No, the answer seems to be that CEOs are incompetent, talk corporations into giving them huge pay packets (which is done with the help of other CEOs), and generally don't have a clue of what they should be doing.
The compensation of a CEO is not tied to performance, so they can be as idiotic as possible, ruin the company, and still have their huge payout.
Basically, CEOs have hoodwinked the world into believing they're extra special people with valuable skillsets, even when they don't.
Essentially being a CEO is a great scam, funded by the shareholders and the employees. Being a CEO has to be the easiest fucking job in the world.. because no matter the shit job you do you still make a huge sum of money, and people subsequently are willing to hire you in other companies on the assumption that, having been incompetent to be a CEO already, you're qualified for the job.
In my experience and observation, your average CEO is either a failed business person, or an engineer who got lucky in another company and now has an MBA... they're just chimps who get paid vast sums of money if they win or lose.
And, of course, since the people who hire and fire CEOs are just as incompetent, and in on the scam, they will never decide to tie compensation to any meaningful level of results.
Cynically, I believe this is just a massive scam being perpetuated to make a bunch of assholes even richer, while not giving a crap what happens to the company or the stock price.
Me, I'd be an incompetent CEO for half the price... and I'd probably do no better or worse, and then I'd get my severance package and retire.
A fucking drunk chimp could do as good of a job as most corporate CEOs. This is just another example.
But that's just where the usefulness ends. Sure, you now appreciate rock music, but can you play it in real life on real instruments?
Umm, yeah, and how many video game skills do you apply to daily life?
Are you an awesome assassin? A race car driver? A pilot? A marine? Are you actually Batman?
It's a frickin game. It is play. Nobody gives a crap in this context about playing an actual instrument. It's frickin air guitar. It's intended to be fun.
Millions of kids bought Guitar Hero and Rock Band to realize their dreams of actually becoming ROCK MUSICIANS.
Horseshit. Millions of kids bought GTA and Saints Row to realize their dreams of become thugs, mac daddies, and pimps.
Do you think any of them actually expect to have that happen? (Well, I guess in some cases the just might.)
Sadly, all the games do is to train you to press colored buttons in sequence with colored lights. Those skills are not transferable to real instruments, and in fact, won't even get you an audition.
Dude, in the 80s there used to be this game called Simon. It had four colored lights to press. You can still buy it.
This is shared fun, with "press colored buttons in sequence with colored lights" but with music and animations. It's not sophisticated or real. It's not for hardcore gamers.
Most 'skills' you practice in video games will never translate into real world skills or get you an interview. So why is this any different?
You don't need to like it or understand it, but it's not completely without entertainment value to some people... even if they don't actually become Rock Bands. Which, none of them actually expect to.
No more than any other game with a "make pretend" aspect to it.
LOL... I do now. Prior to rock band, absolutely not. Now based on drum rate I can tell old v new Metallica -- or at least know it's either Metallica or Anthrax (based on what else is in my collection that is).
And, obviously, I do not think real drumming is easy, not by a bloody long shot... but she's hella good at it in the game. Way way better than I ever got. She was rocking it on expert and I was in awe.
But prior to that, it was all a blur of screeching noise that I couldn't stand.
Now? Metallica and a bunch of hard core punk are likely to be on my iPod.
As I said, my wife is eternally grateful for the game, as my musical horizons have blown past what they had been.
You know, my wife will be eternally grateful for Rock Band, et al.
I led a very, er... musically sheltered life prior to Rockband and Guitar Hero. Wasn't a fan of most forms of rock, couldn't stand metal or punk. Like, at all.
The Rockbank type games taught me a LOT about the melody, structure, and musicality of them; sort of acted as a crash course in understanding why they didn't suck.
Since then I've bought well over a hundred punk albums (literally) and other stuff I previously didn't like since playing the game.
Say what you will about these games... but in my direct experience, nothing teaches the structure and musicality of a broad range of music as well as these things.
For me and my wife? We'd buy this again in a heartbeat... because it's a fun game to play in parties, and a friend's wife makes drumming on expert look easy.
So when I'm rocking out to Rise Against in the car, my wife is laughing and saying "Thank god for Rockband". Because without those games, I most certainly wouldn't have been.
It kind of tastes like gasoline but that's part of the appeal, along with pretending it was smuggled across the neutral zone after you've consumed too much of it....;)
LOL... is this a thing? Like, an actual thing people do?
