This is interesting point that I think should be further discussed. Would you want *your* car to be used by somebody else?
No, at which point the assumption is there is no more private ownership of cars.
At least, not for us plebes.
The wealthy? Oh, sure, they'll get their luxury vehicles which get to drive in the fast lane and all that fun stuff. The rust of us will be driving around in dirty smelly Johnny Cabs which are shared among everybody.
And, once again, the utopian future falls on its face for the simple fact that a) nobody wants it, b) nobody can afford it, and c) because it will never really scale anyway.
Driverless is not very accurate description of what is going on. Semi-autonomous seems a bit better but lacks marketing flash.
The car is either autonomous, or it isn't. If it isn't autonomous, I'll drive it myself and be in control the whole time.
Semi-autonomous means we'll give you the illusion you're not in control, but we might randomly shift blame to you.
Either the car is 100% in control, or the driver is 100% in control. There is no gray area in which both are in control. There is no transition from "car in charge" to "human in charge".
It has to be all or nothing. Semi-autonomous is a huge bit of weaseling to say "we're mostly in control, but you're responsible". It can't be a fluid thing where once you've dozed off or started doing something related to not driving the car where all of a sudden you are in control and must react.
If you really think liability is going to be determined by what firmware the car is running, and who is responsible for updating it... then I will tell you right now, driverless cars will forever be in the domain of a gimmick, but for which the actual laws aren't inadequate. And, if the laws aren't adequate, you either need to fix all of the laws, or basically say you can't have driverless cars.
Me, I'd refuse to take any responsibility for the vehicle, and wouldn't sit in an operators seat. Either the car has it and can handle it, or it bloody well can't.
And, until someone settles the legal questions of "what happens when I'm sleeping in my backseat with nobody to interact with the car", being in a legal gray area more or less nullifies anything supposedly useful about a "semi autonomous car".
current California law would have the person in the driver's seat responsible
The car is either driverless, or it isn't. Either the car maker is responsible, or the owner is.
But, really, who the hell is going to take liability for a device which says "I'm in charge of driving, you just sit there" right up until it goes into panic mode half a second before you impact with something and says "bummer dude, you're now in charge, evade quickly, liability transferred to passenger".
Sorry, but if I'm sitting there reading my newspaper or whatever, I'm not controlling the vehicle. If I'm responsible for controlling the vehicle, then I will actually be controlling the vehicle.
There's simply no room for a sudden shift in blame to the person in the drivers seat... that makes no sense whatsoever.
And if the car suddenly loses its marbles and mows down a bunch of schoolkids, you think the cargo/passengers suddenly own responsibility for that?
This to me has always been the point at which driverless cars kind of fall apart, determining who is really in charge, and defining what that means.
I'm pretty sure a policy that prohibits frank discussion is exactly what will open them up to punitive damages
Was coming to say something similar.
Essentially GM has banned its employees from speaking the truth, and instead have set themselves up to apply marketing spin instead of saying what happened.
If they knew the issues and were barred from honestly saying what happened... I would hope that gets them into a lot of trouble.
There are orders of magnitude more societies in history that would've stoned a pedophile to death rather than let him serve his time and live again as a free man with some restrictions.
Hmmm... is that actually true?
Given the historical practices of marrying girls off quite young, I sort of get the impression that a lot of things which would have been considered "normal" throughout history are now classified as being a pedophile.
I've always thought that marrying off what we would consider pre-teens was pretty common up until comparatively recently.
I think historically where people had much shorter lifespans, this was actually pretty common practice.
I'm not defending it or advocating it, but I just don't buy the notion that more societies in history would have stoned someone who married what we would now consider a child.
History is full of what we'd call aberrant behavior, which was considered perfectly normal at the time. And your assertion seems like projecting backwards something that wasn't true.
"Is being technology literate a requirement to be a lobbyist for the cable companies?"
I'd say so. Otherwise, how is the lobbyist to deal with facing an actual technology expert?
Don't they mostly lobby politicians?
So imagine you're the one technology guy in a room full of politicians and lobbyists. Is your attempt to say he's full of shit going to be:
a) Met with sage nods and pointed questions b) Met with being told to STFU because the big boys are talking
Given how liberally the lobbyists sprinkle around money, I seriously doubt most of them are ever directly confronted with an actual technology expert. And, in all likelihood, if they are they have someone in tow who can field the questions and still keep up the party line.
