Yeah because being an immature dick and trying to cause an accident at a light in response to someone else being an immature dick makes the world such a better place. Good work. But you're still an immature dick.
Yes. And these requirements will come into being as soon as we want to fund more frequent and useful mass transit so that those who can't meet your desired stringency can still get around - don't forget rural areas, too, unless you want to make your licensing laws vary based on population density.
Your whole point will soon be obviated by increased use of autonomous vehicles anyway - you think that the powers that be will still allow you to drive manually at high speed once autonomous vehicles become common? You're such a precious little snowflake, after all! Nah, manual drivers would fuck up the traffic flow too much compared with autonomous vehicles that can actually coordinate between themselves.
Your period of grace will last about twenty years after their introduction when almost all cars on the road will be under automated control. After that, you'll have neighborhood streets for a few more years. And I guess there will always be race tracks. But driving at high speeds on public roads? I'm afraid we humans just aren't cut out for that.
Why do people use a video these days rather than just typing answers? Moving pictures of Larry's face jabbering don't add much to the proceedings and frankly, I can read answers a lot more quickly than it takes to listen to a video. And, if I happen to be in my office, I can read a transcript without disturbing others.
Sorry, but this is really a pet peeve. If you don't have a visually dynamic presentation of information that can't be conveyed any other way, video takes more bandwidth and adds little. So why do you do it? To look hip? It doesn't work.
So, I'd say it's kind of a given that when the old-breed, "we've been doing this for generations" brand of arrogance meets the upstart "we've literally changed the world in a little over a decade" brand of arrogance, sparks are going to fly. And the fact that the upstarts have working technology to do what the old breed still isn't sure is possible isn't going to help one bit.
Working technology? Well, sort of.
I'd like to see how comfortable these cars are to operate as random folks seeing the LiDAR unit on top of the car swerve suddenly towards the car to see how it responds. Hell, I'd do it once or twice to see if I could make it flinch and I'm a pretty mild guy in his 50's. I'd love to see what a few teenagers could do with your "smart" car. And I figure replacing a broken LiDAR unit would be a lot more expensive than replacing a couple of slashed tires. Yes, I can see many scenarios where you might be tossed out of autonomous mode quite frequently or incur higher costs, making this "feature" not particularly cost effective.
Think about Google Glass and think how well some early adopter with an automated chauffeur (one that might be slowing down traffic) would fare - that's all I'm saying.
So you liked not prosecuting bank executives because "high ranking officials... will be even harder to pin down"? That was the line of reasoning used in the AG's office for not doing that. You want to give the powerful a pass because it's inefficient to prosecute them? But the rest of us? We're fair game? What a dick.
I am not saying that running social experiments on random people is a great idea (though it is funny),
Well, if it's so funny, how would you like random "social experiments" tried on you? Read this story from the days before informed consent and review boards became required and still tell me if you think it's "funny". Or better yet, tell the folks who potentially lost life and limb as a result how funny these experiments are.
Why don't you start by telling this guy? He's in our field so, surely, he'd understand all about these "harmless" social experiments and see how humorous they can be.
The reasoning was the same as what many are saying (IMO, incorrectly) here - that FB was already manipulating feeds so it was OK. I find this reasoning specious because, normally, FB modifies what it shows to attempt to change a narrow behavior with relatively finite consequences - whether a user clicks on an ad or not - while with this experiment the researchers were trying to alter something much more broad - a person's entire emotional state - a change with much broader implications. Given what we know from online bullying episodes, targeting a broad population in this manner could possibly exacerbate underlying emotional problems in some of the subjects. I can't see how these review boards let this study through - especially with a bullshit EULA for "informed consent".
The grounds for and circumstances surrounding these approvals should be investigated thoroughly.
Written material has much higher information density an is easier to peruse without annoying others. It's also more easily indexable and browsable. Still pictures embedded in the text can bring enhancement. Why are all of you people are thinking video is so great (and here I mean for transmission of information, not entertainment)?. Are even technical people too stupid to read any more? They must be from the proliferation of videos on technical web site (where most videos show random motion of heads talking anyway and show nothing other than the same examples they have in textual form, so it's better, right).
