Why guarantee that there will be no discrimination unless we can expect to be measured? A couple days ago, it was announced that the Senate (?) wants to attach a rider to the foreclosure relief bill that would require all involved in the loan process to be fingerprinted -- to have some of their biological data stored.
A great deal of rational people cannot see the logic behind that, so we then theorized that the main reason behind the rider is to get Joe Sixpack used to the idea of people having their biological identifiers stored in a collection of massive databases.
Now this comes along to, I believe, further lessen the concern of massive measurements and data storage. And as if we'd believe the government's promise to enforce the guarantee when we can so easily disregard Habeus Corpus and the Geneva Convention -- two of the tenants of Western Civilization that are supposed to be the last resort of promise to treat people equally.
I had the same reaction. I don't know of anything wrong with WinAmp except that it doesn't have *as* small a footprint as some very few other media players. But considering its features, plethora of skins, and ease of us, I don't see anything wrong with it.
The definition sounds like a hybrid of "JD Power & Associates" BS and some corporate jargon.
What about "Network Access per Capita" (the percentage of people in certain areas that can call their provider and start a broadband account/expect it to be up and running within a week)?
Or "Network Cost as a function of bandwidth per the median income of an area" (no use in saying that it's "affordable" if it's "affordable" only to those in the area's top tax bracket.
To be accurate, they gather that information with the intent of *creating* the level playing-field with the assumption that we are not born with equal circumstances.
Whether or not those numbers are used in the best practices is a completely different matter.
I know this won't be read, but I feel compelled to reply being the person that others have come to for advice. The 99% statistic for birth control refers to it working, 100% as intended, for 99 out of 100 uses. If we're talking about the pill, then one must refer a full month's nightly doses as "one use". So, if there's 99% confidence in the pill, then, probability says to expect it not to work 1/100 months (over a period of time much longer than 100 months).
Condoms are a different story. If the condom package says "99% effective", that means your soldiers are held at the gate 99/100 times you use the condom perfectly. According some research by planned parenthood, though, only 60% (or so?) of condom uses fall within perfect usage. That doesn't even put into consideration potential manufacturing flaws.
Moral of the story: Don't rely on someone else to bring and use birth control, get tested yearly if you're active, see a doctor for ANY reason (don't delay), and if you wouldn't kiss it, don't poke it.
1. The Know-It-All
2. The Know-Nothing
3. Mr. Entitlement
4. The Finger-Pointer
5. The Twentysomething Whiz Kid
Given that there are more of these than there are "Dream Users", a "Web 2.0" approach may not be the best idea.
However, speaking from the lips of one of the "Dream Users", I'd like to have a bit more freedom on *my* workstation. As it is right now, I cannot write to the program files directory nor install any program that requires registry entries. That means no compatability updates, no utilities (Acrobat Reader), etc. I can't streamline boot up, reduce RAM usage-- any of the things I would do on my own with an out-of-the-box machine without any fear of technological repercussions.
So, no, don't give everyone self-governance abilities, but please utilize the bomb-ass users you have. Help them help themselves!
That's the brilliance of the scenario. It gives you one clue to the identity of the person running away from the scene and the 99.9% statistic. It's an experiment in the capability of people to translate statistics into tangible numbers. If there's 200,000 people in the city, then statistically speaking, there's 200 people around that would have the same exact test result. If half are brown/tan then 100 that match the description-- if the person who committed the crime was tan/brown. One was brought in and tested. With at least 99 other people in the area fitting the exact description, there's not enough evidence to rationally convict.
Ya, people are really bad when it comes to big numbers. I was a part of a research study as an undergraduate with the following premise:
You're on a jury for a murder case with the scenario that a tan/brown man seen running away from a murder scene on a college campus. There was not enough of the attacker's DNA at the scene, but they were able to extract a DNA derivative that has matched that of a tan man in custody. Given that this derivative has a 99.9% successful rate, do you feel comfortable convicting the man in custody.
I was the only one in my group of 12 to say "No, I will not convict based on this evidence." No one else understood that.1% = 1/1000. Nor did they realize that our university alone had 20,000+ people on the campus at any time let alone that it was in the middle of a city of 200,000+.
Most people know what "fifty" is. Many know what "one hundred" is. Few understand what "one thousand" is. Too few understand the effects of millions, billions, and trillions. There's no way I'd convict with a.1% error, there's no way I'd accept a 1% error in the business of millions.