You seem to assume an honest system of debate. I'm not convinced.
When decisions flow (like shit) from the top down, the people who can actually refute the claims probably aren't ever in the same room as the lobbyists. That could set a dangerous precedent of evidence based decision making.
Well, apparently, being literate isn't a requirement to talk about technological literacy. Note that "technology" is a NOUN, and cannot be used to modify another noun
Wow, you are actually an asshole, and apparently not familiar with the English language.
Computer is a noun. But you can be computer literate.
Technology can encompass specific things (this piece of technology) or the entire spectrum of things (technology allows us to do many things):
Technology is the making, modification, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, and methods of organization, in order to solve a problem, improve a pre-existing solution to a problem, achieve a goal, handle an applied input/output relation or perform a specific function. It can also refer to the collection of such tools, including machinery, modifications, arrangements and procedures.
So how about you take your own brand of stupidity and illiteracy, and fuck the hell off?
If you think "technology literate" is less valid that "technologically literate", you lack enough understanding of the English language.
But, hey, you can go be computerologically literate in your moms basement if you like. She might even let you stay up late and have some soda and have some friends over, assuming you have any.
Wheeler is hardly "technology illiterate". He was a lobbyist for cable companies!
Wait... what?
Is being technology literate a requirement to be a lobbyist for the cable companies? Or is willingness to follow the official line and recite buzzwords more important? It seems like a lawyer with good connections is a more effective lobbyist than someone with a technology background. God knows the people they're lobbying don't know anything about the technology.
Steve Ballmer isn't someone I'd consider to be overly technology literate. I've certainly known software sales people who aren't technology literate. And I've even known a couple of managers in either software or IT who I wouldn't consider technology literate. Those MBAs I've encountered making business decisions in technology companies, sure as hell weren't technology literate.
I'm not disputing that, as a former cable lobbyist, he was always going to be someone who came down on their side and you can pretty much say he's not looking at this from any other position than what's good for cable companies.
But, without knowing his technology background and actual level of knowledge... I'm still not prepared to rule out stupidity. Not even a little.
Wheeler said his plan has been misconstrued and that it would not allow broadband providers to block any legal content or slow down connections in a way that is commercially unreasonable.
I don't need to follow any of the links in that submission to know that "commercially unreasonable" can be construed to be "to maximize profits".
In other words, he's laying the groundwork for them to do as they please, with the standard that seeking to gouge your customers is "commercially reasonable", and asking for extortion fees to make sure what you're already selling works continues to isn't "unreasonable".
There is no need to reboot windows servers all the time either
Windows machines more than anything else I've seen.
Hell, I've heard of rebooting referred to as the "universal Microsoft patch". I have seen endless things where the first words out of some support guy are "have you rebooted?". I've seen Windows admins say "acting flaky, nothing in the logs, reboot it and see if it helps".
Sadly, I've noticed that a high percentage of things actually do get resolved with a reboot.
My wife once spent several days trying to help a client debug something in a production environment. She suggested "maybe we just reboot it" on day one and was shouted down. By about day 4 even the vendor was saying "we don't know, maybe just reboot it". When they did, the problem went away.
And, they could have had it "fixed" on day 1, because nobody had any more information after the reboot than before, other than "wow, it seems to be working now".
(In fairness, this is not unique to Microsoft, and they've gotten much better -- but there are still many mysterious faults which seem to go away with a reboot. So much so we've actually scheduled machines for a weekly reboot, just so it never got into whatever borked state it would get into after 2+ weeks.)
Wait you mean pop music and huge hollywood films aren't written to a formula?
Well, Ang Lee's Hulk, and pretty much anything by Uwe Boll demonstrate that, formulaic and lowest common denominator aren't necessarily going to be successful. And, not all pop music and Hollywood films are successful -- eg that John Carter movie.
Sometimes, you can take your boring ass formula and cheap pap too far, and then nobody likes it.
How many super hero movies are we on now?
Before X-Men, super hero movies were almost universally crap. Super hero movies which don't respect the original material are still crap -- if neither the comic book fans nor mainstream audiences like what you've done, you're pretty much going to tank.
