The real question isn't "why don't they catch on?"
It's "why do they ever catch on?"
Changing your OS changes everything about your computing environment. It's like saying, "I know you like this air stuff you're breathing, but...wanna to try this nifty hyper-oxygenated liquid to breathe? It has so many advantages, and it's really cool!"
As much as most FOSS fanatics might hate it, their wares exist in a world in which profit is a great motive, i.e. the business world. Most folks in the business could give a rats ass about the difference between "free" and "free."
"Do I have to pay for it?"
"No."
"I like it!"
Java is the defacto programming language of the business world. The folks at Sun have to live in, and sell to, and speak to that world. Yes, they also have to live in the FOSS world as well. They bridge the gap between the two. Can you whiny bastards get used to that?
I've had to resort to this myself. I started working at a company where the upper management was highly religious. One of the managers was a tough erratic and liked to sit in my office for thirty minutes a day and evangelize. He also said, in one rant, that one couldn't be a competent techie unless one was "right with the Lord."
I'm agnostic.
So I got a microphone and attached it to my laptop. I was prepared to record his rant if my heathen status was ever revealed. Thankfully it never came to that. The company folded when the very devout Christian CEO was convicted of HUD loan fraud and sent to federal prison.:P
I'm not sure what bad social skills you speak of, but here's how I usually approach that: if someone is really capable, they can be eccentric, even arrogant. If they're stupid, forget it. Gosling is definately a skilled individual, so he gets some asshole points, imho.
The difference between this approach and those previous approaches is the way the underlying neural networks are constructed. NEAT (NeuroEvolution of Augmenting Topologies) constructs new network structures, whereas the old approaches used existing networks and tried to train them with user input. The NEAT approach is far more sophisticated.
That *if only* the US didn't exist, some magical utopia would appear? It almost makes the evangelical far right look intelligent--which is a difficult task indeed.
Wow, it's the battle of the straw men. Better not light a match there, sonny. Your whole worldview might go up.
The FBI loves to post huge numbers on cases like these because it makes them look important.
That, and it may help in budget appropriations. Your budget is likely to be cut if you don't spend all of the money in a year. If you're behind on spending, say by $100 mil, you could say "but this hacker cost us $1 billion in damages! We're only going to charge $100 mil for our trouble, though..."
Now is the time to get with your local governments and start building muni wifi networks, even if it's just a single hotspot fed by a DSL connection. The Texas legislature only meets every other year. Two years should be enough to get local laws passed and funding procured.
Why is this important? Even the most draconian ban (that could pass both houses) would have to grandfather in existing networks.
This seems to be another step in the battle that's as old as the web...
Nah, this is as old as communication itself.
For example, I say to my girlfriend, "You look great in that dress!"
She hears, "I'm complimenting you even though I think you're fat, and I want sex later!"
Communication is always about three things: expression, transmission, and interpretation. Greasemonkey puts a bit more power and flexibility on the interpretation side for Firefox.
See, to me it's not just the physical substrate that causes intelligence, it's the organization of those physical bits and the process used to achieve that organization. In the end the two are inseperable as the substrate allows the processes to occur, and the processes reform the substrate so it can attain states it could not otherwise attain.
This may sound like pseudoscience babble for two reasons: 1) it's very abstract and high level, and 2) it is pseudoscience.:) It's pseudoscience until testable hypotheses can be created based on it, and that's probably a ways off. For one thing it would require several examples of evolving systems to which we can apply the abstraction. We only have one system now that's commonly accepted as an evolutionary system, but more folks are coming around to the idea of applying the concept to different areas.
If the analogy were to hold, then you would be arguing that the Earth's biosphere was intelligent, not that evolution was intelligent. I usually don't respond to AC's, but this needs addressing.
You're making an artificial dichotomy, kind of like saying "there's the mind and the body, and they're two seperate things." They're not. Evolution is a characteristic of the biosphere, not a seperate entity, just as the mind is a product of the body. You cannot have a mind without a body, as far as we know. Likewise you cannot have a process of evolution without something to evolve.
So, when I speak of the intelligence of evolution, of course I'm talking about a characteristic of a physical entity. It goes without saying...
While tracking the offenders would certainly be effective, you can only track them with respect to places where children may congregate. (i.e. schools and playgrounds) But this comes nowhere near solving the problem. It would be much more effective if the children could be tracked as well. We must place similar tracking chips in children so we can see if an offender comes near them. It's the only way to be safe.
At least, that's the line of reasoning I expect, if this practice becomes widespread...
Slashdot Mirror
Tell me more!
m'kay...
The real question isn't "why don't they catch on?"
It's "why do they ever catch on?"
Changing your OS changes everything about your computing environment. It's like saying, "I know you like this air stuff you're breathing, but...wanna to try this nifty hyper-oxygenated liquid to breathe? It has so many advantages, and it's really cool!"
Would you make the switch?
How JAVA's Floating-Point Hurts Everyone Everywhere
That presentation was done in 1998.
That'd be seven years ago...
Ever heard of java.lang.StrictMath? Didn't think so. Been around since Java 1.3. Current version is 1.5.
As much as most FOSS fanatics might hate it, their wares exist in a world in which profit is a great motive, i.e. the business world. Most folks in the business could give a rats ass about the difference between "free" and "free."
"Do I have to pay for it?"
"No."
"I like it!"
Java is the defacto programming language of the business world. The folks at Sun have to live in, and sell to, and speak to that world. Yes, they also have to live in the FOSS world as well. They bridge the gap between the two. Can you whiny bastards get used to that?