It's not that people are trying to attribute anthropromophic qualities to companies or organizations, it's the law. Years ago, some really greedy people really high up in power saw it fit to treat a collection of profiteering people as a separate entity, nearly a person, thus removing accountability from any one person or group of people. This has been used over and over again to abuse the influence of companies and corporations on the private and public lives of millions, if not billions, of people around the world. Some of us keep our eyes open long enough to see the havoc they've wreaked before we get distracted again.
So when a company, like Google, is found on the principle of "Don't Be Evil" (referring to the century+ of corporate abuse of influence), it's a breath of fresh air. Some of us cling to such few glimmers of hope for eventual change by law or by market forces -- thus far, it's market forces helping Google and those market forces are created by we geeks being affected by their products and policy.
So, as you can see, despite not being a genuine person, since the people behind the company can genuinely impart a personality upon the company by its adopted philosophies and practices. Since the law sees these companies as "near-persons", it's too hard to imagine why so many see them as people with genuine self-determined principles.
And if my device is "general multiple-format multi-media system"?
What? My computer, laptop, other computer, MP3 player, and car stereo all exchange information in one way or another. They're networked and connected in one way or another.
That's a very good point. Smooth. Again, in line with the visual aesthetics.
I'm a PC. Watch me knock this shit out. I'm a Mac. Please have a cup of tea while we soothe your eyes with the impressive stylings of the Apple art design team.
I appreciate the Apple styling, but it's not the way my mind works. If someone asks me a math question, I'm like, "BAM! 5.125!" I don't see a graphical sequence of numbers dancing in my head. So that's how I like my programs to work-- not participate in water ballet. =P
They made it pretty. They made it look clean. They made it look like a decoration, not a tool.
PC enthusiasts see their PCs as classic muscle cars. They like to work on them themselves, show power (for less cost), and use it for utility and entertainment.
Apple enthusiasts see their PCs as cute little pets. They like to show them off. They can do tasks for which the Apple was bred, but not much else-- but that's OK because Apple enthusiasts by their computers to serve specific purposes.
This is great for the Slashdot community! No more searching for a parking space ever again!
But on a more serious note, this is a ridiculous conclusion. There's a damn strong difference between compulsion, custom, and preference.
I am accustomed to getting in some online news reading in the morning. If I am denied that for whatever reason, I feel stupid and uninformed. Oh damn my mentally-handicapped eyes for having such an innate responsibility to know what's going on in the world with the intention of changing my actions as necessary to better the world around me.
I also have a preference to check various news sources throughout the day and sometimes google message a friend a comment on a story. Oh no! I feel compelled to comment! Intellectual discourse = addiction. =( Where's my helmet and short bus?
And then there's genuine compulsion-- where someone will go into severe mental breakdown, hysterics, or a violent reaction if something is not done a particular way.
If we're addicted to anything, it's information, knowledge, analysis, and discourse. So apparently that means crazy, eh? Hey George, great manual you've written there!
Yup, our founding fathers would be damn proud that their MILITARY TACTIC of terrorism and guerrilla warfare worked so well. Terrorism is a damn successful tactic used by the few to affect the many. Unfortunately, the US Government has seen it profitable to suggest that we are at war with the abstraction that is "terrorism". There is no singular enemy in terrorism. Thus, there's no end to the war.
Look at every constitutional revolution or rebellion we can say we agree with (French, American, etc) and try to argue that the "good guys" didn't use terrorism.
I used to love this idea of making everything internet capable. Everything electronic. Sensors everywhere! But then I got a little older and figured out that, (wow!), Earth is pretty neat and no monitor can really do justice to its genuine brightness, contrast, and overall realism.
I used to want a cell phone that did everything. I used to want to wear a computer on my sleeve. I thought it would be great for my refrigerator to tell me I'm low on mustard... but it's things like this complete Googling of a city that make me yearn more and more for a job that requires muscle strain more than brain drain and life in a small town that will never be cached in Google's infinite storage space.
Indexing a cemetery? Seriously... what happened to walking row by row and seeing names you think are familiar? Or finding that someone was buried with his/her dog. Or reading a beautiful epitaph and thinking "Wow, I hope someone loves me enough to think of something so beautiful to mark my resting place."? -- all on the way to see Nana because you need to talk and she has been and always will be there to listen. I'm sure I'm not alone in this sentiment.
I am very well known in my department and my prior places of work to be the super-geek. I hide it well, initially, but it always shows eventually. So when people propose, "Let's get the students laptops" and I say, "No way in hell!", they stutter in shock. I tell them "No" because I understand that computers are a great tool, but they're also the great distractor (ask any professor who has had his/her TA stand in the back of the lecture hall to see which one of the 85 laptop-users is actually taking notes).
