We'll certainly have machines that will appear to think and act human, but self-aware? Nope, I don't buy it.
It's like building a tower to reach the moon: You are able to double the height of the tower every year for the first n years, so based on the rate of growth, you could calculate that we would be on the moon soon, the only problem is that there are implicit limits to how high the tower can become until it is too heavy or too unstable to continue standing.
Everyone claiming we'll have true AI by 2029 is making the same types of mistaken assumptions.
Forget oil. We need to STOP using oil, not import more of it. Helium-3, THAT'S the way to go, and we can get tons of it on Luna. Send a few crews, build an automated refinery, etc... THAT'S where we need to go.
"Microsoft has removed the controversial 'kill switch' from Vista in SP1. This feature is designed to disable pirated copies of the OS, but had led to numerous reports of it disabling legitimate copies."
But the next line was so hilarious I realized they still are out to lunch:
"It will be replaced with a notice that repeatedly informs the user that their OS is pirated."
I just couldn't stop laughing.
Keep at it Microsoft, you may no longer be relevant in operating systems, but you sure are entertaining to watch!
Excelsior!
To anyone who says the movie isn't awesome -
on
Futurama Returns!
·
· Score: 1
One thing; I knew immediately who Lars was, but it made me like it even more!
I'm used to people who don't get it saying "It's not so hot" because it only works on one or a few levels for them, but for me, it WAS worth the wait and I found it gratifying and wonderful!
Thank you David X, Matt and everyone else. I am very happy.
[...]Armadillo was testing an automatic system to shut down its engines. The system was designed to reduce bouncing when the vehicle lands[...]
[...]lifted off and hovered without incident, then descended again and touched the ground. But it then rose again unexpectedly and began accelerating upward.[...]
>>Part of my job is to help management make decisions about technologies that they don't generally understand. If I don't attempt to get involved when my input is required, then I'm not doing my job.
That is different; if it is part of your job to help them decide then do it all the way.
Only the case being presented here isn't like that, it's something being imposed by upper management.
In such a case, you should document your concerns with your immediate supervisor and if he doesn't back you, drop it.
When the problems emerge, you can always pull out the e-mails to your supervisor showing how you presented a better alternative.
But doing anything more than that is counter-productive. Maybe the president will ask you for your opinion at a function and then you can tell him off the record or whatever, but going on a crusade will only get you fired.
If you really feel that strongly about it you should already be looking for another job.
We're currently paying 50K per year for support on a compiler we use. We've discovered bugs in said compiler, passed them along but they generally haven't been resolved in a timely manner. Your mileage may vary but I still find it much better when you have the source. No need to build a minimal-case to reproduce the bug, and let's face it, most bugs do not occur in trivial cases but when there is a LOT more interaction going on in there.
So what is the alternative? Ship the entire development environment to the vendor along with our proprietary code? Not acceptable.
In the cases where there have been bugs in open-source components that arose in scenarios like the one I outlined above, it's been almost trivially easy to fix them because we had the code and were able to reproduce the problem exactly while running the code in a debugger (sometimes just reading the code was enough) and fix it.
Experience has shown that THAT is much easier and resolved faster than opening support tickets, going around in circles with whoever is supporting the software until they finally understand the problem and then waiting months to hear back about it.
You say you have yet to use the support option. That's probably because someone else who has the code (probably not Red-hat) and is using it has encountered and fixed the bug like we have. I'm not saying YOU have to fix the bug, I'm saying it's important that someone (not only the vendor) have the source and be free to.
The dinosaurs were around for a few hundred million years and didn't evolve any technology, so even if there is/was life on other planets, it might be like the dinosaurs.
After a period of rule, the dinosaurs die out, other dinosaurs come into being, but the cosmos is not yet ready for sentience...
Maybe sentience happens everywhere simultaneously in the cosmos somewhat like Einstein's spooky-action-a-a-distance.
Maybe the cosmos is just now starting to evolve into the beginning phases of sentience and if that is the case, we and all the other species really are the "first"
I know it sounds kooky but isn't the universe like The Blanket Theory? The whole of everything IS connected. You could say that the universe is ONE organism.
If that is the case, then things could be progressing in stages everywhere in the universe at the same pace, life evolving everywhere at first but without sentience, and as if that was a necessary first step to set the stage for what is to come after, then we and other civilizations may just be starting up right now because the universe is "ready" for it now.
>The reason I hear most often cited for not considering open source software at my company is, "There's no one to hold accountable if it breaks."