I log in. I still get the beta pages (about 2 out of 5 articles) even though I've specified classic view. You can see in the comments how I'm dealing with it. There arealternatives.
Probably because (a) the awful salary numbers for most PhDs skew the numbers in a way that the researchers didn't like, (b) they couldn't find the cardboard boxes postdocs live in to ask them how much they made, or (c) they couldn't find any humanities students who actually completed their PhDs for comparison.
Hah! for a moment I thought you said Google Privates. That sounds more marketable than a watch, albeit a bit more creepy. But I daresay that there are probably more fetishists out there who would welcome whatever Google Privates would be than people wanting to buy this watch.
Why? It deserves it. And I speak as one who has been using it since cfront 1.0 and used it for 15 years or so professionally. Basically, its two reasons to exist - its performance and its small (-ish) runtime library are dwindling in importance. You can now get as good performance writing C primitives in a decent high-level languages. And RT minimalism has only been an issue in the embedded world for the last 20 years or so.
Yes, it was once the mainstay of the engineering software world. Let it go and let it drift away to its end as the COBOL of the embedded world.
To say that your horrible kitten massacre won't come back to hurt you is incredibly naive.
Well, what did he expect? Anyone who kills 37 (IIRC) kittens is probably not going to be looked upon favorably. I was amazed there were only the few criminal charges that were handed out. And the jail time was pretty minimal for the charges (to be fair).
But for more executive teams who don't really know what they're doing it really means squeezing more work out of cheaper/fewer workers.
Bullshit. They know exactly "what they're doing". New tools cost money. More streamlined processes? Maybe. But why suffer retraining costs? More reliable supply chains? Anything else? It's harder to squeeze another business (who probably has other customers to sell to if you go away - unless you're Walmart). On the other hand, squeezing employees? Easy-peasey. Fire a few malcontents that don't fall into line in helping you "boost productivity" and the rest fall into line pretty damn quickly - especially when no one wants that horrible union thing around.
I've gotten a bit off-topic, but no, it's not because they're too stupid to do those other things - it's just easier and more cost-effective to squeeze employees until their eyes bleed.
I'm not sure the hostage analogy holds. If there's still time on the meter, the person there is entitled to be there. He could be eating a sandwich or looking at the scenery, but what he's doing with respect to the parking space by taking his time with it is not illegal. He is not "holding the space hostage" until his meter expires. I know a lot of times, I've gotten back to my meter before it expired. If this service could guarantee that the parking fee has been paid for the time it takes for this auction and the new parker to arrive, I'd say fine. But they can't. And, as such, they can't prove that they're not facilitating a crime. However, other than setting up stings, nobody's going to catch the criminals in the act either. So, no harm no foul? But the point stands, your "hostage" analogy is, at best, incomplete, if not falacious.
That being said, a stronger case could be made against this service due to the fact that a major part of what little social contract we have is due to the notion that everyone should have equal access to public facilities, such as parking. This company, by allocating parking selectively to its customers, is degrading fairness in allocation, effectively abrading a part of the social contract that made the parking spaces possible in the first place. I know that many people don't care much about that, but it says something that there are folks that would advocate even more fraying of an already decaying social contract in the name of "free enterprise". "Free rider" is more like it. This way lies revolution... Just sayin'.
Oh my God! Is PERL really competing for worst language with Brainf*ck? After reading the article on the operator mentioned, I can only assume so. I can't believe with all of the syntax backward-compatibility crap they've bolted on they couldn't just have cleaned up the syntax. Thus, my assumption is the only reasonable explanation. Or maybe brain damage... I hear you get that from PERL.
Well, I would assume it emerges as a corollary of a Libertarian mind-set that wants a market solution for everything. Don't attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah because being an immature dick and trying to cause an accident at a light in response to someone else being an immature dick makes the world such a better place. Good work. But you're still an immature dick.
Yes. And these requirements will come into being as soon as we want to fund more frequent and useful mass transit so that those who can't meet your desired stringency can still get around - don't forget rural areas, too, unless you want to make your licensing laws vary based on population density.