"Is it true that you smoke eight to ten cigars a day?" "That's true." "Is it true that you drink five martinis a day?" "That's true." "Is it true that you still surround yourself with beautiful young women?" "That's true." "What does your doctor say about all of this?" "My doctor is dead."
The second sequel pretended the stupid, implausible script from the first sequel had never happened. And then it produced it's own stupid implausible script.
For all purposes of discussion, anything which claims to be a sequel to Highlander doesn't exist to anybody except the people who wrote them.
Highlander was a story which really couldn't have a sequel, nor should it have. It was beautifully complete on its own, and should have stayed that way.
Even the TV series technically couldn't have existed without pretending the movie didn't happen, but then they still brought in the original guy eventually and did some strange stuff.
The GP has a point, they are biological in nature, not mechanical.
Sebastian was a bio-engineer, and said he suffered the same problem as the replicants, premature aging.
So, they're not robots. But "more human than human", which means some of our limitations have been removed, but still built out of the same stuff.
It was never clear in the movie if the replicants ever started out as "babies", or sort of started out fully formed... so to answer the GPs question about how we know they don't age... I guess we don't, because we don't know much about their lifecycle, other than they don't live very long.
It could be an interesting movie. Cynically, I fear it is just there to make more money and not tell a good story.
I know I was disappointed as a kid when it came out originally in theaters, I was expecting something like Star Wars and it wasn't that.
And that's kind of the problem... Blade Runner would be a terrible movie to a kid.
The appeal of Blade Runner was, in part, the world they created: gritty, dark, decaying -- contrasted with the high-tech world of the wealthy. The story was much more sophisticated than a kid is going to get, it's definitely not space opera -- and understanding some of the stuff which is more insinuated than stated is a lot harder.
For me, the one labelled "The Director's Cut" restores some of the film noire elements, does a little more filling in the gaps, and makes more sense. The theatrical version lost some stuff in translation and dumbed it down a little.
I see there's now a "Definitive Edition", but I've not seen it and don't know much about it.
Find the Director's cut, and pay special attention to the things which suggest Decker is a replicant (sorry if that's a spoiler, but I assume this has been well known for a very long time), and have fun.
And, unless they somehow account for how Deckard the replicant has grown old... I just don't see how they get there at all. He's not just a hunter of them, he is one.
So either they start this one in which Deckard isn't a replicant, and they'll piss off the fans of the movie. Or they'll have to treat very carefully to explain it.
There are some movies and stories which do not invite sequels. This is one of them.
Cynically, this sounds like someone looking to make some more money, not someone with a good follow up story for Blade Runner.
So, here's the problem with that... in addition to motor skills, your spinal column handles all of the autonomic stuff... you know, heart beat, digestion, breathing, all that stuff which is controlled by the brain.
If you don't have those things connected properly, you will die. Plain and simple. This is leaps and bounds beyond physiotherapy. This is the entire function of your body which is controlled by the brain, which, last I checked, is pretty much all of it.
This isn't something where you can jam the two ends together and wait a few years until your brain remaps everything. Not unless you plan on keeping someone on extensive life support until the brain re-learns how to tell all of those other parts how to operate the body.
I just don't see this being viable, not unless you plan on spending zillions of dollars to keep someone alive until possibly the brain remaps some connections.
In which case this is a "treatment" which is only ever going to be viable for billionaires, because the resources to keep them alive in the mean time would be utterly staggering.
If all you're doing is designing a treatment for billionaires... well, experiment on the billionaires then.
Making the patent office liable for passing overly-broad patents, which aren't actually innovations, and which simply fall into "a system and methodology for going something we've been doing in the real world for decades, but with a computer".
Put some actual onus on the patent office to not simply be chimps who rubber stamp inventions and collect fees, and legal liability on patent applicants who basically play a shell game to essentially patent an idea and not an invention.
By the time you are at a jury, the system has failed so badly as to be useless.
If the patent office allows a patent for something which already exists, or which is fairly obvious, or is merely an idea... they're bloody incompetent, and essentially are the problem.
Dough in general is very amenable to be smushed, smashed, mushed, and extruded
Specifically I was thinking of the fact that 3D printing tends to want to lay down a little layer at a time, instead of a continuous sheet as you need to have in ravioli. Otherwise the dough would simply all apart.