But still, the lay yearn to have ubiquitous technologies and strive to make everything computer accessible to the point to where they will have to do little else than sit down, flip on, and nod off. I guess we could have seen this coming with television. Who is this benefiting? At what cost? To what ends?
Who else thinks that we've peaked in acceptable technological immersion? Who else turns their cell phones to silent when they're not expecting a call? Goes out on Saturdays just to 'get away' from the computer? Scoffs at the idea of being globally traceable even if we lived within the confines of a genuinely benevolent global government?
I know I've peaked. I'll always love to tinker with new hardware and software, but beyond simple information acquisition, entertainment, and person-to-person communication, you can count me out.
Ryerson's academic misconduct policy, which is being updated, defines it as "any deliberate activity to gain academic advantage"
Stupid people make these kinds of rules with the intent of covering ALL POSSIBLE ways of cheating. This is lazy lazy policy and can be used in the future to keep people from doing the "flavor of the month" activity. I agree with the above poster in calling them out. Force them to make real and effective descriptive policy. If you're not allowed to participate in activities that increase academic advantage, protest in a nice sarcastic way.
My suggestion: Wear a blindfold and noise-cancelling head phones to class. If the professors bother you, tell them that you're protesting the wording of the policy. Tell them you don't believe the policy should be made so broad as to encompass anything the administration may not like in the future.
Don't let your rule/lawmakers get by with this crap.
it 'destroys the market' by bringing down companies that create wealth and prosperity
That's bad. Or is it? I guess it depends on what you see as the "ends" or the "goal" of software. For most of us, software (with hardware) exists to allow us do more in less time. Or better yet, to reconcile our aspirations with our limitations.
There are others, though, who see software as a business whose ends and goals lay in wealth and prosperity... whose ends are completely debatable but nonetheless attractive.
Where does that leave us? If it were up to this guy, not rich, not capable, but definitely allowed to make him rich and capable.
Slashdot Mirror
Why guarantee that there will be no discrimination unless we can expect to be measured? A couple days ago, it was announced that the Senate (?) wants to attach a rider to the foreclosure relief bill that would require all involved in the loan process to be fingerprinted -- to have some of their biological data stored.
A great deal of rational people cannot see the logic behind that, so we then theorized that the main reason behind the rider is to get Joe Sixpack used to the idea of people having their biological identifiers stored in a collection of massive databases.
Now this comes along to, I believe, further lessen the concern of massive measurements and data storage. And as if we'd believe the government's promise to enforce the guarantee when we can so easily disregard Habeus Corpus and the Geneva Convention -- two of the tenants of Western Civilization that are supposed to be the last resort of promise to treat people equally.
It's only collectible if *no one* else thinks it's collectible. If everyone has it and collects it, then it's worthless.
#4 is and was my immediate concern.
"...all of my filth is arranged in alphabetical order. This, for instance, is under 'H' for "toy."
I was writing the same thing out and then I searched the page to see if someone else had already said so. I concur completely.
I had the same reaction. I don't know of anything wrong with WinAmp except that it doesn't have *as* small a footprint as some very few other media players. But considering its features, plethora of skins, and ease of us, I don't see anything wrong with it.
So it's VisualFlow (http://www.mee.com.sa/sony-vaio/SoftwareImages/Cr8tvSoftware/Photos/vf_04.gif) for your bookmarks? /pass
Somehow I didn't expect a link to a treadmill to be so quickly slashdotted. O.o
The definition sounds like a hybrid of "JD Power & Associates" BS and some corporate jargon.
What about "Network Access per Capita" (the percentage of people in certain areas that can call their provider and start a broadband account/expect it to be up and running within a week)?
Or "Network Cost as a function of bandwidth per the median income of an area" (no use in saying that it's "affordable" if it's "affordable" only to those in the area's top tax bracket.
To be accurate, they gather that information with the intent of *creating* the level playing-field with the assumption that we are not born with equal circumstances.
Whether or not those numbers are used in the best practices is a completely different matter.
I know this won't be read, but I feel compelled to reply being the person that others have come to for advice. The 99% statistic for birth control refers to it working, 100% as intended, for 99 out of 100 uses. If we're talking about the pill, then one must refer a full month's nightly doses as "one use". So, if there's 99% confidence in the pill, then, probability says to expect it not to work 1/100 months (over a period of time much longer than 100 months).
Condoms are a different story. If the condom package says "99% effective", that means your soldiers are held at the gate 99/100 times you use the condom perfectly. According some research by planned parenthood, though, only 60% (or so?) of condom uses fall within perfect usage. That doesn't even put into consideration potential manufacturing flaws.
