>Look, officials have been complaining since day 1 that a big part of the problem is communications:
Lots of TV stations had live video feeds from the area, day 1.
Of course they are going to complain about technology, they are just covering themselves.
>emergency responders had little more to communicate with than hand-held radios and cell phones
Exactly what else do you need to communicate?
>The National Guard couldn't get in touch with New Orleans Police Department officers working the city streets.
Can you really say that if the National Guard or FEMA wanted to communicate with the local police they really couldn't? How much would it take to send some National Guard to the NO police department and hand them their radios? (Or are you saying that they should create a brand new wireless-network system because it would be easier/simplier?)
Communications is important, but they are installing brandnew cutting edge technology. That helps months from now, not today.
>That is a very simplistic way of looking at things and not necessarily correct.
Yes, thats exactly what the area needed, more complex time-consuming solutions to address the basic needs of life.
>Truckloads of ice and fresh water did not get to the right places in recent days due to a lack of communication.
It wasn't because of communications, it was because of leadership/government. I'm in Canada and I knew that they needed water, food and a place to sleep, just from casually watch TV. It was communicated to me, as I wasn't even looking for the information.
>Communications infrastructure, electricity and even computers make it a lot easier to organise fresh water, food and a place to sleep.
Now that is a simplistic statement. When the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami hit, many areas without only very basic communications and electricity and no computers got help faster than what was (is?) happened in NO. I suppose you could also say that comfy plush lazy-boy style chairs can also make it easier to organize things.
>We do not produce food, filter water, or build dikes. We do technology. You get that? Does every "Why won't someone thing of the..." moron understand this very simple point? This is our domain.
Um... what do you do during a blackout? Just lie there comatose becuase, hey, there is no technology and its "our domain"?
Look what is happening in Texas, look at the aid is coming from around the country. Its not mothers saying what is needed is not our domain, but here's some freshly baked cookies. Its not accountants saying what is needed is not our domain, but here's some tax advice.
Its humans helping humans. Is being human in your "domain"?
>obviously they try to give yo the same experience over and over, but the ingridients clearly have an effect on the taste as well,
It still doesn't matter. The point is that as much as they can control, it should be EXACTLY the same, just like a machine.
>A machine doesn't care if there is a "bad" spot on a fruit or piece of meat,
Um... a chef does? Even at home, are you really consistant with what is ok to eat and what is not?
>a machine also doesn't do a "taste test" to make sure it is okay.
The point is that it doesn't have to if it follows a recipe. Ask any line cook if they actually taste all 50 dishes a night before it goes out. Even at home, how much tolerence/variation to taste do you have on what you cook?
>a lot depends on the grapes, the barrel and the person making the wine.
Yes, but its still is big vats made in huge quantities.
>the idea that a machine can follow a recipe and spit out millions of the same stuff in a good way won't happen until you can molecularly create the food from scratch.
A good resturant produces the same food, EXACTLY the same, everytime you order it no matter what the time of day or day of the week or not matter how busy it is. Any variation is really considered a mistake. Too much salt? Mistake. Medium-rare is not as rare as you experienced before? Mistake. Really, once the recipe is given, any deviation is just sloppy work.
The goal is to have that machine like quality. Alot of recipes are exact. Adding exact measurments revolutionized home cooking.
Exactly what can a human add to the cooking process that a correctly designed and calibrated machine cannot? Say that I give a recipe to a robot and a human, why would the human's dish automatically be better?
>It's not the attitude of Microsoft that makes them evil, it's the business practices.
Look at the recent story with Google and CNet. Look at the details of their stock offering and exactly who still controls the company. And as the article mentioned look at the guy who got fired for joking on his personnel blog ( http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050209-0903 45 )
> Or a rational adult would assume the kids would learn their lesson.
Thats not what an rational adult would do. It was multiple times. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
> don't try to embarrass people who are more powerful than you unless you have an ace up your sleeve.
Nice lesson to teach kids. "Don't break the rules unless you can get away with it." Should we vote in a way to not embassess the powerful people? Should we not stand in court and say "No, that officer is wrong"? Should we do what we think is right and not what society tells us is right?
>These kids were clearly immature and had no respect for their superiors
>Taking the time to go to Opensecrets.org is a conscious thing,
So is going to Google.
>and the act implies a specific purpose of searching out someone's political views.
So looking for something specific is ok, but if its non-specific its not? So searching on Google with your name + "political views" is ok but just your name is not?
>this mouse falls entirely in line with Apple's philosophy and makes complete sense: it behaves like a one button mouse by default, and multi-button functionality can be enabled by users that require it.