When the comic companies themselves started having a hand in the movies, and insisting on a level of integrity to the original source, they succeeded in making movies which appealed to the nerds and the normals. When you can do that, you're not exactly just pandering to the lowest common denominator.
That Di$ney now owns Marvel, does make me question how much they'll follow the usual formula and release endlessly bad sequels until people just tune it out. But for now, based on the box office numbers, the Marvel stuff is holding great appeal, and is pretty far from lowest common denominator based on a tired formula. That non-comic book people are enjoying these movies means they've struck a good balance between the various aspects of it.
Hell, if they'd make Thor take his shirt off for at least 5 minutes/movie, they would likely increase their female audience. Because my wife sure as hell says she wants that. She says it doesn't have to be much, but that if Hemsworth isn't going to be shirtless she doesn't care.
And I would gladly accept that if it meant we got to see the super-hero movies in the theater.;-)
Because Redhat is a platinum level director of the OpenStack project and have a vested interest in its general success as an open source project.
Which in no way means they should be expending their resources to support whatever random bit of code you've chosen to install.
They can 'support' the project, be in favor of its adoption, but when the the call comes in of "it is broken, make it go", they really have to draw the line and say "we can't help you resolve problems in the stuff we didn't write" -- otherwise they'd endlessly be debugging someone else's code.
If you sold software, would you support a client who has swapped out some of the components and now has a broken system? If you did, you'd be losing money hand over fist.
Hell, I've seen lots of vendors who more or less say "we don't support Citrix, if you have an issue, it needs to be repeatable outside of Citrix" -- because supporting the rest of your infrastructure isn't something they want to be doing.
or are they refusing to support Red Hat Linux when it is used to run a third party application?
Well, it sounds like:
that, based on documents it reviewed, Red Hat "has chosen not to provide support to its commercial Linux customers if they use rival versions of OpenStack."
My guess would be "since you're not running our version of OpenStack, we can't support you if you have issues with that version of OpenStack.
I suspect RH is still giving you support for core functionality they know about.
This sounds more like you've bought a car, replaced the transmission with a 3rd party one, and are coming back to the car maker for warranty on your transmission.
They can't deny you coverage on your engine (unless they can show your transmission broke it), but you're completely on your own with the transmission.
In other words, Red Hat will support the pieces they gave you, but if you swap out pieces, you are entirely on your own for the care and feeding of those.
And, really, that sounds entirely reasonable to me.
We once had a piece of software which shipped as being tested against a specific set of Java/application server combinations. We made it clear there were some combinations we had never tried, tested, certified, or even seen and definitely would not support. The client spent several weeks jamming it into IBMs Websphere, against our advice and warnings we couldn't (and wouldn't) support it. They made all sorts of config changes, shoe horned in settings in the IBM stuff, and generally bashed it into place.
When they had issues and we said "you need to reproduce this using the stuff we support", they started to get irate and threaten legal action. When our team of lawyers spelled out that they'd essentially Frankensteined together something which we told them we can't support, and that we had explicitly told them this before they started having problems someone higher up their food chain swatted down their own people.
If you insist on changing some of the parts, don't expect your vendor to support the parts you have now taken ownership of. That is your damned problem.
Why anybody would expect Red Hat to support components they didn't ship is beyond me.
Someone comes along and claims to have the perfect formula for writing a book, or a song, or music.
They distill it down to its dreary essence, optimize based on what the focus groups say, and then produce utter dreck.
Some of the best movies, books, and songs would NOT have passed through these design by committee things. And many more which do pass through these things should have never seen the light of day.
Every time I see one of these things I think "OK, we'll see everything done like this for a while, people will hate it, and they'll move onto something else".
If this shit worked, there wouldn't be huge Hollywood films which fall on their face because nobody is interested. All it really does it make lowest common denominator stuff which nobody actually likes.
Obviously to make the most shiny game make the most money or they wouldn't be trying.
I would qualify that and say that might make the most money.
But AAA titles have flopped, just like big budget Hollywood movies.
It is, however, entirely possible to still produce crap with a large budget, just like big budget Hollywood movies.
Sometimes, the people in control have no idea of what really makes a good product, they just take a checklist of everything from every other successful title and cram it in.
