I agree. I hate the widescreen monitors, and even more the recent trend to 16:9. For actual office work, which is more common usage of monitor than movies, the opposite is needed - high vertical space and a rather tight horizontal (because people are not able to read very long lines). I personally would buy a monitor with square resolution if such would exist.
I am not German, but I think they are not banned for reenactment of historical events, under which this would certainly qualify. (We have similar laws here in Czech Republic, and they also apply to communist symbols, such as hammer and sickle).
Re:too much obstacles in law
on
Life Recorder
·
· Score: 1
It's generally assumed people don't have a perfect memory, and those few who maybe have are probably paid so much so that the moral hazard is minimized.
In practice, there really is a difference between "I have a vague memory of how our program is implemented" and "I have videotaped the source code".
too much obstacles in law
on
Life Recorder
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Unfortunately, it is probably very unlawful to do it. I like the idea, I wouldn't mind it at all, if only I had access to the recording and could switch it off.
Various people mentioned laws against it, and also need for explicit consent (as opposed to implicit disagreement with someone doing that, which would be an alternative in society where such device is commonplace). I see another problem - at work, I work as a programmer, and it would be illegal for me to videotape my work and take it away.
I agree. I was going to reply in the same manner, but probably not as good as yours, thanks.
That's the problem with bugs. The small UI bug may be caused by underlining wrong state of the program, which may also cause crash or loss of data. So unless you know almost exactly the cause of the bug, you really don't know how serious it is (especially true for mysterious bugs - if a message overflows a message box, then you probably know the problem). If you know, on the other hand, it may be economical not to fix it right now.
Actually, that was an advice I was going to make, jokingly, too. But not for India (it has bad rep and the price is too low), but for Eastern European country. I am a citizen/graduate from Czech Republic, and I landed my first job couple years ago at a large American software company. While this company dismissed some of their American workers few years ago, they were and are hiring as fast as they can here. Entry level people, mostly.
That's capitalism at work, sadly (even though I personally now profit from it).
Actually, no. You get it backwards. I am not sure what anarchy is, but I am quite sure that democracy demands that man doesn't have power over other man.
What you are saying about the power of the majority is wrong. Democracy is not a dictatorship of majority. The decisive majority in democracy is decided at each voting, but in dictatorship of majority, the majority is pre-selected and then decides. That's a different system.
Richard Feynman was a showman. He certainly cultivated his own myth, maybe unknowingly, but certainly. He would probably be famous even if he didn't get the Nobel prize.
It should be also said, though, that for people who programmed on 8-bit computers (I had ZX Spectrum), there was hardly any other way than to have spaghetti code at the time. OOP was non-existent and Lisp too complex. At the time, global variables, fixed-length arrays and GOTOs were the way how to actually program effectively (both in BASIC and assembler).
There's something to it. I recently downloaded a ZX Spectrum+ manual from worldofspectrum.org (the colorful one), and was amazed by how simple the language is. The complete reference takes like 10 pages? And it can draw lines and circles..
Now compare it with any modern language, such as Java or Python. The language description itself takes 10x more than that, and the libraries available are vast. I am not arguing it's a bad thing; I am just arguing that simplicity may be a key here.
Because you're doing it wrong. All these things could be improved by having:
1. Stable article revisions, which would contain merges of useful information from the unstable versions. The length of cycle should roughly depend on how many contributors are there in the article.
2. Notability score for articles (say, from 1 - the best of 100 - to 8 - non-notable) and ability to filter categories by these (and maybe, having articles with different notability score in different namespace, so they could be recognized from the link). Another good improvement would be a 2 levels of notability - general notability in the world, and the notability within the specific culture, for example, notability of something Star Trek with respect to Star Trek universe.
3. Notification about articles with many changes and low number of watchers.
4. Liquid thread system.
5. Maybe a special page for matching unsourced claims and sources. One type of people would write-up the claims, another type - experts presumably - would provide citations, and yet another editors could merge these into the article itself. By division of labour, lot of work could be saved.
This way, encyclopedia of any size could be managed.
I am not fan of copyright and not a fan of free market, but in this particular case, I think the market will deal with it. If anyone can run the AI to produce e.g. music equivalent to Mozart or any dead author, then the price of such music decreases to the point where this is basically irrelevant. Even if such a corporation retain copyrights to that music, they couldn't sell it for more than market price. It's no longer a monopoly, because this music is substitutable very well by another AI music.
Yeah, I thought about this too, but I haven't read the paper. The problem I see is then you cannot have something like shell - where the capabilities required vary widely with what you just need to do.
So what should we finance? Show me any technology that burns carbon and sequesters CO2 (i.e. is carbon neutral) and taken together manages to at least theoretically to come on par with EROI of solar or wind. *Then* we can talk.
And where are we going to get the energy to do that without burning additional CO2 in the process? I have never seen a sequestration or absorption method for CO2 that would be more efficient (together with fossil fuel burning) than to just use clean energy in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I hate the widescreen monitors, and even more the recent trend to 16:9. For actual office work, which is more common usage of monitor than movies, the opposite is needed - high vertical space and a rather tight horizontal (because people are not able to read very long lines). I personally would buy a monitor with square resolution if such would exist.
I am not German, but I think they are not banned for reenactment of historical events, under which this would certainly qualify. (We have similar laws here in Czech Republic, and they also apply to communist symbols, such as hammer and sickle).