Your whole point will soon be obviated by increased use of autonomous vehicles anyway - you think that the powers that be will still allow you to drive manually at high speed once autonomous vehicles become common? You're such a precious little snowflake, after all! Nah, manual drivers would fuck up the traffic flow too much compared with autonomous vehicles that can actually coordinate between themselves.
Your period of grace will last about twenty years after their introduction when almost all cars on the road will be under automated control. After that, you'll have neighborhood streets for a few more years. And I guess there will always be race tracks. But driving at high speeds on public roads? I'm afraid we humans just aren't cut out for that.
Did you wear an onion on your belt, too? Or was that just the fashion up around Springfield?
Why do people use a video these days rather than just typing answers? Moving pictures of Larry's face jabbering don't add much to the proceedings and frankly, I can read answers a lot more quickly than it takes to listen to a video. And, if I happen to be in my office, I can read a transcript without disturbing others.
Sorry, but this is really a pet peeve. If you don't have a visually dynamic presentation of information that can't be conveyed any other way, video takes more bandwidth and adds little. So why do you do it? To look hip? It doesn't work.
So, I'd say it's kind of a given that when the old-breed, "we've been doing this for generations" brand of arrogance meets the upstart "we've literally changed the world in a little over a decade" brand of arrogance, sparks are going to fly. And the fact that the upstarts have working technology to do what the old breed still isn't sure is possible isn't going to help one bit.
Working technology? Well, sort of.
I'd like to see how comfortable these cars are to operate as random folks seeing the LiDAR unit on top of the car swerve suddenly towards the car to see how it responds. Hell, I'd do it once or twice to see if I could make it flinch and I'm a pretty mild guy in his 50's. I'd love to see what a few teenagers could do with your "smart" car. And I figure replacing a broken LiDAR unit would be a lot more expensive than replacing a couple of slashed tires. Yes, I can see many scenarios where you might be tossed out of autonomous mode quite frequently or incur higher costs, making this "feature" not particularly cost effective.
Think about Google Glass and think how well some early adopter with an automated chauffeur (one that might be slowing down traffic) would fare - that's all I'm saying.
A great book on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reckoning_(1986_book).
So you liked not prosecuting bank executives because "high ranking officials... will be even harder to pin down"? That was the line of reasoning used in the AG's office for not doing that. You want to give the powerful a pass because it's inefficient to prosecute them? But the rest of us? We're fair game? What a dick.
I am not saying that running social experiments on random people is a great idea (though it is funny),
Well, if it's so funny, how would you like random "social experiments" tried on you? Read this story from the days before informed consent and review boards became required and still tell me if you think it's "funny". Or better yet, tell the folks who potentially lost life and limb as a result how funny these experiments are.
Why don't you start by telling this guy? He's in our field so, surely, he'd understand all about these "harmless" social experiments and see how humorous they can be.
The reasoning was the same as what many are saying (IMO, incorrectly) here - that FB was already manipulating feeds so it was OK. I find this reasoning specious because, normally, FB modifies what it shows to attempt to change a narrow behavior with relatively finite consequences - whether a user clicks on an ad or not - while with this experiment the researchers were trying to alter something much more broad - a person's entire emotional state - a change with much broader implications. Given what we know from online bullying episodes, targeting a broad population in this manner could possibly exacerbate underlying emotional problems in some of the subjects. I can't see how these review boards let this study through - especially with a bullshit EULA for "informed consent".
The grounds for and circumstances surrounding these approvals should be investigated thoroughly.
But this line is crossed thousandfold already. The type of environment is secondary.
So your point is everybody's doing it, so it's OK?
That excuse didn't fly with anyone I knew growing up. I guess folks like you have forgotten some basic childhood lessons.
Overheard at banjo manufacturers worldwide:
Gentlemen, we now have the technology to make a banjo that doesn't sound sucky!
But then how would anyone know it's a banjo?
Written material has much higher information density an is easier to peruse without annoying others. It's also more easily indexable and browsable. Still pictures embedded in the text can bring enhancement. Why are all of you people are thinking video is so great (and here I mean for transmission of information, not entertainment)?. Are even technical people too stupid to read any more? They must be from the proliferation of videos on technical web site (where most videos show random motion of heads talking anyway and show nothing other than the same examples they have in textual form, so it's better, right).