You didn't read the parent post very closely
Are you a condescending asshole in real life, or just the internet?
I know a lot about food and cooking, as well as the machines used for it... 3D printing, as it applies to food, a little less.
So, if this machine is going to roll out a continuous sheet of pasta onto a tray with indentations, pass over that and put in the topping, and then roll out a continuous sheet on top.. well, that's not so much 3D printing as robotic assembly.
If it's going to lay down a tiny little layer of pasta dough in successive layers... well, you're not going to get a coherent dough, you're going to get the slime I alluded to when you try to boil it.
I have no problem with the concept of a pasta making machine... I've seen machines which make tortelloni. I've also seen machines which make ravioli. They're both really cool, and work with the pasta as a continuous sheet as you need to so that it stays together.
But when you describe something as 3D printing, and all it's doing it rolling out a sheet of pasta... to call it "3D printing" is to kind of abuse the term. There are already machines which make those pastas on commercial scales, has been for a very long time.
What I'm skeptical about is if this is actually "3D printing" in any meaningful sense of the word.
Here in the UK it varies between unwise for commercial businesses to use US data storage through against internal rules for many government organisations to straight illegal for anything that has personal information like hospitals and police.
Well, yeah... and this has been true since the PATRIOT Act was passed.
The US is now an inherently untrustworthy nation as far as data and technology goes.
You can't say it's your right to spy on everybody and then be surprised when the rest of the world tells you to piss off.
I should think US firms would be becoming pariahs around the world -- because the only rational thing you can do is to assume that any US company which has access to your data is being forced to spy on you. Because, they pretty much are.
The amazing thing is Americans might start to act like whiny bitches who say "but that's not fair to stop buying our stuff because we're spying on you", and wouldn't understand why there is no way they can be trusted.
So, congratulations, America. You've shot yourselves in the foot. And all of a sudden no sane person outside of the US can trust you with data. Don't act all surprised.
At some point, I'm expecting some aggressive whining about trade agreements to try to force people to buy products which will spy on them as the government throws a tantrum protesting the logical outcomes of their own policy.
Having billions of dollars in exports disappear is pretty much what the US should expect.
LOL... since when do chefs have time to hang out on Slashdot? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
More on topic, I don't see how 3D printing pasta is going to work, for example. You're going to probably end up with some slime which comes apart when you cook it.
It won't be an actual dough, it's going to be... well, I don't know what exactly. I just don't see this retaining the properties of dough.
I can see some of the molecular wizards like Wylie Dufresne or poeople like that, doing wacky things.. but the example of ravioli just seems like this wouldn't work at all.
This sounds more like the domain of crap food made at commercial scales, than actual good food prepared by chefs.
When 'opsec' is outlawed, only outlaws will have opsec.
In other words: if you're employing opsec, you will be construed as a terrorist, and the NSA et al will use even more secret laws to fuck you over even more.
There is no scenario in this security paranoid world in which being secretive about your actions isn't red flags.
Which is precisely why these 'intelligence' outfits need to have much shorter leashes. Quite possibly suspended from trees high enough to keep their feet off the ground.
In this opsec boils down to "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear", and the fucking fascists have won. It is now illegal to make it difficult for the government to spy on you when it wishes to.
and that's not even getting into the financial and executive parts of things
Yeah, and tell us, what is the track record of the financial and executive teams ability to prognosticate?
Yes, you need to be able to estimate to run the business.
But let's not pretend the average CEO, sales wanker, or marketing idiot has ANY better track record at making guesses about the future. In fact, in my experience, they're overly optimistic, not founded in anything real, and mostly pulled out of their ass of based on what Gartner tells them.
We can give you an estimate, but people have to understand that an estimate inherently carries uncertainty, and that they're equally inept over the long run of estimating the parts they're responsible for.
I've lost track of the times I've rolled by eyes when a CEO tells us what six months down the road will be... and they have the ability waste far more money on fools errands and bad predictions.
We're not dissociated from reality... we're the ones trying to explain reality to people who live in fantasy land.
But don't act for a minute like our estimates carry any more risk than those bullshit sales figures the idiots at the top are making.
On the one hand, it's pretty much impossible to do any project planning with no estimates.
On the other hand, some things are impossible to estimate until you do them.