You mean who helped stop the Fla court from changing the local election law after the election.
What's so bad about changing the law for political gain?
It's the wanna-be's who try to pull off the "I'm a brooding genius" ploy that tend to be assholes.
I'm sorry, but Gosling's not a wanna-be. He be.
I've had to resort to this myself. I started working at a company where the upper management was highly religious. One of the managers was a tough erratic and liked to sit in my office for thirty minutes a day and evangelize. He also said, in one rant, that one couldn't be a competent techie unless one was "right with the Lord."
:P
I'm agnostic.
So I got a microphone and attached it to my laptop. I was prepared to record his rant if my heathen status was ever revealed. Thankfully it never came to that. The company folded when the very devout Christian CEO was convicted of HUD loan fraud and sent to federal prison.
...his social skills leave a lot to be desired...
I'm not sure what bad social skills you speak of, but here's how I usually approach that: if someone is really capable, they can be eccentric, even arrogant. If they're stupid, forget it. Gosling is definately a skilled individual, so he gets some asshole points, imho.
The difference between this approach and those previous approaches is the way the underlying neural networks are constructed. NEAT (NeuroEvolution of Augmenting Topologies) constructs new network structures, whereas the old approaches used existing networks and tried to train them with user input. The NEAT approach is far more sophisticated.
..., but it's in fact the democrats who think it's okay to give authority to a municipality to bulldoze a home to build a Walmart.
Um, but you just said that more Republicans voted for the decision than Democrats. How can it, then, be a decision "by the Democrats"?
I mean... all they need is a way to peer back in...
Many cellphones have cameras, conveniently connected to a transmitter, ya?
Its against the rules of the Senate (rule XVI)
I seem to recall the words of our honerable Senate president: "Go fuck yourself!"
That *if only* the US didn't exist, some magical utopia would appear? It almost makes the evangelical far right look intelligent--which is a difficult task indeed.
Wow, it's the battle of the straw men. Better not light a match there, sonny. Your whole worldview might go up.
The FBI loves to post huge numbers on cases like these because it makes them look important.
That, and it may help in budget appropriations. Your budget is likely to be cut if you don't spend all of the money in a year. If you're behind on spending, say by $100 mil, you could say "but this hacker cost us $1 billion in damages! We're only going to charge $100 mil for our trouble, though..."
Now is the time to get with your local governments and start building muni wifi networks, even if it's just a single hotspot fed by a DSL connection. The Texas legislature only meets every other year. Two years should be enough to get local laws passed and funding procured.
Why is this important? Even the most draconian ban (that could pass both houses) would have to grandfather in existing networks.
It's time to get cracking.
"he and Morgan Webb were the only things worth watching"
You're half right
Actually, he's two thirds right.
This seems to be another step in the battle that's as old as the web...
Nah, this is as old as communication itself.
For example, I say to my girlfriend, "You look great in that dress!"
She hears, "I'm complimenting you even though I think you're fat, and I want sex later!"
Communication is always about three things: expression, transmission, and interpretation. Greasemonkey puts a bit more power and flexibility on the interpretation side for Firefox.
Yep, that sounds pedantic. :)
:) It's pseudoscience until testable hypotheses can be created based on it, and that's probably a ways off. For one thing it would require several examples of evolving systems to which we can apply the abstraction. We only have one system now that's commonly accepted as an evolutionary system, but more folks are coming around to the idea of applying the concept to different areas.
See, to me it's not just the physical substrate that causes intelligence, it's the organization of those physical bits and the process used to achieve that organization. In the end the two are inseperable as the substrate allows the processes to occur, and the processes reform the substrate so it can attain states it could not otherwise attain.
This may sound like pseudoscience babble for two reasons: 1) it's very abstract and high level, and 2) it is pseudoscience.
If the analogy were to hold, then you would be arguing that the Earth's biosphere was intelligent, not that evolution was intelligent.
I usually don't respond to AC's, but this needs addressing.
You're making an artificial dichotomy, kind of like saying "there's the mind and the body, and they're two seperate things." They're not. Evolution is a characteristic of the biosphere, not a seperate entity, just as the mind is a product of the body. You cannot have a mind without a body, as far as we know. Likewise you cannot have a process of evolution without something to evolve.
So, when I speak of the intelligence of evolution, of course I'm talking about a characteristic of a physical entity. It goes without saying...
While tracking the offenders would certainly be effective, you can only track them with respect to places where children may congregate. (i.e. schools and playgrounds) But this comes nowhere near solving the problem. It would be much more effective if the children could be tracked as well. We must place similar tracking chips in children so we can see if an offender comes near them. It's the only way to be safe.
At least, that's the line of reasoning I expect, if this practice becomes widespread...
...it keeps on repeating it's mistakes, which is not a sign of intelligence.
Then, by that definition, most humans are not intelligent.
No, I think you've got a lack of intelligence mixed up with insanity:
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." - Benjamin Franklin
Has evolution ever passed a Turing test?
Yes. You exist.
Evolution does not work that way at all. It has no goals...
It has no goals that you can now fathom. Can the neuron fathom the goals of the brain?
Making this claim is as bad as making the Intelligent design claim. Can you prove it? I think not.
Evolution is not an intelligent process.
The firing of a neuron is not an intelligent process.
The release of a neurotransmitter is not an intelligent process.
And yet these processes (and many others, both known and unknown) combine to create our intelligence.
So, why can't the processes of evolution do the same?
ID has nothing to do with science...
That's kind of like saying, "That tiger in the room has nothing to do with my humanity."
Sure it does. The tiger could end your humanity.
ID could end science.