
It's just amazing how little we demand that the holders of incredibly valuable copyrights do to obtain those rights and to keep them.
Pedantically: It did take 'up to 5 shots'. 1 is a number from 1 to 5.
Earnestly: There would always be a chance that the first shot would hit. With just this incident as data, we have insufficient information to know what their confidence was shot to shot. It could have been a miss expectation of P(1)=33%, P(2)=11%, P(3)=3.7%, P(4)=1.2%, P(5)=0.41% or, it could have been P'(1)=10%, P'(2)=1%, P'(3)=0.1%, P'(4)=0.01%, P'(5)=0.001%. Either one of those scenarios might half-reasonably have lead them to say 'up to 5 shots'.
Build a voting system for the 14 greatest engineering challenges that fully captures all voter preferences and a web site to host it that works seamlessly under all major browsers.
Oh, come on! To butcher Robin Williams, "That list is in more dire need of a [moderator] than any white man in history." Not only is it full of dupes and near-dupes, but it's overwhelmed by niche skills that less than 1 person in 1000 ever knew (in the general population, that is, not/. population).
What shows us how fast the world is changing are the skills that, within living memory, lots of people had (e.g., 1 person/ several households or so) but that will have disappeared within our lifetimes. Sorted by device (as much as possible) these include:
"Well, that's where you messed up, son, you can't go to no bar to find a nice woman. You gotta go to a nice place, a quiet place like a library, there's good women there and 'erm, church, they're good girls." --Eddie Murphy, Coming to America (1988)
If they* aren't tracking** you, most reliable reason why not is that it's not cheap enough to be worth it--yet. Two decades ago, your credit card company and your stores weren't keeping a log of every transaction you made; now they are. A decade ago, the government wasn't mining all telephone call data; now it may be doing just that.
What changed? For the most part, computing power and storage became so cheap that the small benefit to be had from monitoring, recording, and mining all this data now outweighs the cost. They think this cheap tracking capability is great. They get to sell more stuff and prevent crime/terrorism/whatever.
What will be interesting is what happens next. Tracking and managing data keeps on getting cheaper. Soon, it will become so cheap that it will be economical for us to track them. Doubt it? Pricegrabber already tracks their sale prices. How long before your PDA will be able to tell you instantly how the price of milk at your grocery store compares to every other store in a 5-mile radius? You can already add to your car's nav system the locations of red-light cams. How long before you can add a database of the location and time of every speeding ticket ever issued--to improve your odds? How long before the smart mob starts collaborating on the current location of every police cruiser?
We barely whimpered as it became cheap enough for them to track us. It will be interesting to see how they react when it becomes cheap enough that we can afford to track them.
*There are a whole host of they, but the short list includes (a) governments and (b) corporations who want to sell you something.
**Their intentions aren't necessarily malevolent--just self-interested. This is not tin-foil hat stuff. To the contrary, it's dismally routine.
Slashdot Mirror
The human musicians don't need to follow the robot's direction for anything more than basic time keeping. It's not as if the robot were running the rehearsals or deciding musical interpretation. Call me when the robot learns to follow a human conductor.
At least Honda paid a reasonably good sum for this blatant product placement.
What is needed is a rating system that says clearly what is in the work, not that says who should be permitted to see it.
"PG-13" is not helpful. "Mild language, brief nudity, and extensive violence" is helpful, as is "No language, no nudity, no violence, sexual topics".
It should not be up to the theatres, booksellers, and libraries to police what children watch.
It's a little like licensing a sewer system in which nothing is patented except the toilets. That last 20% makes all the difference in the world.
What you should be complaining about is the inability of Windows and many of the apps to negotiate a dual-monitor configuration.
It's long past time that Windows and its apps got some standards of behavior in the multi-monitor world.
Dur-a-ble. Repeat it like a mantra. No matter what else a laptop may or may not do, if it is not durable then it is not improving your budget.
I think the Tinker said it best:
O'Brien is cryin' and Murphy's upset.
Mulronan is groanin' and hasn't stopped yet.
And the tears from O'Leary make ev'rything wet
while MacMahon like a banshee is keenin'.
While their women chat lightly, the men sit and sob
with their eyelids shut tightly and fists in their gob.
Not a one's lost his health or his home or his job,
but their lives are now empty of meanin',
for the worst of all curses is here.
And it's...