Years ago I worked with a manager who kept repeating that bad estimates were a project risk and we should give good estimates. We kept telling him that an estimate is, by definition, based on incomplete knowledge and before you have done the work and that if he had a time machine we could give him better estimates.
If I knew exactly how long it would take, and what unforseen things I'd be running into... it wouldn't be a frickin' estimate, now would it?
People treat estimates like you're expected to have perfect knowledge of the future, and then build their world around those estimates.
I have seen a tremendous amount of bullshit and stupidity from people who do not understand what an estimate is, and how it's done.
I don't think you can get rid of estimates entirely... but management needs to stop being so stupid about how they interpret them.
If we could tell you for a fact exactly how long it would take, it wouldn't be a fucking estimate.
I rank how people do estimates right up there with how some PMs want you to track your time... once had a PM say he wanted me to account for my time in 5 minute increments. And I told him in no uncertain terms that would mean 2 out of every 5 minutes would be spent documenting what I'd done the last two minutes, and there would be an additional 1 minute of lost time in each 5 minute increment doing to context switch back to what I was working, and that effectively 60% of my time would be wasted on his stupidity.
First, we'll kill all of the people who run analytics companies, and destroy all of their data.
Then we'll pass sane consumer protection laws which limit what they can collect about you, and what they can do with it.
Then we might start to talk about how to pay for the internet.
Right now on Slashdot as I type this, Google, Ooyala, Rpxnow, Scorecard research, Janrain, Double Click, Comscore... all of these entities would be tracking me if I wasn't blocking them.
I'm not willing to accept their bullshit "by visiting this site you give us unlimited rights to track, monitor, collate, sell, and otherwise abuse your data". I have no relationship with those companies, and I get no compensation for being their "product". Which means I will block the hell out of anything which is going to help Slashdot profit from douchebags.
I have no business relationship with these analytics and advertising companies.
Take these assholes out of the equation, or don't even talk to me about how to fund the internet. I'm not funding someone's website with my personal information.
Fuck that.
The notion that some greedy corporation should feel entitled to my data is the problem. Finding ways to accommodate them is not the solution.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the answer seems to be that CEOs are incompetent, talk corporations into giving them huge pay packets (which is done with the help of other CEOs), and generally don't have a clue of what they should be doing.
The compensation of a CEO is not tied to performance, so they can be as idiotic as possible, ruin the company, and still have their huge payout.
Basically, CEOs have hoodwinked the world into believing they're extra special people with valuable skillsets, even when they don't.
Essentially being a CEO is a great scam, funded by the shareholders and the employees. Being a CEO has to be the easiest fucking job in the world .. because no matter the shit job you do you still make a huge sum of money, and people subsequently are willing to hire you in other companies on the assumption that, having been incompetent to be a CEO already, you're qualified for the job.
In my experience and observation, your average CEO is either a failed business person, or an engineer who got lucky in another company and now has an MBA ... they're just chimps who get paid vast sums of money if they win or lose.
And, of course, since the people who hire and fire CEOs are just as incompetent, and in on the scam, they will never decide to tie compensation to any meaningful level of results.
Cynically, I believe this is just a massive scam being perpetuated to make a bunch of assholes even richer, while not giving a crap what happens to the company or the stock price.
Me, I'd be an incompetent CEO for half the price ... and I'd probably do no better or worse, and then I'd get my severance package and retire.
A fucking drunk chimp could do as good of a job as most corporate CEOs. This is just another example.
Umm, yeah, and how many video game skills do you apply to daily life?
Are you an awesome assassin? A race car driver? A pilot? A marine? Are you actually Batman?
It's a frickin game. It is play. Nobody gives a crap in this context about playing an actual instrument. It's frickin air guitar. It's intended to be fun.
Horseshit. Millions of kids bought GTA and Saints Row to realize their dreams of become thugs, mac daddies, and pimps.
Do you think any of them actually expect to have that happen? (Well, I guess in some cases the just might.)
Dude, in the 80s there used to be this game called Simon. It had four colored lights to press. You can still buy it.
This is shared fun, with "press colored buttons in sequence with colored lights" but with music and animations. It's not sophisticated or real. It's not for hardcore gamers.
Most 'skills' you practice in video games will never translate into real world skills or get you an interview. So why is this any different?
You don't need to like it or understand it, but it's not completely without entertainment value to some people ... even if they don't actually become Rock Bands. Which, none of them actually expect to.
