I'd love to see these systems handle someone in the right turn lane with their signal on swooping over 3 lanes and turning left...
Sorry, but this is such a stupid argument. It is unfortunate that human drivers do stupid stuff like this. It is unfortunate that those around such stupidity have to get into accidents because of it. My thoughts on self driving cars is the following: 1) Human driven car A does a stupid manouver 2) Human driven car B tries but maybe fails to avoid, accident ensues. Result: No one is at fault because everyone blames each other. Stupidity on the roads continues. Accidents continue to kill and harm people. Insurance rates continue to rise, etc. Status quo.
In the alternative world with some self driving cars: 1) Human driven car A does a stupid manouver 2) Computer driven car B tries to avoid, but fails, accident ensues. Result: Recordings from onboard computers prove who was at fault (car A). Blame is delivered, just their insurance rates rise, and only their record is ruined. Hopefully they learn they're lesson and either (a) drive better or (b) get a car that'll drive for them. End result is that overall driving safety is improved.
The (safe) assumption with all of this is that a computer driven car would be recording data equivalent to an aircraft's black box (probably in much much more detail really). Use the data on that recording to figure out what happened, if a human driven car (car A) caused an accident that wasn't avoidable by the other car assuming a reasonable human driver then, car B deserves no blame (whether it was driven by human or computer). The recorded information allows you to recreate the accident and make a reasonable judgement as to the circumstances. The system (police, courts, insurance, society) can dish out blame and punishment on a much more reasonable basis then.
The dashboard cam craze is the same thing, it provides a recording so that you can prove you are driving reasonably and whatever happened was the result of someone else making a mistake. All of this is big-brother-ish, but if we all really are such good drivers (everyone thinks they are better than average), then feel free to be recorded so that your own recorded evidence can set you free.
When a company gets it wrong, the damage is limited to its shareholders, and other competing companies take up the slack. When a state gets it wrong, everyone pays the penalty.
Yes, but the reverse is also true: When a state gets it right everyone benefits in having cheap, reliable power. Whereas when a company gets it right only a few executives get the bulk of the benefit.
I'll take the state run utility, thank you very much.
Re:Yeah, Belgium warriors great, UN pansies bad...
on
The Beast of Brussels
·
· Score: 1
And moreover, even if we never find a couple thousand cannisters of VX laying around to wave in the face of morons like you, the war was justified on so many other levels, it doesn't matter.
Would you care to share with us what just a few of those "so many other levels" of justification were?
Good luck. There weren't any other levels of justification. Saddam was a threat precisely because it was believed that he had threatening weapons. Without the threatening weapons there is no threat. Without the threat the entire war is un-justified.
Like you said, the 12 years of UN inspections were so unsuccessful, maybe that was because there was nothing for them to be successful at.
I'm by no means an expert at AOP, I've never used it, only read about it. But from what I understand I don't think it's that great.
AOP seems most similar to the OOP approach of 'composition', that is, creating larger, more feature-full objects out of smaller sets of objects. I don't see any other fundamental difference between AOP and composition. If there is please enlighten me.
The problem I have with AOP (and regular OOP Composition doesn't fare much better in this regard) is that designing a system with a number of small distinct components seems like a good idea. It still seems like a good idea when you use composition to create larger objects with more functionality out of the smaller pieces. The point where AOP breaks down is when you want to use the AOP objects in some even larger AOP creation. The point when software development gets to this stage is usually well into the implementation and maybe after it is in production. At this point it seems to me like you're back to dealing with all the original problems that AOP was meant to help with (spaghetti-like code being the most significant).
Is there really more to AOP than what I've been able to deduce?
To begin with, water actually does "seek its own level", but information never does anything by itself, so I fail to see how said meme is "harmless anthropomorfication". An idea housed in the mind of an individual is not itself begging to get out. The person may want to set it free, but the information isn't deciding his course of action.
You said "He didn't EARN the right for other people to leave his stuff alone". I say yes, he did earn that right, or at least the right to grant people access to it on HIS conditions. The farmer (from my first post) HAS the right grants access to his carrots to whoever he chooses. He also HAS the right to protect his carrots (with physical security) from people who would otherwise take them from the him without compensating him. A musician has similar rights, and if it takes laws and technology to do so then how is it different than the farmer's security gates, guards and dogs?