I think $500 million to develop a game either means you really are sure you're going to make huge amounts of money, or you've really jumped the shark and made Waterworld.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
So, maybe someone needs to design a mouse trap knowing this.
Put it in the middle of your kitchen, when the mice stop by and go "oooh, shiny wheel" ... blamo.
I'm not sure what exact mechanism of blamo would work within a wheel, but that's an exercise for whoever gets to the patent office first. ;-)
But if they're drawn to it, it sounds like it would be effective.
Because judges have ruled that corporations are people too, and that money is equal to speech.
Ergo, corporations and rich people can have more 'speech' by virtue of having more money.
Like it or hate it, that's the law of the land.
No, at which point the assumption is there is no more private ownership of cars.
At least, not for us plebes.
The wealthy? Oh, sure, they'll get their luxury vehicles which get to drive in the fast lane and all that fun stuff. The rust of us will be driving around in dirty smelly Johnny Cabs which are shared among everybody.
And, once again, the utopian future falls on its face for the simple fact that a) nobody wants it, b) nobody can afford it, and c) because it will never really scale anyway.
The car is either autonomous, or it isn't. If it isn't autonomous, I'll drive it myself and be in control the whole time.
Semi-autonomous means we'll give you the illusion you're not in control, but we might randomly shift blame to you.
Either the car is 100% in control, or the driver is 100% in control. There is no gray area in which both are in control. There is no transition from "car in charge" to "human in charge".
It has to be all or nothing. Semi-autonomous is a huge bit of weaseling to say "we're mostly in control, but you're responsible". It can't be a fluid thing where once you've dozed off or started doing something related to not driving the car where all of a sudden you are in control and must react.
If you really think liability is going to be determined by what firmware the car is running, and who is responsible for updating it ... then I will tell you right now, driverless cars will forever be in the domain of a gimmick, but for which the actual laws aren't inadequate. And, if the laws aren't adequate, you either need to fix all of the laws, or basically say you can't have driverless cars.
Me, I'd refuse to take any responsibility for the vehicle, and wouldn't sit in an operators seat. Either the car has it and can handle it, or it bloody well can't.
And, until someone settles the legal questions of "what happens when I'm sleeping in my backseat with nobody to interact with the car", being in a legal gray area more or less nullifies anything supposedly useful about a "semi autonomous car".
The car is either driverless, or it isn't. Either the car maker is responsible, or the owner is.
But, really, who the hell is going to take liability for a device which says "I'm in charge of driving, you just sit there" right up until it goes into panic mode half a second before you impact with something and says "bummer dude, you're now in charge, evade quickly, liability transferred to passenger".
Sorry, but if I'm sitting there reading my newspaper or whatever, I'm not controlling the vehicle. If I'm responsible for controlling the vehicle, then I will actually be controlling the vehicle.
There's simply no room for a sudden shift in blame to the person in the drivers seat ... that makes no sense whatsoever.
And if the car suddenly loses its marbles and mows down a bunch of schoolkids, you think the cargo/passengers suddenly own responsibility for that?
This to me has always been the point at which driverless cars kind of fall apart, determining who is really in charge, and defining what that means.
I wonder why you'd assume that if Facebook was interested in it it wouldn't be a mass-market product.
Facebook didn't spend $2 billion dollars on something they think hardly anybody will use.
Ownership by Facebook immediately makes it technology I don't want. Not now, not ever.
Was coming to say something similar.
Essentially GM has banned its employees from speaking the truth, and instead have set themselves up to apply marketing spin instead of saying what happened.
If they knew the issues and were barred from honestly saying what happened ... I would hope that gets them into a lot of trouble.
Kind of by definition, as you've essentially expanded the acronym. :-P
Hmmm ... is that actually true?
Given the historical practices of marrying girls off quite young, I sort of get the impression that a lot of things which would have been considered "normal" throughout history are now classified as being a pedophile.
I've always thought that marrying off what we would consider pre-teens was pretty common up until comparatively recently.
I think historically where people had much shorter lifespans, this was actually pretty common practice.
I'm not defending it or advocating it, but I just don't buy the notion that more societies in history would have stoned someone who married what we would now consider a child.
History is full of what we'd call aberrant behavior, which was considered perfectly normal at the time. And your assertion seems like projecting backwards something that wasn't true.
And, to put that into perspective, Jupiter is likely, what, several billion years old?