No more than any other game with a "make pretend" aspect to it.
Cheers
LOL ... I do now. Prior to rock band, absolutely not. Now based on drum rate I can tell old v new Metallica -- or at least know it's either Metallica or Anthrax (based on what else is in my collection that is).
And, obviously, I do not think real drumming is easy, not by a bloody long shot ... but she's hella good at it in the game. Way way better than I ever got. She was rocking it on expert and I was in awe.
But prior to that, it was all a blur of screeching noise that I couldn't stand.
Now? Metallica and a bunch of hard core punk are likely to be on my iPod.
As I said, my wife is eternally grateful for the game, as my musical horizons have blown past what they had been.
LOL ... well then, carry on by all means.
You know, my wife will be eternally grateful for Rock Band, et al.
I led a very, er ... musically sheltered life prior to Rockband and Guitar Hero. Wasn't a fan of most forms of rock, couldn't stand metal or punk. Like, at all.
The Rockbank type games taught me a LOT about the melody, structure, and musicality of them; sort of acted as a crash course in understanding why they didn't suck.
Since then I've bought well over a hundred punk albums (literally) and other stuff I previously didn't like since playing the game.
Say what you will about these games ... but in my direct experience, nothing teaches the structure and musicality of a broad range of music as well as these things.
For me and my wife? We'd buy this again in a heartbeat ... because it's a fun game to play in parties, and a friend's wife makes drumming on expert look easy.
So when I'm rocking out to Rise Against in the car, my wife is laughing and saying "Thank god for Rockband". Because without those games, I most certainly wouldn't have been.
LOL ... is this a thing? Like, an actual thing people do?
Honestly, yes, he died of smoking.
But he was 83. What is the median age of death?
It's like the great lines from George Burns:
"News for Nerds. Stuff that matters".
The passing of Leonard Nimoy matters to most of us.
Nobody promised you happy news. Not now, not ever.
There were actually two.
The second sequel pretended the stupid, implausible script from the first sequel had never happened. And then it produced it's own stupid implausible script.
For all purposes of discussion, anything which claims to be a sequel to Highlander doesn't exist to anybody except the people who wrote them.
Highlander was a story which really couldn't have a sequel, nor should it have. It was beautifully complete on its own, and should have stayed that way.
Even the TV series technically couldn't have existed without pretending the movie didn't happen, but then they still brought in the original guy eventually and did some strange stuff.
There can be only one.
Well, they are and they aren't.
The GP has a point, they are biological in nature, not mechanical.
Sebastian was a bio-engineer, and said he suffered the same problem as the replicants, premature aging.
So, they're not robots. But "more human than human", which means some of our limitations have been removed, but still built out of the same stuff.
It was never clear in the movie if the replicants ever started out as "babies", or sort of started out fully formed ... so to answer the GPs question about how we know they don't age ... I guess we don't, because we don't know much about their lifecycle, other than they don't live very long.
It could be an interesting movie. Cynically, I fear it is just there to make more money and not tell a good story.
And that's kind of the problem ... Blade Runner would be a terrible movie to a kid.
The appeal of Blade Runner was, in part, the world they created: gritty, dark, decaying -- contrasted with the high-tech world of the wealthy. The story was much more sophisticated than a kid is going to get, it's definitely not space opera -- and understanding some of the stuff which is more insinuated than stated is a lot harder.
For me, the one labelled "The Director's Cut" restores some of the film noire elements, does a little more filling in the gaps, and makes more sense. The theatrical version lost some stuff in translation and dumbed it down a little.
I see there's now a "Definitive Edition", but I've not seen it and don't know much about it.
Find the Director's cut, and pay special attention to the things which suggest Decker is a replicant (sorry if that's a spoiler, but I assume this has been well known for a very long time), and have fun.
IMO, it really is a damned fine movie.
Obviously, I will defer to someone with better grasp of the physiology here ... because this isn't my field.
But I think it's fair to say that connecting the spinal cord is going to need more remediation than simple physiotherapy.
And, unless they somehow account for how Deckard the replicant has grown old ... I just don't see how they get there at all. He's not just a hunter of them, he is one.
So either they start this one in which Deckard isn't a replicant, and they'll piss off the fans of the movie. Or they'll have to treat very carefully to explain it.
There are some movies and stories which do not invite sequels. This is one of them.