I re-read my comments and I didn't make any mention , or even implication, of despising people who borrow from the works of others. You should read more carefully. I did however say that people should have the right to choose who does and does not access their information (music, software, whatever). And if the creator of the information wants to restrict the audience of the information then why not let them, it is after all his information.
That's exactly the difference, and it's a big one. I think it was Ben Franklin who said that an idea is set apart from a physical commodity in that you are no way impoverished when you give it away. If I give away my carrots, I have no carrots. If I give away an idea, I still have just as much access to and use of that idea as I had before it was shared. Hence the popular "Information wants to be free" meme.
This, to me, is bunk. The information itself has no wishes, wills, volitions or any other characteristics. We can certainly attribute wills and desires to things which certainly don't have them, but that doesn't magically make them so.
"An idea is set apart from a physical commodity in that you are in no way impoverished when you give it away". Let me see... Put yourself in the position of a musician hoping to make a living creating music. You write, record and produce a great album which if it weren't for the scads of people making illegal duplicates would have provided handsomely for the musician. Here we have a case in which an idea being given away will impoverish the musician. Or at least the idea is not preventing the un-impoverishment of the musician and thus not significantly different from a physical commodity.
In this case, and most others, the idea that "information wants to be free" contradicts the idea that "an idea can be given away WIHTOUT impoverishment". That being so I'd have to say that the "information wants to be free" meme is very wrong. And, any steps taken by "idea creators" to allow them to protect their ideas (music, software, etc.) is certainly justified, at least to the degree which will allow them to prevent their own impoverishment.
Note also that I'm not advocating that creators of ideas should have to protect their rights, if they want to give away their ideas, let them do so. But for those that want protection to prevent impoverishment let them get it as well.
I fail to see how this is a problem (and I'm not trying to troll). If someone is capable of claiming "rights" on some physical artifact that they created then why shouldn't someone be able to claim rights on some non-physical artifact that they created as well?
For example, the farmer creates carrots, let's say, and has certain rights over the carrots (they belong to him, etc.) and expects to be compensated for expending the effort necessary to create the carrots. Similarly, a musician creates jazz, let's say, and has certain rights over that jazz (it belongs to him/her, etc.) and expects to be able to be compensated for expending the effort necessary to create that jazz.
Where's the difference here? The only difference I see is that carrots have a physical manifestation which limits their ability to be easily duplicated and dispersed among a large audience. Music on the other hand, especially in our digital world, can be easily duplicated. The fact that music can be duplicated doesn't mean that the creator should give up his rights to it. If that is the case then what is the problem in passing a law which protects the creator's rights?
To be clear, I want, ideally, to have one computer with Linux, with one modem and have the modem and software be able to handle the various rings (which mean various things) in various ways. So, for example the normal ring should be directed to voicemail software, distinct ring #1 should be directed to fax software, and distinct ring #2 should be able to be directed to a different voicemail box. All of this is done on one computer, with one physical phone line with distincitive rings enabled on it by the phone company and one modem.
The reason for this Ask Slashdot then is that there is a certain co-dependency between the hardware and the software such that the hardware has to be able to recognize the distinctive ring and pass the apporpriate notification to the software. As yet I have not been able to get this to work, and so, I'm wondering what solutions you fine people may have come up with.
I hate feeding the trolls, but seeing as how I asked this question I feel I should defend my position.
In this case, the links suggested by the poster are for the wrong type of product. Those products are phone switches which you attach separate physical devices to each output line for each distinctive ring line. That is not what I want to do. I want one physical device (my GNU/Linux machine) to be able to handle the various types of distinctive rings.
So, just to be clear this isn't "another gay-ass Ask Slashdot that could've been answered in 5 seconds if the poster had figured out how to use Google".
Slashdot Mirror
I'd love to see these systems handle someone in the right turn lane with their signal on swooping over 3 lanes and turning left...