It's generally assumed people don't have a perfect memory, and those few who maybe have are probably paid so much so that the moral hazard is minimized.
In practice, there really is a difference between "I have a vague memory of how our program is implemented" and "I have videotaped the source code".
Unfortunately, it is probably very unlawful to do it. I like the idea, I wouldn't mind it at all, if only I had access to the recording and could switch it off.
Various people mentioned laws against it, and also need for explicit consent (as opposed to implicit disagreement with someone doing that, which would be an alternative in society where such device is commonplace). I see another problem - at work, I work as a programmer, and it would be illegal for me to videotape my work and take it away.
Better be ready to drop your standard of living by about 1/3.
Really? I guess during 50s and 60s American people must have been really poor, while they were making all the stuff themselves.
I think you could do even more because, from what I have heard, programming jobs slowly travel to the East.
I think you are confusing "higher" and "steeper". You don't need to actually use coroutines while programming in Python.
..Hugh Laurie be a Doctor? That would be interesting.
Perhaps someone should send them a copy of "Who moved my cheese?", then?
I agree. I was going to reply in the same manner, but probably not as good as yours, thanks.
That's the problem with bugs. The small UI bug may be caused by underlining wrong state of the program, which may also cause crash or loss of data. So unless you know almost exactly the cause of the bug, you really don't know how serious it is (especially true for mysterious bugs - if a message overflows a message box, then you probably know the problem). If you know, on the other hand, it may be economical not to fix it right now.
Actually, that was an advice I was going to make, jokingly, too. But not for India (it has bad rep and the price is too low), but for Eastern European country. I am a citizen/graduate from Czech Republic, and I landed my first job couple years ago at a large American software company. While this company dismissed some of their American workers few years ago, they were and are hiring as fast as they can here. Entry level people, mostly.
That's capitalism at work, sadly (even though I personally now profit from it).
Actually, no. You get it backwards. I am not sure what anarchy is, but I am quite sure that democracy demands that man doesn't have power over other man.
What you are saying about the power of the majority is wrong. Democracy is not a dictatorship of majority. The decisive majority in democracy is decided at each voting, but in dictatorship of majority, the majority is pre-selected and then decides. That's a different system.
Richard Feynman was a showman. He certainly cultivated his own myth, maybe unknowingly, but certainly. He would probably be famous even if he didn't get the Nobel prize.
It should be also said, though, that for people who programmed on 8-bit computers (I had ZX Spectrum), there was hardly any other way than to have spaghetti code at the time. OOP was non-existent and Lisp too complex. At the time, global variables, fixed-length arrays and GOTOs were the way how to actually program effectively (both in BASIC and assembler).
There's something to it. I recently downloaded a ZX Spectrum+ manual from worldofspectrum.org (the colorful one), and was amazed by how simple the language is. The complete reference takes like 10 pages? And it can draw lines and circles..
Now compare it with any modern language, such as Java or Python. The language description itself takes 10x more than that, and the libraries available are vast. I am not arguing it's a bad thing; I am just arguing that simplicity may be a key here.
Because you're doing it wrong. All these things could be improved by having:
1. Stable article revisions, which would contain merges of useful information from the unstable versions. The length of cycle should roughly depend on how many contributors are there in the article.
2. Notability score for articles (say, from 1 - the best of 100 - to 8 - non-notable) and ability to filter categories by these (and maybe, having articles with different notability score in different namespace, so they could be recognized from the link). Another good improvement would be a 2 levels of notability - general notability in the world, and the notability within the specific culture, for example, notability of something Star Trek with respect to Star Trek universe.
3. Notification about articles with many changes and low number of watchers.
4. Liquid thread system.
5. Maybe a special page for matching unsourced claims and sources. One type of people would write-up the claims, another type - experts presumably - would provide citations, and yet another editors could merge these into the article itself. By division of labour, lot of work could be saved.
This way, encyclopedia of any size could be managed.
I am not fan of copyright and not a fan of free market, but in this particular case, I think the market will deal with it. If anyone can run the AI to produce e.g. music equivalent to Mozart or any dead author, then the price of such music decreases to the point where this is basically irrelevant. Even if such a corporation retain copyrights to that music, they couldn't sell it for more than market price. It's no longer a monopoly, because this music is substitutable very well by another AI music.
Yeah, I thought about this too, but I haven't read the paper. The problem I see is then you cannot have something like shell - where the capabilities required vary widely with what you just need to do.
Maybe it could be a user setting if the user wishes to grant karma with Funny mod?
On David Cope's pages, you can find a sample of random 5000 Bach-like chorales in MIDI format. So you can judge for yourself.
http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/5000.html
And cheaper! They can now make costly idiotic decisions even cheaper.
It's interesting that any order actually answers the questions.
So what should we finance? Show me any technology that burns carbon and sequesters CO2 (i.e. is carbon neutral) and taken together manages to at least theoretically to come on par with EROI of solar or wind. *Then* we can talk.
Flood is never a good thing. Flood of options? Meh.
What we need is irrigation. Irrigation of options. Yeah, that and tubes.
And where are we going to get the energy to do that without burning additional CO2 in the process? I have never seen a sequestration or absorption method for CO2 that would be more efficient (together with fossil fuel burning) than to just use clean energy in the first place.