The answer I always give for that is "WE can fix it, we have the source" Then I ask if there is a bug in any closed-source software they use (usually Microsoft) and they ALWAYS answer "Oh yeah! There is a bug in Outlook|IE|Word etc..." So I ask "Is provider X (usually Microsoft) aware of the bug?" "Yes - but it's been open for about three years now and they still haven't fixed it"
So I end by saying "We have programmers here that could fix it, if only we had the source..."
That usually brings them around.
If you are betting your business on software, you better have the source, otherwise you are a hostage.
Especially if the person making the call is not his immediate supervisor.
The MOST you should do in such a case is talk with your immediate supervisor and if that person agrees to take it higher, fine.
That's the acid-test really: If your supervisor WON'T back you up, then forget it and you may as well look for a different job if you can't stand it.
Is it apathy? Perhaps. Perhaps I feel that eventually the original poster WILL be proven right and that management needs to come to that realization by themselves.
I'm not against giving your opinion, but I feel it is useless if it is not requested, especially if the request is coming from even higher up. I've NEVER seen that work out.
So original poster, relax and make-do, or quit. Those are probably your only options.
You're mistaking my stand. I'm not pro-Microsoft. I'm pro-do-your-job.
ALL the points you made are valid, and between you and me, I'd rather use Linux. In fact I use Linux exclusively at home. It IS better, and I should know: they used to call me Mr. Windows. I've developed device drivers for every version of Windows from 3.1 on up to Windows 2000, also services and regular GUI apps. I'm a master of Win32 programming.
Up until a few years ago, I was TOTALLY ignorant of Linux, but then I noticed a trend; as time went by, Microsoft was trying more and more to limit information about their internal implementation of just about everything while becoming more and more restrictive with their licensing.
At the same time I was growing more and more curious (maybe nostalgic) for clean, lean code and designs in software. This naturally brought me towards Linux more and more.
As things stand now, It's essentially over: Microsoft will eventually be supplanted everywhere by Linux. It is inevitable, the snowball is rolling down a hill and getting larger by the day, and for good reason.
Even so, there are still mis-steps to be made along the way.
So my argument is not that MS is superior (heavens no!) but rather that until you are asked for a solution, you should not try to give one. It is useless.
>>if he wants a less frustrated future he should indeed act now.
But it isn't your job to be frustrated, it's your job to roll out whatever management decides to go with, you're being paid to do that.
If there were no alternatives, you'd go with whatever was available and live with it, right?
A lot of this "frustration" comes from thinking you need to steer the company. You don't.
If whoever in charge ASKS you for your opinion, you should give it, but never mind tilting at windmills trying to convert people to your religion, that only makes people MORE entrenched. And like I said before, that ISN'T your job.
Just do your job and install and maintain whatever the hell management decides. Linux is not going to go away simply because a few chowder-head PHBs don't know anything about it. If that were true it would never have gotten established like it has.
If YOU want to use Linux, install it at home and use it there. Let the employer have whatever s/he wants, the employer IS the one spending money, not you. It isn't your job to go on a crusade to change their minds.
When your shop will have spent lots of money to convert from your current set-up to whatever they want and you wind up with more problems to boot, THEN they might start looking for solutions and be more open to something other than.NET
There is nothing less attractive than people trying to force things on you, don't be one of those people yourself.
As the world continues to explore and adopt Linux, things will change, but there will still be people running archaic outdated and sub-par systems, even when Linux will dominate.
>> "A latest column suggests that Microsoft may not be really interested in killing Linux for mainstream users. It's after something else, and it's getting its way already [...]"
You know that phase when the person being dumped says "I never even liked you, so there" and a little while later comes crawling back saying "Please give me another chance"
Cue the Microsoft "Try us again, we really changed this time" publicity campaign in 3,2,1...
Slashdot Mirror
We'll certainly have machines that will appear to think and act human, but self-aware?
Nope, I don't buy it.
It's like building a tower to reach the moon: You are able to double the height of the tower every year for the first n years, so based on the rate of growth, you could calculate that we would be on the moon soon, the only problem is that there are implicit limits to how high the tower can become until it is too heavy or too unstable to continue standing.
Everyone claiming we'll have true AI by 2029 is making the same types of mistaken assumptions.
Forget oil.
We need to STOP using oil, not import more of it.
Helium-3, THAT'S the way to go, and we can get tons of it on Luna.
Send a few crews, build an automated refinery, etc...
THAT'S where we need to go.
>Lucky it's not Uranus where these 'hydrocarbons' were found.