So if I sit in front of a user's machine with this mouse for the first time I have to figure out if its programmed or not?
What sort of nightmares will occur with help-desk support now, when before they apparently have loads of problems with explaining left-right clicking? Now you have to guess/figure out what their mouse is programmed?
>You for discovering something and then waiting for a full peer review and analysis before presenting your data to the public.
They weren't waiting for peer review, they were waiting for another telescope for a more precise size. Sounds like they wanted their announcement to be more dramatic. The peer review would come later.
>Fuck you to the hackers who feel that something like this needed to be public without review.
If it came from an anonoymous email/message on the Internet, how does this hurt the astronomers/researchers? I remember when Fermat's Last Therom was proved there was alot of rumors about it beforehand. I don't think that Wiles ever complained about this.
>If it was 'revealed' and then found to be false,
You will never be sure if its false or not, peer review doesn't automatically make it "TRUE". Alot of bad science has been peer reviewed and published.
>some script kiddie illegally, immorally, and unethically published the data before it was reviewed.
The person used publically available information, nothing was illegal.
It's true that the information was available without breaking into any sites.
>the true facts would have been buried in the mess.
Thats pretty ironic since the "hackers" were just trying to get the true facts out there.
>MS is held up as an evil example because they do evil to individuals.
Its an abstract evil that really only effects really well-off people of the world.
"MS prevented me from choosing from a variety of word processers that all do the same thing." "MS raised the price of computers, even though PC are pretty cheap"
Whereas with other companies its; "Company X are selling corn that is technically a pesticide and aren't allowing me to know about it." "Company Y is financially helping to support warlords who commit attrocities" "Company Z is destroying the traditional lives of people for short-term profit"
If you think MS is doing evil to individuals, you need to open your eyes.
IBM makes $2 billion/year from patent licenses. With that amount of money and over 10000 patents in diverse areas, they make MS look like a grade-school bully. From: http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html
After IBM's presentation, our turn came. As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed." But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference. Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one.
An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"
>Thus they come up with large numbers of what most Slashdotters see as legitimate inventions.
Thank you. I have no idea why you get comments like "Microsoft is the biggest evil ever", when there really more serious, wider-ranging evils just out there in front of people's eyes.
One example is the one you gave, another common one is DeBeers. Also alot of chemical companies and "factory farms" practices are just shocking.
But no, Microsoft, is evil just because of the number of patents appiled for? And why isn't IBM, which for the past 12 years the top company in terms of number of patents granted? (over 3000 in 2004)
>I've pushed and pushed before to try to get orders in writing (or even email) (not because they were illegal, but because they were a Bad Idea).
Say that your boss wants you to make a hundred widgets and you think that bad things will happen, say because they don't fit your hundred gromets.
Write an email to him;
"As we discussed this afternoon I will create the hundred 3" widgets, starting on Friday and I expect to finish on Monday. I understand that you need them because of an emergency request by a customer.
Please be aware that, as I have explained before, these sized widgets will not fit our existing 8 mm gromets."
Now you've gotten what you wanted. If the order was wrong or misunderstood, he should tell you as soon as possible. If the bad thing becomes reality, then you've warned him and he should have taken you seriously. If the bad thing never happens, well then you've learned something and your boss sees you as an annoying in-box filler.
Slashdot Mirror
>Look, officials have been complaining since day 1 that a big part of the problem is communications:
Lots of TV stations had live video feeds from the area, day 1.
Of course they are going to complain about technology, they are just covering themselves.
>emergency responders had little more to communicate with than hand-held radios and cell phones
Exactly what else do you need to communicate?
>The National Guard couldn't get in touch with New Orleans Police Department officers working the city streets.
Can you really say that if the National Guard or FEMA wanted to communicate with the local police they really couldn't? How much would it take to send some National Guard to the NO police department and hand them their radios? (Or are you saying that they should create a brand new wireless-network system because it would be easier/simplier?)
Communications is important, but they are installing brandnew cutting edge technology. That helps months from now, not today.
>That is a very simplistic way of looking at things and not necessarily correct.
Yes, thats exactly what the area needed, more complex time-consuming solutions to address the basic needs of life.
>Truckloads of ice and fresh water did not get to the right places in recent days due to a lack of communication.
It wasn't because of communications, it was because of leadership/government. I'm in Canada and I knew that they needed water, food and a place to sleep, just from casually watch TV. It was communicated to me, as I wasn't even looking for the information.