Oh, no, the beer's runnin' low! The stout is tapped out
and there's none in the cellar, boys.'
Oh my, this pub's nearly dry,
and it's just ten o'clock on a Saturday night!
However, by now, everyone on
If trust can be solved, aren't there advantages to e-voting that may be worth the cost?
Shills are shills. They have always been with us. We know how to deal with a guy who stands up and takes a position because he's being paid to -- we expose his bias and smart people stop paying attention to him thereafter.
What is not OK is lying. (1) Making a false statement about whether he's accepting funds or (2) making up a fake person to be the speaker are both impermissible.
Let's just go back and read the results table on page 21, shall we?
Women identified friendliness as friendliness almost 9 times out of 10.
Yeah women, well done! But guess what,
Men identified friendliness as friendliness about 8 times out of 10.
Yes, women did better, but just a little better. Nevertheless, TFA chose to reinforce the stereotype that men are (a) sex hounds and/or (b) clueless by reporting that 68% of women report having been misinterpreted at some time in their lives. A cumulative statistic like that says nothing about the error rate of the median guy. For one thing, all those errors could have been produced by a small subset of really clueless guys. For another thing, no matter how good the guys are at this, a woman will experience an error if she interacts with enough guys.
In fact, given the women's error rate reported, if a guy is friendly towards 12-13 women in his life, there's a 68% chance that one of them will mistake it for sexual interest. Of course, women only have to be friendly towards about 9 guys to have a 68% chance of that.
Try this for a headline: Men Get it Right the Vast Majority of the Time. Or, if you must be negative, stick to the facts: Men Mistake Friendliness For Attraction ~40% More Often Than Women.
And yet, many pools prohibit diving entirely. Even in sections 10 ft. or more deep.
Diving into water is a skill worth knowing, too. A good racing dive needs less than 3 ft. of depth.
We should be able to to see what our police are doing and what our congesspeople are doing with the authority we give them. Why? Because they work for us. . . . But once you grant that assertion, it follows . . . that your employer should be able to watch what you do with the authority they give you.
There, fixed that for you. Scope is important. Just as I may refuse to tell my employer about things I do outside the scope of my employment, we should accept that the government may refuse to tell us about things that it does outside the scope of the mandate we give it to govern on our behalf.
E.g., How did I award that contract? How did the government award that contract? Should I have paid a dividend to our shareholders or granted stock options to our execs? Should government have given a particular tax subsidy or tax break? Was a bribe involved? Etc.
The grandparent wrote: We should be able to to see what our police are doing and what our congesspeople are doing. Why? Because they work for us. . . . But once you grant that assertion, it follows - for all slashdot readers who are not self-employed - that your employer should be able to watch you.
The parent wrote: This is incorrect. It's because they have powers over us.
Exactly. We need transparent government because they have power over us and, if unchecked, will oppress us, whether intentionally or not.
We can get transparent government because they govern us only by our consent (which is what we mean by "they work for us"). If we do not demand to know what they are doing, then our consent or lack thereof is meaningless. Anything we allow them to hide, we cannot stop them doing.
The situation with employers is not analogous. Employers rightly demand to know what we are doing on the job (e.g., how did you increase sales 200%? with bribes? how did you lower costs by 80%? with child labor?). When employers want to know what we are doing off the job, they are usually wrong to do so. Our hidden lives cannot systemically oppress the employer; government's hidden actions can easily oppress us.
(Previewed 3 times and still needed a small edit.)
The grandparent wrote: We should be able to to see what our police are doing and what our congesspeople are doing. Why? Because they work for us. . . . But once you grant that assertion, it follows - for all slashdot readers who are not self-employed - that your employer should be able to watch you.
The parent wrote: This is incorrect. It's because they have powers over us.
Exactly. We need transparent government they have power over us and, if unchecked, will oppress us, whether intentionally or not.
We can get transparent government because they govern us only by our consent (which is what we mean by "they work for us"). If we do not demand to know what they are doing, then our consent or lack thereof is meaningless. Anything we allow them to hide, we cannot stop them doing.
The situation with employers is not analogous. Employers rightly demand to know what we are doing on the job (e.g., how did you increase sales 200%? with bribes? how did you lower costs by 80%? with child labor?). When employers want to know what we are doing off the job, they are usually wrong to do so. Our hidden lives cannot systemically oppress the employer; government's hidden actions can easily oppress us.
I'll get right on that. Right after I finish laying fiber to the curb.