I log in. I still get the beta pages (about 2 out of 5 articles) even though I've specified classic view. You can see in the comments how I'm dealing with it. There are alternatives.
Why do you think of that as a waste? Maybe he's satisfied. Or do you think that enjoyment of one's life is somehow not useful?
Probably because (a) the awful salary numbers for most PhDs skew the numbers in a way that the researchers didn't like, (b) they couldn't find the cardboard boxes postdocs live in to ask them how much they made, or (c) they couldn't find any humanities students who actually completed their PhDs for comparison.
Hah! for a moment I thought you said Google Privates. That sounds more marketable than a watch, albeit a bit more creepy. But I daresay that there are probably more fetishists out there who would welcome whatever Google Privates would be than people wanting to buy this watch.
Speaker phone isn't all bad.
Pro tip: It is bad for the rest of us who happen to be around you during your oh so important call who now view you as an inconsiderate jerk.
Please, give up the C++ slander.
Why? It deserves it. And I speak as one who has been using it since cfront 1.0 and used it for 15 years or so professionally. Basically, its two reasons to exist - its performance and its small (-ish) runtime library are dwindling in importance. You can now get as good performance writing C primitives in a decent high-level languages. And RT minimalism has only been an issue in the embedded world for the last 20 years or so.
Yes, it was once the mainstay of the engineering software world. Let it go and let it drift away to its end as the COBOL of the embedded world.
To say that your horrible kitten massacre won't come back to hurt you is incredibly naive.
Well, what did he expect? Anyone who kills 37 (IIRC) kittens is probably not going to be looked upon favorably. I was amazed there were only the few criminal charges that were handed out. And the jail time was pretty minimal for the charges (to be fair).
But for more executive teams who don't really know what they're doing it really means squeezing more work out of cheaper/fewer workers.
Bullshit. They know exactly "what they're doing". New tools cost money. More streamlined processes? Maybe. But why suffer retraining costs? More reliable supply chains? Anything else? It's harder to squeeze another business (who probably has other customers to sell to if you go away - unless you're Walmart). On the other hand, squeezing employees? Easy-peasey. Fire a few malcontents that don't fall into line in helping you "boost productivity" and the rest fall into line pretty damn quickly - especially when no one wants that horrible union thing around.
I've gotten a bit off-topic, but no, it's not because they're too stupid to do those other things - it's just easier and more cost-effective to squeeze employees until their eyes bleed.
I'm not sure the hostage analogy holds. If there's still time on the meter, the person there is entitled to be there. He could be eating a sandwich or looking at the scenery, but what he's doing with respect to the parking space by taking his time with it is not illegal. He is not "holding the space hostage" until his meter expires. I know a lot of times, I've gotten back to my meter before it expired. If this service could guarantee that the parking fee has been paid for the time it takes for this auction and the new parker to arrive, I'd say fine. But they can't. And, as such, they can't prove that they're not facilitating a crime. However, other than setting up stings, nobody's going to catch the criminals in the act either. So, no harm no foul? But the point stands, your "hostage" analogy is, at best, incomplete, if not falacious.
That being said, a stronger case could be made against this service due to the fact that a major part of what little social contract we have is due to the notion that everyone should have equal access to public facilities, such as parking. This company, by allocating parking selectively to its customers, is degrading fairness in allocation, effectively abrading a part of the social contract that made the parking spaces possible in the first place. I know that many people don't care much about that, but it says something that there are folks that would advocate even more fraying of an already decaying social contract in the name of "free enterprise". "Free rider" is more like it. This way lies revolution... Just sayin'.
Well, there's that, at least.
Oh my God! Is PERL really competing for worst language with Brainf*ck? After reading the article on the operator mentioned, I can only assume so. I can't believe with all of the syntax backward-compatibility crap they've bolted on they couldn't just have cleaned up the syntax. Thus, my assumption is the only reasonable explanation. Or maybe brain damage... I hear you get that from PERL.
Well, I would assume it emerges as a corollary of a Libertarian mind-set that wants a market solution for everything. Don't attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by stupidity.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.