>Communications infrastructure, electricity and even computers make it a lot easier to organise fresh water, food and a place to sleep.
Now that is a simplistic statement. When the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami hit, many areas without only very basic communications and electricity and no computers got help faster than what was (is?) happened in NO. I suppose you could also say that comfy plush lazy-boy style chairs can also make it easier to organize things.
>We do not produce food, filter water, or build dikes. We do technology. You get that? Does every "Why won't someone thing of the..." moron understand this very simple point? This is our domain.
Um... what do you do during a blackout? Just lie there comatose becuase, hey, there is no technology and its "our domain"?
Look what is happening in Texas, look at the aid is coming from around the country. Its not mothers saying what is needed is not our domain, but here's some freshly baked cookies. Its not accountants saying what is needed is not our domain, but here's some tax advice.
Its humans helping humans. Is being human in your "domain"?
>If not receiving any aid can help bring GWB down, so be it.
You need to read up on the 22nd Amendment of the American Constitution. GWB has nothing to lose.
>The government has "failed you?" What the fuck should the government have done?
Pretty simple. The government is to protect and serve the tax-payers/voters.
Its 4 days after the hurricane and there are a whole bunch of tax-payers/voters down south who need help.
I'm not exactly sure how the different levels of government didn't fail these people.
>obviously they try to give yo the same experience over and over, but the ingridients clearly have an effect on the taste as well,
It still doesn't matter. The point is that as much as they can control, it should be EXACTLY the same, just like a machine.
>A machine doesn't care if there is a "bad" spot on a fruit or piece of meat,
Um... a chef does? Even at home, are you really consistant with what is ok to eat and what is not?
>a machine also doesn't do a "taste test" to make sure it is okay.
The point is that it doesn't have to if it follows a recipe. Ask any line cook if they actually taste all 50 dishes a night before it goes out. Even at home, how much tolerence/variation to taste do you have on what you cook?
>a lot depends on the grapes, the barrel and the person making the wine.
Yes, but its still is big vats made in huge quantities.
>the idea that a machine can follow a recipe and spit out millions of the same stuff in a good way won't happen until you can molecularly create the food from scratch.
A good resturant produces the same food, EXACTLY the same, everytime you order it no matter what the time of day or day of the week or not matter how busy it is. Any variation is really considered a mistake. Too much salt? Mistake. Medium-rare is not as rare as you experienced before? Mistake. Really, once the recipe is given, any deviation is just sloppy work.
The goal is to have that machine like quality. Alot of recipes are exact. Adding exact measurments revolutionized home cooking.
Exactly what can a human add to the cooking process that a correctly designed and calibrated machine cannot? Say that I give a recipe to a robot and a human, why would the human's dish automatically be better?
>anything that gets made in huge vats by machines and then packaged in plastic
V AC.html?ex=1125460800&en=d03cdb5bf350bcc1&ei=5070& fta=y
1. Wine is huge vats of rotten grapes. Yet you wouldn't turn your nose up to it. Same thing with cheese.
2. Just because something is wrapped in plastic doesn't mean its not good. One of the biggest things recently in fine French dining is actually wrapping food in plastic, sous vide.
Google it or see: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/magazine/14CRYO
At one time all food, from meat cooked over fire to sushi to white bread was new and "different".
>It's not the attitude of Microsoft that makes them evil, it's the business practices.
3 45 )
Look at the recent story with Google and CNet.
Look at the details of their stock offering and exactly who still controls the company.
And as the article mentioned look at the guy who got fired for joking on his personnel blog ( http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050209-090
> Or a rational adult would assume the kids would learn their lesson.
Thats not what an rational adult would do. It was multiple times. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
> don't try to embarrass people who are more powerful than you unless you have an ace up your sleeve.
Nice lesson to teach kids. "Don't break the rules unless you can get away with it." Should we vote in a way to not embassess the powerful people? Should we not stand in court and say "No, that officer is wrong"? Should we do what we think is right and not what society tells us is right?
>These kids were clearly immature and had no respect for their superiors
Like 90% of kids out there?
Because of their actions are saying they are.
Why would you sell part of your company rather than sell bonds (or better yet preferred shares) especially at this low interest rate environment?
Apparently the best minds in the business with inside knowledge say that its better to sell the company.
I think this is a more detailed one;
_ apple_patent/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/10/microsoft
Although the posted one is so vague, it might be talking about something else.
>Taking the time to go to Opensecrets.org is a conscious thing,
So is going to Google.
>and the act implies a specific purpose of searching out someone's political views.
So looking for something specific is ok, but if its non-specific its not? So searching on Google with your name + "political views" is ok but just your name is not?