Cynically, this sounds like someone looking to make some more money, not someone with a good follow up story for Blade Runner.
So, here's the problem with that ... in addition to motor skills, your spinal column handles all of the autonomic stuff ... you know, heart beat, digestion, breathing, all that stuff which is controlled by the brain.
If you don't have those things connected properly, you will die. Plain and simple. This is leaps and bounds beyond physiotherapy. This is the entire function of your body which is controlled by the brain, which, last I checked, is pretty much all of it.
This isn't something where you can jam the two ends together and wait a few years until your brain remaps everything. Not unless you plan on keeping someone on extensive life support until the brain re-learns how to tell all of those other parts how to operate the body.
I just don't see this being viable, not unless you plan on spending zillions of dollars to keep someone alive until possibly the brain remaps some connections.
In which case this is a "treatment" which is only ever going to be viable for billionaires, because the resources to keep them alive in the mean time would be utterly staggering.
If all you're doing is designing a treatment for billionaires ... well, experiment on the billionaires then.
Oh, I don't know ... how about we spare the rats, and test on lawyers, MBAs, politicians, lobbyists, and CEOs?
Make the world a better place in more than one way.
You know what would be far better?
Making the patent office liable for passing overly-broad patents, which aren't actually innovations, and which simply fall into "a system and methodology for going something we've been doing in the real world for decades, but with a computer ".
Put some actual onus on the patent office to not simply be chimps who rubber stamp inventions and collect fees, and legal liability on patent applicants who basically play a shell game to essentially patent an idea and not an invention.
By the time you are at a jury, the system has failed so badly as to be useless.
If the patent office allows a patent for something which already exists, or which is fairly obvious, or is merely an idea ... they're bloody incompetent, and essentially are the problem.
Specifically I was thinking of the fact that 3D printing tends to want to lay down a little layer at a time, instead of a continuous sheet as you need to have in ravioli. Otherwise the dough would simply all apart.
Are you a condescending asshole in real life, or just the internet?
I know a lot about food and cooking, as well as the machines used for it ... 3D printing, as it applies to food, a little less.
So, if this machine is going to roll out a continuous sheet of pasta onto a tray with indentations, pass over that and put in the topping, and then roll out a continuous sheet on top .. well, that's not so much 3D printing as robotic assembly.
If it's going to lay down a tiny little layer of pasta dough in successive layers ... well, you're not going to get a coherent dough, you're going to get the slime I alluded to when you try to boil it.
I have no problem with the concept of a pasta making machine ... I've seen machines which make tortelloni. I've also seen machines which make ravioli. They're both really cool, and work with the pasta as a continuous sheet as you need to so that it stays together.
But when you describe something as 3D printing, and all it's doing it rolling out a sheet of pasta ... to call it "3D printing" is to kind of abuse the term. There are already machines which make those pastas on commercial scales, has been for a very long time.
What I'm skeptical about is if this is actually "3D printing" in any meaningful sense of the word.
Well, yeah ... and this has been true since the PATRIOT Act was passed.
The US is now an inherently untrustworthy nation as far as data and technology goes.
You can't say it's your right to spy on everybody and then be surprised when the rest of the world tells you to piss off.
I should think US firms would be becoming pariahs around the world -- because the only rational thing you can do is to assume that any US company which has access to your data is being forced to spy on you. Because, they pretty much are.
The amazing thing is Americans might start to act like whiny bitches who say "but that's not fair to stop buying our stuff because we're spying on you", and wouldn't understand why there is no way they can be trusted.
So, congratulations, America. You've shot yourselves in the foot. And all of a sudden no sane person outside of the US can trust you with data. Don't act all surprised.
At some point, I'm expecting some aggressive whining about trade agreements to try to force people to buy products which will spy on them as the government throws a tantrum protesting the logical outcomes of their own policy.
Having billions of dollars in exports disappear is pretty much what the US should expect.
LOL ... since when do chefs have time to hang out on Slashdot? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
More on topic, I don't see how 3D printing pasta is going to work, for example. You're going to probably end up with some slime which comes apart when you cook it.
It won't be an actual dough, it's going to be ... well, I don't know what exactly. I just don't see this retaining the properties of dough.
I can see some of the molecular wizards like Wylie Dufresne or poeople like that, doing wacky things .. but the example of ravioli just seems like this wouldn't work at all.