To expect that this has been a permanent feature of Jupiter is thinking on human timescales.
On astronomical timescales, this may well be a transient blip.
Don't they mostly lobby politicians?
So imagine you're the one technology guy in a room full of politicians and lobbyists. Is your attempt to say he's full of shit going to be:
a) Met with sage nods and pointed questions
b) Met with being told to STFU because the big boys are talking
Given how liberally the lobbyists sprinkle around money, I seriously doubt most of them are ever directly confronted with an actual technology expert. And, in all likelihood, if they are they have someone in tow who can field the questions and still keep up the party line.
You seem to assume an honest system of debate. I'm not convinced.
When decisions flow (like shit) from the top down, the people who can actually refute the claims probably aren't ever in the same room as the lobbyists. That could set a dangerous precedent of evidence based decision making.
Oh, and "literate" isn't even a bloody noun in this context, moron.
Wow, you are actually an asshole, and apparently not familiar with the English language.
Computer is a noun. But you can be computer literate.
Technology can encompass specific things (this piece of technology) or the entire spectrum of things (technology allows us to do many things):
So how about you take your own brand of stupidity and illiteracy, and fuck the hell off?
If you think "technology literate" is less valid that "technologically literate", you lack enough understanding of the English language.
But, hey, you can go be computerologically literate in your moms basement if you like. She might even let you stay up late and have some soda and have some friends over, assuming you have any.
Fixed that for you.
They're pretty much all lying sacks of shit on the payroll of large corporations. The only difference is the issues they get bat-shit crazy over.
Wait ... what?
Is being technology literate a requirement to be a lobbyist for the cable companies? Or is willingness to follow the official line and recite buzzwords more important? It seems like a lawyer with good connections is a more effective lobbyist than someone with a technology background. God knows the people they're lobbying don't know anything about the technology.
Steve Ballmer isn't someone I'd consider to be overly technology literate. I've certainly known software sales people who aren't technology literate. And I've even known a couple of managers in either software or IT who I wouldn't consider technology literate. Those MBAs I've encountered making business decisions in technology companies, sure as hell weren't technology literate.
I'm not disputing that, as a former cable lobbyist, he was always going to be someone who came down on their side and you can pretty much say he's not looking at this from any other position than what's good for cable companies.
But, without knowing his technology background and actual level of knowledge ... I'm still not prepared to rule out stupidity. Not even a little.
I don't need to follow any of the links in that submission to know that "commercially unreasonable" can be construed to be "to maximize profits".
In other words, he's laying the groundwork for them to do as they please, with the standard that seeking to gouge your customers is "commercially reasonable", and asking for extortion fees to make sure what you're already selling works continues to isn't "unreasonable".
Same shit. Different asshole.
Windows machines more than anything else I've seen.
Hell, I've heard of rebooting referred to as the "universal Microsoft patch". I have seen endless things where the first words out of some support guy are "have you rebooted?". I've seen Windows admins say "acting flaky, nothing in the logs, reboot it and see if it helps".
Sadly, I've noticed that a high percentage of things actually do get resolved with a reboot.
My wife once spent several days trying to help a client debug something in a production environment. She suggested "maybe we just reboot it" on day one and was shouted down. By about day 4 even the vendor was saying "we don't know, maybe just reboot it". When they did, the problem went away.
And, they could have had it "fixed" on day 1, because nobody had any more information after the reboot than before, other than "wow, it seems to be working now".
(In fairness, this is not unique to Microsoft, and they've gotten much better -- but there are still many mysterious faults which seem to go away with a reboot. So much so we've actually scheduled machines for a weekly reboot, just so it never got into whatever borked state it would get into after 2+ weeks.)
Well, Ang Lee's Hulk, and pretty much anything by Uwe Boll demonstrate that, formulaic and lowest common denominator aren't necessarily going to be successful. And, not all pop music and Hollywood films are successful -- eg that John Carter movie.
Sometimes, you can take your boring ass formula and cheap pap too far, and then nobody likes it.
Before X-Men, super hero movies were almost universally crap. Super hero movies which don't respect the original material are still crap -- if neither the comic book fans nor mainstream audiences like what you've done, you're pretty much going to tank.