Moral of the story: Don't rely on someone else to bring and use birth control, get tested yearly if you're active, see a doctor for ANY reason (don't delay), and if you wouldn't kiss it, don't poke it.
Slashdot posted this well-accepted article a while back http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9050878/ and it described the 5 users with whom an admin hates to deal.
1. The Know-It-All
2. The Know-Nothing
3. Mr. Entitlement
4. The Finger-Pointer
5. The Twentysomething Whiz Kid
Given that there are more of these than there are "Dream Users", a "Web 2.0" approach may not be the best idea.
However, speaking from the lips of one of the "Dream Users", I'd like to have a bit more freedom on *my* workstation. As it is right now, I cannot write to the program files directory nor install any program that requires registry entries. That means no compatability updates, no utilities (Acrobat Reader), etc. I can't streamline boot up, reduce RAM usage-- any of the things I would do on my own with an out-of-the-box machine without any fear of technological repercussions.
So, no, don't give everyone self-governance abilities, but please utilize the bomb-ass users you have. Help them help themselves!
Of course, we'll never have 100%. I'd never expect that. But with no other evidence, it's just not enough to convict.
That's the brilliance of the scenario. It gives you one clue to the identity of the person running away from the scene and the 99.9% statistic. It's an experiment in the capability of people to translate statistics into tangible numbers. If there's 200,000 people in the city, then statistically speaking, there's 200 people around that would have the same exact test result. If half are brown/tan then 100 that match the description-- if the person who committed the crime was tan/brown. One was brought in and tested. With at least 99 other people in the area fitting the exact description, there's not enough evidence to rationally convict.
The results were pretty disappointing.
Ya, people are really bad when it comes to big numbers. I was a part of a research study as an undergraduate with the following premise:
.1% = 1/1000. Nor did they realize that our university alone had 20,000+ people on the campus at any time let alone that it was in the middle of a city of 200,000+.
.1% error, there's no way I'd accept a 1% error in the business of millions.
You're on a jury for a murder case with the scenario that a tan/brown man seen running away from a murder scene on a college campus. There was not enough of the attacker's DNA at the scene, but they were able to extract a DNA derivative that has matched that of a tan man in custody. Given that this derivative has a 99.9% successful rate, do you feel comfortable convicting the man in custody.
I was the only one in my group of 12 to say "No, I will not convict based on this evidence." No one else understood that
Most people know what "fifty" is. Many know what "one hundred" is. Few understand what "one thousand" is. Too few understand the effects of millions, billions, and trillions.
There's no way I'd convict with a
It's not that people are trying to attribute anthropromophic qualities to companies or organizations, it's the law. Years ago, some really greedy people really high up in power saw it fit to treat a collection of profiteering people as a separate entity, nearly a person, thus removing accountability from any one person or group of people. This has been used over and over again to abuse the influence of companies and corporations on the private and public lives of millions, if not billions, of people around the world. Some of us keep our eyes open long enough to see the havoc they've wreaked before we get distracted again.
So when a company, like Google, is found on the principle of "Don't Be Evil" (referring to the century+ of corporate abuse of influence), it's a breath of fresh air. Some of us cling to such few glimmers of hope for eventual change by law or by market forces -- thus far, it's market forces helping Google and those market forces are created by we geeks being affected by their products and policy.
So, as you can see, despite not being a genuine person, since the people behind the company can genuinely impart a personality upon the company by its adopted philosophies and practices. Since the law sees these companies as "near-persons", it's too hard to imagine why so many see them as people with genuine self-determined principles.
And if my device is "general multiple-format multi-media system"? What? My computer, laptop, other computer, MP3 player, and car stereo all exchange information in one way or another. They're networked and connected in one way or another.
That's a very good point. Smooth. Again, in line with the visual aesthetics.
I'm a PC. Watch me knock this shit out.
I'm a Mac. Please have a cup of tea while we soothe your eyes with the impressive stylings of the Apple art design team.
I appreciate the Apple styling, but it's not the way my mind works. If someone asks me a math question, I'm like, "BAM! 5.125!" I don't see a graphical sequence of numbers dancing in my head. So that's how I like my programs to work-- not participate in water ballet. =P
They made it pretty. They made it look clean. They made it look like a decoration, not a tool.
PC enthusiasts see their PCs as classic muscle cars. They like to work on them themselves, show power (for less cost), and use it for utility and entertainment.
Apple enthusiasts see their PCs as cute little pets. They like to show them off. They can do tasks for which the Apple was bred, but not much else-- but that's OK because Apple enthusiasts by their computers to serve specific purposes.