Except it wasn't exactly a scientific discussion, it was a semantic one, with political and ego background.
Just so. In one of the groups most likely to behave scientifically and rationally, semantics, politics, and ego got in the way. How much moreso in less elite circles!
Getting people to change their opinions, beliefs, or conclusions is just difficult all over. For example, a group of smart -- really smart (I mean two-plus-standard-deviations-out-of-the-global-mean and scientifically-trained smart) -- people recently debated how to define a planet.
They and their fathers had grown up thinking that Pluto was a planet because of mankind's relative inexperience at astronomy. Recently, mankind learned facts that required rethinking of what "planet" meant so that when the term was used, everyone knew what it did and didn't mean.
Remember how easy and sensible that debate was? When it was "over", the definition had as many footnotes as principles.
And those were scientists. Heaven help us when we have to reteach anything to the general public.
What a great idea! We could have a schedule of taxes or fees due every few years to maintain IP or it would become dedicated to the public. We do that with patents.
Or, if that's too complicated, we could just ask copyright holders to identify which copyrights they care about and submit a simple application to maintain them or let them flow into the public domain. We did that for nearly two centuries until 1976.
It's just amazing how little we demand that the holders of incredibly valuable copyrights do to obtain those rights and to keep them.
Are we seriously running a /. article based on what one litigant is saying about another's position?
/.), it's not news until a judge says it.
Whichever side you favor (and we all know who that is on
Pedantically: It did take 'up to 5 shots'. 1 is a number from 1 to 5.
Earnestly: There would always be a chance that the first shot would hit. With just this incident as data, we have insufficient information to know what their confidence was shot to shot. It could have been a miss expectation of P(1)=33%, P(2)=11%, P(3)=3.7%, P(4)=1.2%, P(5)=0.41% or, it could have been P'(1)=10%, P'(2)=1%, P'(3)=0.1%, P'(4)=0.01%, P'(5)=0.001%. Either one of those scenarios might half-reasonably have lead them to say 'up to 5 shots'.
Build a voting system for the 14 greatest engineering challenges that fully captures all voter preferences and a web site to host it that works seamlessly under all major browsers.
They started out saying, "Biblical creation is fact and evolution is a lie."
Today, the best they can argue is "Evolution is a Theory* and Intelligent Design is a Theory."
We're winning, folks. For us, complete victory would be, "Evolution is a Theory and Intelligent Design isn't qualified to be one."
Remember that we're not trying to get to "Evolution is fact."
---
*Theory - proposition inferred from evidence that successfully predicts future results and isn't contradicted by evidence
What shows us how fast the world is changing are the skills that, within living memory, lots of people had (e.g., 1 person/ several households or so) but that will have disappeared within our lifetimes. Sorted by device (as much as possible) these include:
"Well, that's where you messed up, son, you can't go to no bar to find a nice woman. You gotta go to a nice place, a quiet place like a library, there's good women there and 'erm, church, they're good girls." --Eddie Murphy, Coming to America (1988)
If they* aren't tracking** you, most reliable reason why not is that it's not cheap enough to be worth it--yet. Two decades ago, your credit card company and your stores weren't keeping a log of every transaction you made; now they are. A decade ago, the government wasn't mining all telephone call data; now it may be doing just that.
What changed? For the most part, computing power and storage became so cheap that the small benefit to be had from monitoring, recording, and mining all this data now outweighs the cost. They think this cheap tracking capability is great. They get to sell more stuff and prevent crime/terrorism/whatever.
What will be interesting is what happens next. Tracking and managing data keeps on getting cheaper. Soon, it will become so cheap that it will be economical for us to track them. Doubt it? Pricegrabber already tracks their sale prices. How long before your PDA will be able to tell you instantly how the price of milk at your grocery store compares to every other store in a 5-mile radius? You can already add to your car's nav system the locations of red-light cams. How long before you can add a database of the location and time of every speeding ticket ever issued--to improve your odds? How long before the smart mob starts collaborating on the current location of every police cruiser?
We barely whimpered as it became cheap enough for them to track us. It will be interesting to see how they react when it becomes cheap enough that we can afford to track them.
*There are a whole host of they, but the short list includes (a) governments and (b) corporations who want to sell you something.
**Their intentions aren't necessarily malevolent--just self-interested. This is not tin-foil hat stuff. To the contrary, it's dismally routine.