When the comic companies themselves started having a hand in the movies, and insisting on a level of integrity to the original source, they succeeded in making movies which appealed to the nerds and the normals. When you can do that, you're not exactly just pandering to the lowest common denominator.
That Di$ney now owns Marvel, does make me question how much they'll follow the usual formula and release endlessly bad sequels until people just tune it out. But for now, based on the box office numbers, the Marvel stuff is holding great appeal, and is pretty far from lowest common denominator based on a tired formula. That non-comic book people are enjoying these movies means they've struck a good balance between the various aspects of it.
Hell, if they'd make Thor take his shirt off for at least 5 minutes/movie, they would likely increase their female audience. Because my wife sure as hell says she wants that. She says it doesn't have to be much, but that if Hemsworth isn't going to be shirtless she doesn't care.
And I would gladly accept that if it meant we got to see the super-hero movies in the theater. ;-)
Which in no way means they should be expending their resources to support whatever random bit of code you've chosen to install.
They can 'support' the project, be in favor of its adoption, but when the the call comes in of "it is broken, make it go", they really have to draw the line and say "we can't help you resolve problems in the stuff we didn't write" -- otherwise they'd endlessly be debugging someone else's code.
If you sold software, would you support a client who has swapped out some of the components and now has a broken system? If you did, you'd be losing money hand over fist.
Hell, I've seen lots of vendors who more or less say "we don't support Citrix, if you have an issue, it needs to be repeatable outside of Citrix" -- because supporting the rest of your infrastructure isn't something they want to be doing.
Well, it sounds like:
My guess would be "since you're not running our version of OpenStack, we can't support you if you have issues with that version of OpenStack.
I suspect RH is still giving you support for core functionality they know about.
This sounds more like you've bought a car, replaced the transmission with a 3rd party one, and are coming back to the car maker for warranty on your transmission.
They can't deny you coverage on your engine (unless they can show your transmission broke it), but you're completely on your own with the transmission.
In other words, Red Hat will support the pieces they gave you, but if you swap out pieces, you are entirely on your own for the care and feeding of those.
And, really, that sounds entirely reasonable to me.
We once had a piece of software which shipped as being tested against a specific set of Java/application server combinations. We made it clear there were some combinations we had never tried, tested, certified, or even seen and definitely would not support. The client spent several weeks jamming it into IBMs Websphere, against our advice and warnings we couldn't (and wouldn't) support it. They made all sorts of config changes, shoe horned in settings in the IBM stuff, and generally bashed it into place.
When they had issues and we said "you need to reproduce this using the stuff we support", they started to get irate and threaten legal action. When our team of lawyers spelled out that they'd essentially Frankensteined together something which we told them we can't support, and that we had explicitly told them this before they started having problems someone higher up their food chain swatted down their own people.
If you insist on changing some of the parts, don't expect your vendor to support the parts you have now taken ownership of. That is your damned problem.
Why anybody would expect Red Hat to support components they didn't ship is beyond me.
Someone comes along and claims to have the perfect formula for writing a book, or a song, or music.
They distill it down to its dreary essence, optimize based on what the focus groups say, and then produce utter dreck.
Some of the best movies, books, and songs would NOT have passed through these design by committee things. And many more which do pass through these things should have never seen the light of day.
Every time I see one of these things I think "OK, we'll see everything done like this for a while, people will hate it, and they'll move onto something else".
If this shit worked, there wouldn't be huge Hollywood films which fall on their face because nobody is interested. All it really does it make lowest common denominator stuff which nobody actually likes.
I wonder if Sony appreciates that they try to be as much of a threat to privacy as does the NSA.
Hell, I strongly suspect Sony is a contributor to the NSAs data collection crap.
And they certainly employ the same tactics to bully people over copyright.
Because, Sony are collectively assholes.
I would qualify that and say that might make the most money.
But AAA titles have flopped, just like big budget Hollywood movies.
It is, however, entirely possible to still produce crap with a large budget, just like big budget Hollywood movies.
Sometimes, the people in control have no idea of what really makes a good product, they just take a checklist of everything from every other successful title and cram it in.
I think $500 million to develop a game either means you really are sure you're going to make huge amounts of money, or you've really jumped the shark and made Waterworld. ;-)
And shitting all over us.
Yo, Dawg ... I hear you like wormholes ...