This is great for the Slashdot community! No more searching for a parking space ever again!
But on a more serious note, this is a ridiculous conclusion. There's a damn strong difference between compulsion, custom, and preference.
I am accustomed to getting in some online news reading in the morning. If I am denied that for whatever reason, I feel stupid and uninformed. Oh damn my mentally-handicapped eyes for having such an innate responsibility to know what's going on in the world with the intention of changing my actions as necessary to better the world around me.
I also have a preference to check various news sources throughout the day and sometimes google message a friend a comment on a story. Oh no! I feel compelled to comment! Intellectual discourse = addiction. =( Where's my helmet and short bus?
And then there's genuine compulsion-- where someone will go into severe mental breakdown, hysterics, or a violent reaction if something is not done a particular way.
If we're addicted to anything, it's information, knowledge, analysis, and discourse. So apparently that means crazy, eh? Hey George, great manual you've written there!
Wow, I miss college.
Yup, our founding fathers would be damn proud that their MILITARY TACTIC of terrorism and guerrilla warfare worked so well. Terrorism is a damn successful tactic used by the few to affect the many. Unfortunately, the US Government has seen it profitable to suggest that we are at war with the abstraction that is "terrorism". There is no singular enemy in terrorism. Thus, there's no end to the war.
Look at every constitutional revolution or rebellion we can say we agree with (French, American, etc) and try to argue that the "good guys" didn't use terrorism.
I used to love this idea of making everything internet capable. Everything electronic. Sensors everywhere! But then I got a little older and figured out that, (wow!), Earth is pretty neat and no monitor can really do justice to its genuine brightness, contrast, and overall realism.
I used to want a cell phone that did everything. I used to want to wear a computer on my sleeve. I thought it would be great for my refrigerator to tell me I'm low on mustard... but it's things like this complete Googling of a city that make me yearn more and more for a job that requires muscle strain more than brain drain and life in a small town that will never be cached in Google's infinite storage space.
Indexing a cemetery? Seriously... what happened to walking row by row and seeing names you think are familiar? Or finding that someone was buried with his/her dog. Or reading a beautiful epitaph and thinking "Wow, I hope someone loves me enough to think of something so beautiful to mark my resting place."? -- all on the way to see Nana because you need to talk and she has been and always will be there to listen. I'm sure I'm not alone in this sentiment.
I am very well known in my department and my prior places of work to be the super-geek. I hide it well, initially, but it always shows eventually. So when people propose, "Let's get the students laptops" and I say, "No way in hell!", they stutter in shock. I tell them "No" because I understand that computers are a great tool, but they're also the great distractor (ask any professor who has had his/her TA stand in the back of the lecture hall to see which one of the 85 laptop-users is actually taking notes).
But still, the lay yearn to have ubiquitous technologies and strive to make everything computer accessible to the point to where they will have to do little else than sit down, flip on, and nod off. I guess we could have seen this coming with television. Who is this benefiting? At what cost? To what ends?
Who else thinks that we've peaked in acceptable technological immersion? Who else turns their cell phones to silent when they're not expecting a call? Goes out on Saturdays just to 'get away' from the computer? Scoffs at the idea of being globally traceable even if we lived within the confines of a genuinely benevolent global government?
I know I've peaked. I'll always love to tinker with new hardware and software, but beyond simple information acquisition, entertainment, and person-to-person communication, you can count me out.
To expand:
Ryerson's academic misconduct policy, which is being updated, defines it as "any deliberate activity to gain academic advantage"
Stupid people make these kinds of rules with the intent of covering ALL POSSIBLE ways of cheating. This is lazy lazy policy and can be used in the future to keep people from doing the "flavor of the month" activity. I agree with the above poster in calling them out. Force them to make real and effective descriptive policy. If you're not allowed to participate in activities that increase academic advantage, protest in a nice sarcastic way.
My suggestion: Wear a blindfold and noise-cancelling head phones to class. If the professors bother you, tell them that you're protesting the wording of the policy. Tell them you don't believe the policy should be made so broad as to encompass anything the administration may not like in the future.
Don't let your rule/lawmakers get by with this crap.
That's bad. Or is it? I guess it depends on what you see as the "ends" or the "goal" of software. For most of us, software (with hardware) exists to allow us do more in less time. Or better yet, to reconcile our aspirations with our limitations.
There are others, though, who see software as a business whose ends and goals lay in wealth and prosperity... whose ends are completely debatable but nonetheless attractive.
Where does that leave us? If it were up to this guy, not rich, not capable, but definitely allowed to make him rich and capable.