>Otherwise there would already be a proposal to go out there and drill it.
Oil hitting Uranus?
they stopped giving what the CUSTOMER wants.
Whenever you push an agenda different from the client's, the client walks.
Why don't they start by shutting down the zombies?
that will query random domain names.
Millions of them. Have fun squatters!
So I'm getting a kick out of all these replies... //Fark
Wait. wrong web-site.
a moment:
"Microsoft has removed the controversial 'kill switch' from Vista in SP1. This feature is designed to disable pirated copies of the OS, but had led to numerous reports of it disabling legitimate copies."
But the next line was so hilarious I realized they still are out to lunch:
"It will be replaced with a notice that repeatedly informs the user that their OS is pirated."
I just couldn't stop laughing.
Keep at it Microsoft, you may no longer be relevant in operating systems, but you sure are entertaining to watch!
Excelsior!
Bite my shiny metal ass! (Caution - spoilers)
It was the best script so far!
It had nods to "By His Bootstraps" (on top od the dozens of usual obscure and nerdy references)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_His_Bootstraps
And it managed to avoid paradoxes!
I love it to bits!
One thing; I knew immediately who Lars was, but it made me like it even more!
I'm used to people who don't get it saying "It's not so hot" because it only works on one or a few levels for them, but for me, it WAS worth the wait and I found it gratifying and wonderful!
Thank you David X, Matt and everyone else. I am very happy.
Seems like a dangerous combination.
Might explain all the buggy sotware, which I always attributed to too much coffee...
Does that mean Spielberg is going to retouch Jurassic Park to add feathers?
>why they may have done it
Not to disrespect all the victims, but I imagine it's similar in feel to OJ's "If I did it"
[...]Armadillo was testing an automatic system to shut down its engines. The system was designed to reduce bouncing when the vehicle lands[...]
e ring)
[...]lifted off and hovered without incident, then descended again and touched the ground. But it then rose again unexpectedly and began accelerating upward.[...]
Might need to work on the de-bouncing algorithm a bit more...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensation_(engine
As millions of geeks try this out on members of the opposite sex.
>>Part of my job is to help management make decisions about technologies that they don't generally understand. If I don't attempt to get involved when my input is required, then I'm not doing my job.
That is different; if it is part of your job to help them decide then do it all the way.
Only the case being presented here isn't like that, it's something being imposed by upper management.
In such a case, you should document your concerns with your immediate supervisor and if he doesn't back you, drop it.
When the problems emerge, you can always pull out the e-mails to your supervisor showing how you presented a better alternative.
But doing anything more than that is counter-productive. Maybe the president will ask you for your opinion at a function and then you can tell him off the record or whatever, but going on a crusade will only get you fired.
If you really feel that strongly about it you should already be looking for another job.
>>[...] you need that support agreement.
We're currently paying 50K per year for support on a compiler we use.
We've discovered bugs in said compiler, passed them along but they generally haven't been resolved in a timely manner.
Your mileage may vary but I still find it much better when you have the source.
No need to build a minimal-case to reproduce the bug, and let's face it, most bugs do not occur in trivial cases but when there is a LOT more interaction going on in there.
So what is the alternative? Ship the entire development environment to the vendor along with our proprietary code? Not acceptable.
In the cases where there have been bugs in open-source components that arose in scenarios like the one I outlined above, it's been almost trivially easy to fix them because we had the code and were able to reproduce the problem exactly while running the code in a debugger (sometimes just reading the code was enough) and fix it.
Experience has shown that THAT is much easier and resolved faster than opening support tickets, going around in circles with whoever is supporting the software until they finally understand the problem and then waiting months to hear back about it.
You say you have yet to use the support option. That's probably because someone else who has the code (probably not Red-hat) and is using it has encountered and fixed the bug like we have. I'm not saying YOU have to fix the bug, I'm saying it's important that someone (not only the vendor) have the source and be free to.
The dinosaurs were around for a few hundred million years and didn't evolve any technology, so even if there is/was life on other planets, it might be like the dinosaurs.
After a period of rule, the dinosaurs die out, other dinosaurs come into being, but the cosmos is not yet ready for sentience...
Maybe sentience happens everywhere simultaneously in the cosmos somewhat like Einstein's spooky-action-a-a-distance.
Maybe the cosmos is just now starting to evolve into the beginning phases of sentience and if that is the case, we and all the other species really are the "first"
I know it sounds kooky but isn't the universe like The Blanket Theory? The whole of everything IS connected. You could say that the universe is ONE organism.