Sorry, but this is such a stupid argument. It is unfortunate that human drivers do stupid stuff like this. It is unfortunate that those around such stupidity have to get into accidents because of it. My thoughts on self driving cars is the following:
1) Human driven car A does a stupid manouver
2) Human driven car B tries but maybe fails to avoid, accident ensues.
Result: No one is at fault because everyone blames each other. Stupidity on the roads continues. Accidents continue to kill and harm people. Insurance rates continue to rise, etc. Status quo.
In the alternative world with some self driving cars:
1) Human driven car A does a stupid manouver
2) Computer driven car B tries to avoid, but fails, accident ensues.
Result: Recordings from onboard computers prove who was at fault (car A). Blame is delivered, just their insurance rates rise, and only their record is ruined. Hopefully they learn they're lesson and either (a) drive better or (b) get a car that'll drive for them. End result is that overall driving safety is improved.
The (safe) assumption with all of this is that a computer driven car would be recording data equivalent to an aircraft's black box (probably in much much more detail really). Use the data on that recording to figure out what happened, if a human driven car (car A) caused an accident that wasn't avoidable by the other car assuming a reasonable human driver then, car B deserves no blame (whether it was driven by human or computer). The recorded information allows you to recreate the accident and make a reasonable judgement as to the circumstances. The system (police, courts, insurance, society) can dish out blame and punishment on a much more reasonable basis then.
The dashboard cam craze is the same thing, it provides a recording so that you can prove you are driving reasonably and whatever happened was the result of someone else making a mistake. All of this is big-brother-ish, but if we all really are such good drivers (everyone thinks they are better than average), then feel free to be recorded so that your own recorded evidence can set you free.
Funniest comment I've seen on this site in a long time.
Nice work.
When a company gets it wrong, the damage is limited to its shareholders, and other competing companies take up the slack. When a state gets it wrong, everyone pays the penalty.
Yes, but the reverse is also true: When a state gets it right everyone benefits in having cheap, reliable power. Whereas when a company gets it right only a few executives get the bulk of the benefit. I'll take the state run utility, thank you very much.
And moreover, even if we never find a couple thousand cannisters of VX laying around to wave in the face of morons like you, the war was justified on so many other levels, it doesn't matter.
Would you care to share with us what just a few of those "so many other levels" of justification were?
Good luck. There weren't any other levels of justification. Saddam was a threat precisely because it was believed that he had threatening weapons. Without the threatening weapons there is no threat. Without the threat the entire war is un-justified.
Like you said, the 12 years of UN inspections were so unsuccessful, maybe that was because there was nothing for them to be successful at.
I got laid last night!
What I want to know is if I need to worry about this worm if I'm running an Apache server on linux without SSL?
Thanks
Your keyboard has 2 'n' keys. Why?
Hi,
I'm by no means an expert at AOP, I've never used it, only read about it. But from what I understand I don't think it's that great.
AOP seems most similar to the OOP approach of 'composition', that is, creating larger, more feature-full objects out of smaller sets of objects. I don't see any other fundamental difference between AOP and composition. If there is please enlighten me.
The problem I have with AOP (and regular OOP Composition doesn't fare much better in this regard) is that designing a system with a number of small distinct components seems like a good idea. It still seems like a good idea when you use composition to create larger objects with more functionality out of the smaller pieces. The point where AOP breaks down is when you want to use the AOP objects in some even larger AOP creation. The point when software development gets to this stage is usually well into the implementation and maybe after it is in production. At this point it seems to me like you're back to dealing with all the original problems that AOP was meant to help with (spaghetti-like code being the most significant).
Is there really more to AOP than what I've been able to deduce?
To begin with, water actually does "seek its own level", but information never does anything by itself, so I fail to see how said meme is "harmless anthropomorfication". An idea housed in the mind of an individual is not itself begging to get out. The person may want to set it free, but the information isn't deciding his course of action.