This sounds more like the domain of crap food made at commercial scales, than actual good food prepared by chefs.
You want to play 'semantic games'?
When 'opsec' is outlawed, only outlaws will have opsec.
In other words: if you're employing opsec, you will be construed as a terrorist, and the NSA et al will use even more secret laws to fuck you over even more.
There is no scenario in this security paranoid world in which being secretive about your actions isn't red flags.
Which is precisely why these 'intelligence' outfits need to have much shorter leashes. Quite possibly suspended from trees high enough to keep their feet off the ground.
In this opsec boils down to "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear", and the fucking fascists have won. It is now illegal to make it difficult for the government to spy on you when it wishes to.
Yeah, and tell us, what is the track record of the financial and executive teams ability to prognosticate?
Yes, you need to be able to estimate to run the business.
But let's not pretend the average CEO, sales wanker, or marketing idiot has ANY better track record at making guesses about the future. In fact, in my experience, they're overly optimistic, not founded in anything real, and mostly pulled out of their ass of based on what Gartner tells them.
We can give you an estimate, but people have to understand that an estimate inherently carries uncertainty, and that they're equally inept over the long run of estimating the parts they're responsible for.
I've lost track of the times I've rolled by eyes when a CEO tells us what six months down the road will be ... and they have the ability waste far more money on fools errands and bad predictions.
We're not dissociated from reality ... we're the ones trying to explain reality to people who live in fantasy land.
But don't act for a minute like our estimates carry any more risk than those bullshit sales figures the idiots at the top are making.
On the one hand, it's pretty much impossible to do any project planning with no estimates.
On the other hand, some things are impossible to estimate until you do them.
Years ago I worked with a manager who kept repeating that bad estimates were a project risk and we should give good estimates. We kept telling him that an estimate is, by definition, based on incomplete knowledge and before you have done the work and that if he had a time machine we could give him better estimates.
If I knew exactly how long it would take, and what unforseen things I'd be running into ... it wouldn't be a frickin' estimate, now would it?
People treat estimates like you're expected to have perfect knowledge of the future, and then build their world around those estimates.
I have seen a tremendous amount of bullshit and stupidity from people who do not understand what an estimate is, and how it's done.
I don't think you can get rid of estimates entirely ... but management needs to stop being so stupid about how they interpret them.
If we could tell you for a fact exactly how long it would take, it wouldn't be a fucking estimate.
I rank how people do estimates right up there with how some PMs want you to track your time ... once had a PM say he wanted me to account for my time in 5 minute increments. And I told him in no uncertain terms that would mean 2 out of every 5 minutes would be spent documenting what I'd done the last two minutes, and there would be an additional 1 minute of lost time in each 5 minute increment doing to context switch back to what I was working, and that effectively 60% of my time would be wasted on his stupidity.
And then I told him to piss off.
Sorry, but what? Pretty much every technological advance we've ever made has been about someone being lazy.
So, tell you what, stop using the wheel, the lever, an engine, electricity, refrigeration, or pretty much anything which takes the work out for you.
Stop being such a lazy bastard and ignore all modern progress which reduces your labor.
Otherwise you're full of crap.
Tell you what.
First, we'll kill all of the people who run analytics companies, and destroy all of their data.
Then we'll pass sane consumer protection laws which limit what they can collect about you, and what they can do with it.
Then we might start to talk about how to pay for the internet.
Right now on Slashdot as I type this, Google, Ooyala, Rpxnow, Scorecard research, Janrain, Double Click, Comscore ... all of these entities would be tracking me if I wasn't blocking them.
I'm not willing to accept their bullshit "by visiting this site you give us unlimited rights to track, monitor, collate, sell, and otherwise abuse your data". I have no relationship with those companies, and I get no compensation for being their "product". Which means I will block the hell out of anything which is going to help Slashdot profit from douchebags.
I have no business relationship with these analytics and advertising companies.
Take these assholes out of the equation, or don't even talk to me about how to fund the internet. I'm not funding someone's website with my personal information.
Fuck that.
The notion that some greedy corporation should feel entitled to my data is the problem. Finding ways to accommodate them is not the solution.
Thanks, assholes, now we're going to have to figure out how to block this crap in HTML 5.
Will someone please kick the Google CEO in the crotch?
I'm tired of the internet being shat upon by asshole marketers.