If that is the case, then things could be progressing in stages everywhere in the universe at the same pace, life evolving everywhere at first but without sentience, and as if that was a necessary first step to set the stage for what is to come after, then we and other civilizations may just be starting up right now because the universe is "ready" for it now.
>The reason I hear most often cited for not considering open source software at my company is, "There's no one to hold accountable if it breaks."
The answer I always give for that is "WE can fix it, we have the source"
Then I ask if there is a bug in any closed-source software they use (usually Microsoft) and they ALWAYS answer "Oh yeah! There is a bug in Outlook|IE|Word etc..."
So I ask "Is provider X (usually Microsoft) aware of the bug?" "Yes - but it's been open for about three years now and they still haven't fixed it"
So I end by saying "We have programmers here that could fix it, if only we had the source..."
That usually brings them around.
If you are betting your business on software, you better have the source, otherwise you are a hostage.
I've been through this; it won't work.
Especially if the person making the call is not his immediate supervisor.
The MOST you should do in such a case is talk with your immediate supervisor and if that person agrees to take it higher, fine.
That's the acid-test really: If your supervisor WON'T back you up, then forget it and you may as well look for a different job if you can't stand it.
Is it apathy? Perhaps. Perhaps I feel that eventually the original poster WILL be proven right and that management needs to come to that realization by themselves.
I'm not against giving your opinion, but I feel it is useless if it is not requested, especially if the request is coming from even higher up. I've NEVER seen that work out.
So original poster, relax and make-do, or quit. Those are probably your only options.
You're mistaking my stand.
I'm not pro-Microsoft. I'm pro-do-your-job.
ALL the points you made are valid, and between you and me, I'd rather use Linux.
In fact I use Linux exclusively at home. It IS better, and I should know: they used to call me Mr. Windows. I've developed device drivers for every version of Windows from 3.1 on up to Windows 2000, also services and regular GUI apps. I'm a master of Win32 programming.
Up until a few years ago, I was TOTALLY ignorant of Linux, but then I noticed a trend; as time went by, Microsoft was trying more and more to limit information about their internal implementation of just about everything while becoming more and more restrictive with their licensing.
At the same time I was growing more and more curious (maybe nostalgic) for clean, lean code and designs in software. This naturally brought me towards Linux more and more.
As things stand now, It's essentially over: Microsoft will eventually be supplanted everywhere by Linux. It is inevitable, the snowball is rolling down a hill and getting larger by the day, and for good reason.
Even so, there are still mis-steps to be made along the way.
So my argument is not that MS is superior (heavens no!) but rather that until you are asked for a solution, you should not try to give one. It is useless.
>>if he wants a less frustrated future he should indeed act now.
But it isn't your job to be frustrated, it's your job to roll out whatever management decides to go with, you're being paid to do that.
If there were no alternatives, you'd go with whatever was available and live with it, right?
A lot of this "frustration" comes from thinking you need to steer the company. You don't.
If whoever in charge ASKS you for your opinion, you should give it, but never mind tilting at windmills trying to convert people to your religion, that only makes people MORE entrenched. And like I said before, that ISN'T your job.
Just do your job and install and maintain whatever the hell management decides.
.NET
Linux is not going to go away simply because a few chowder-head PHBs don't know anything about it. If that were true it would never have gotten established like it has.
If YOU want to use Linux, install it at home and use it there. Let the employer have whatever s/he wants, the employer IS the one spending money, not you. It isn't your job to go on a crusade to change their minds.
When your shop will have spent lots of money to convert from your current set-up to whatever they want and you wind up with more problems to boot, THEN they might start looking for solutions and be more open to something other than
There is nothing less attractive than people trying to force things on you, don't be one of those people yourself.
As the world continues to explore and adopt Linux, things will change, but there will still be people running archaic outdated and sub-par systems, even when Linux will dominate.
>>Hwang achieves parthogenesis...
>>There's a joke in there, but I just can't put my finger on it...
I've got it! - Normally, you don't NEED a hwang to achieve parthenogenesis!
It's as if a billion PCs crashed out in blue-screens at once...
>> "A latest column suggests that Microsoft may not be really interested in killing Linux for mainstream users. It's after something else, and it's getting its way already [...]"
You know that phase when the person being dumped says "I never even liked you, so there"
and a little while later comes crawling back saying "Please give me another chance"
Cue the Microsoft "Try us again, we really changed this time" publicity campaign in 3,2,1...