>this mouse falls entirely in line with Apple's philosophy and makes complete sense: it behaves like a one button mouse by default, and multi-button functionality can be enabled by users that require it.
So if I sit in front of a user's machine with this mouse for the first time I have to figure out if its programmed or not?
What sort of nightmares will occur with help-desk support now, when before they apparently have loads of problems with explaining left-right clicking? Now you have to guess/figure out what their mouse is programmed?
>You for discovering something and then waiting for a full peer review and analysis before presenting your data to the public.
They weren't waiting for peer review, they were waiting for another telescope for a more precise size. Sounds like they wanted their announcement to be more dramatic. The peer review would come later.
>Fuck you to the hackers who feel that something like this needed to be public without review.
If it came from an anonoymous email/message on the Internet, how does this hurt the astronomers/researchers? I remember when Fermat's Last Therom was proved there was alot of rumors about it beforehand. I don't think that Wiles ever complained about this.
>If it was 'revealed' and then found to be false,
You will never be sure if its false or not, peer review doesn't automatically make it "TRUE". Alot of bad science has been peer reviewed and published.
>some script kiddie illegally, immorally, and unethically published the data before it was reviewed.
The person used publically available information, nothing was illegal.
It's true that the information was available without breaking into any sites.
>the true facts would have been buried in the mess.
Thats pretty ironic since the "hackers" were just trying to get the true facts out there.
>MS is held up as an evil example because they do evil to individuals.
Its an abstract evil that really only effects really well-off people of the world.
"MS prevented me from choosing from a variety of word processers that all do the same thing."
"MS raised the price of computers, even though PC are pretty cheap"
Whereas with other companies its;
"Company X are selling corn that is technically a pesticide and aren't allowing me to know about it."
"Company Y is financially helping to support warlords who commit attrocities"
"Company Z is destroying the traditional lives of people for short-term profit"
If you think MS is doing evil to individuals, you need to open your eyes.
> IBM is to a great extent a research company;
l
IBM makes $2 billion/year from patent licenses. With that amount of money and over 10000 patents in diverse areas, they make MS look like a grade-school bully.
From: http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html
After IBM's presentation, our turn came. As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed." But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference. Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one.
An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"
>Thus they come up with large numbers of what most Slashdotters see as legitimate inventions.
Legitimate?;
http://news.com.com/2100-1017-961803.html
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/10/17/005232.shtm
The baseball patent;P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2F srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220%2C050%2C160%2C4 57%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20,050,160,457&RS=DN/20,050,160, 457
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
Notice the line "Inventors:"
Thank you. I have no idea why you get comments like "Microsoft is the biggest evil ever", when there really more serious, wider-ranging evils just out there in front of people's eyes.
One example is the one you gave, another common one is DeBeers. Also alot of chemical companies and "factory farms" practices are just shocking.
But no, Microsoft, is evil just because of the number of patents appiled for? And why isn't IBM, which for the past 12 years the top company in terms of number of patents granted? (over 3000 in 2004)
But this time its Bill Gates vs. Thomas Jefferson in a fight to the finish!
Nerdy rich guy or dead American politician; YOU DECIDE!
>By politics or terror, bombs or rules, the goals ... are one in the same: It's about control-- imposing their will onto yours.
This is exactly how I felt about my previous girlfriend.
Where the control-key modifier is in Unix, the Enter/Return (one of these) is in Mainframes, is the wavey flag is in Windows.
>I've pushed and pushed before to try to get orders in writing (or even email) (not because they were illegal, but because they were a Bad Idea).
Say that your boss wants you to make a hundred widgets and you think that bad things will happen, say because they don't fit your hundred gromets.
Write an email to him;
"As we discussed this afternoon I will create the hundred 3" widgets, starting on Friday and I expect to finish on Monday. I understand that you need them because of an emergency request by a customer.
Please be aware that, as I have explained before, these sized widgets will not fit our existing 8 mm gromets."
Now you've gotten what you wanted. If the order was wrong or misunderstood, he should tell you as soon as possible. If the bad thing becomes reality, then you've warned him and he should have taken you seriously. If the bad thing never happens, well then you've learned something and your boss sees you as an annoying in-box filler.
http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/sto ry/CTVNews/1119107850615_136?hub=topstories
>If the worst case scenarios are true, and he's only proposing this to draw attention from some scandal or another, then we're still on the moon.
The issue is of trust.
The worse case is that we don't get to the moon becuase he did not follow up and he never really had a plan to go to the moon.