You said "He didn't EARN the right for other people to leave his stuff alone". I say yes, he did earn that right, or at least the right to grant people access to it on HIS conditions. The farmer (from my first post) HAS the right grants access to his carrots to whoever he chooses. He also HAS the right to protect his carrots (with physical security) from people who would otherwise take them from the him without compensating him. A musician has similar rights, and if it takes laws and technology to do so then how is it different than the farmer's security gates, guards and dogs?
I re-read my comments and I didn't make any mention , or even implication, of despising people who borrow from the works of others. You should read more carefully. I did however say that people should have the right to choose who does and does not access their information (music, software, whatever). And if the creator of the information wants to restrict the audience of the information then why not let them, it is after all his information.
That's exactly the difference, and it's a big one. I think it was Ben Franklin who said that an idea is set apart from a physical commodity in that you are no way impoverished when you give it away. If I give away my carrots, I have no carrots. If I give away an idea, I still have just as much access to and use of that idea as I had before it was shared. Hence the popular "Information wants to be free" meme.
This, to me, is bunk. The information itself has no wishes, wills, volitions or any other characteristics. We can certainly attribute wills and desires to things which certainly don't have them, but that doesn't magically make them so.
"An idea is set apart from a physical commodity in that you are in no way impoverished when you give it away". Let me see... Put yourself in the position of a musician hoping to make a living creating music. You write, record and produce a great album which if it weren't for the scads of people making illegal duplicates would have provided handsomely for the musician. Here we have a case in which an idea being given away will impoverish the musician. Or at least the idea is not preventing the un-impoverishment of the musician and thus not significantly different from a physical commodity.
In this case, and most others, the idea that "information wants to be free" contradicts the idea that "an idea can be given away WIHTOUT impoverishment". That being so I'd have to say that the "information wants to be free" meme is very wrong. And, any steps taken by "idea creators" to allow them to protect their ideas (music, software, etc.) is certainly justified, at least to the degree which will allow them to prevent their own impoverishment.
Note also that I'm not advocating that creators of ideas should have to protect their rights, if they want to give away their ideas, let them do so. But for those that want protection to prevent impoverishment let them get it as well.
I fail to see how this is a problem (and I'm not trying to troll). If someone is capable of claiming "rights" on some physical artifact that they created then why shouldn't someone be able to claim rights on some non-physical artifact that they created as well?
For example, the farmer creates carrots, let's say, and has certain rights over the carrots (they belong to him, etc.) and expects to be compensated for expending the effort necessary to create the carrots. Similarly, a musician creates jazz, let's say, and has certain rights over that jazz (it belongs to him/her, etc.) and expects to be able to be compensated for expending the effort necessary to create that jazz.
Where's the difference here? The only difference I see is that carrots have a physical manifestation which limits their ability to be easily duplicated and dispersed among a large audience. Music on the other hand, especially in our digital world, can be easily duplicated. The fact that music can be duplicated doesn't mean that the creator should give up his rights to it. If that is the case then what is the problem in passing a law which protects the creator's rights?
is that I can't remember the last time I heard the words "microsoft" and "windows 2000" and "cluster" used in the same sentence.
It's all linux baby!
To be clear, I want, ideally, to have one computer with Linux, with one modem and have the modem and software be able to handle the various rings (which mean various things) in various ways. So, for example the normal ring should be directed to voicemail software, distinct ring #1 should be directed to fax software, and distinct ring #2 should be able to be directed to a different voicemail box. All of this is done on one computer, with one physical phone line with distincitive rings enabled on it by the phone company and one modem.
The reason for this Ask Slashdot then is that there is a certain co-dependency between the hardware and the software such that the hardware has to be able to recognize the distinctive ring and pass the apporpriate notification to the software. As yet I have not been able to get this to work, and so, I'm wondering what solutions you fine people may have come up with.
I hate feeding the trolls, but seeing as how I asked this question I feel I should defend my position.
In this case, the links suggested by the poster are for the wrong type of product. Those products are phone switches which you attach separate physical devices to each output line for each distinctive ring line. That is not what I want to do. I want one physical device (my GNU/Linux machine) to be able to handle the various types of distinctive rings.
So, just to be clear this isn't "another gay-ass Ask Slashdot that could've been answered in 5 seconds if the poster had figured out how to use Google".