ex: iphone app for diabetics...you test your blood on a dongle conncted to the phone and the data gets sent via internet to your doctor's office or to a parent
if you don't check or your blood sugar goes below a set limit the system sends txt message reminders to you/your parents/your doctor
HIPPA has privacy rights built in, but I've also read it has some back doors for doctors to share info w/ big pharma
it's not perfect but it's *definitely* HIPPA data...which gives the user more protection and removes the obligation to show damages in a civil case against a hacker
this mistake all the time: "If we only double down, and do what is NOT working HARDER..."
I like where you're coming from, and I agree that small businesses do this, but this has *absolutely* nothing to do with what we see happening with Surface 2 and M$
Surface 2 was too far in the development pipeline to stop. Microsoft couldn't stop it if it tried...
Large corporations *cannot* just put the kibosh on a multi-year multi-million product roll out.
It's because of scale, marketing, & stupidity...
Product development today in America is a Kafkaesque nightmare...today's business strategy puts decision makers so far from the product it's like being on the moon. The development cycle takes so long and has so many moving parts where workers try to put their special 'finger print' on the product as it passes by...nothing can get changed.
M$ had the Surface 2 designed concurrently with the Surface...distribution...ad buys...they all are in a giant 'plan'
In the end, you can of course find a similarity between M$ and a failing small business...but you're really under the wrong impression of you think M$ did this b/c of hubris...**they had no choice because they boxed themselves in a corner with dumb product development tactics**
I agree with your point about how these articles are a waste of time to read b/c they are essentially just one random person's diary of their tech travails in life....
The question of the post, about coding being 'fun' I think goes to something deeper though, something that TFA tries lamely to address:
Coding languages are non-sensical. That's what makes them so 'hard' to learn.
First, let me contrast between 'easy' and 'hard' & 'simple' and 'complex'....so, the task of 'dig a 5x5x5' hole in the ground' is a simple task, but it's not 'easy' with just a spade shovel...it's at least a day task for most/. readers
Coding is 'hard' AND 'complex'....contrast with the game of chess...a child can learn the basic rules of how the pieces move and interact, but the game itself is as complex as anything humans do..."easy to learn, difficult to master"
One reason coding is 'hard' is that so many abstraction layers add unnecessary complexity. People encounter choices and usage of language that is completely out of context of anything they experience and so far removed, in a systemic sense, from the 'user interaction layer'....So therefore, much of the work of coding is learning how to quickly teach yourself how to do a specific task.
The problem is, many professionals have built their workflow around dealing with coding's ridiculous abstractions. They establish a system of their own using heuristics.These tactics have become **standard operating proceedure**
Which alienates new coders.
The true difficulty in coding is the abstraction. Computers can do anything in 'cyberspace' in a sense...the only limits are our ability to describe commands with language!It's **contextuallizing** that total openness into a 'language' for human users to write commands for the computer to execute
So, to sum up, my theory is that writing code requires that the coder develop their own mental heuristic to overcome the natural limitations in the coding language in use.
"yes, duh" you might be saying...and that's why this matters in relation to TFA
Coding is not fucking 'fun' because new users expect coding languages to be intuitive instead of random and abstract. They *expect* to use their proven inteligence and methods that work for other endeavors to work with coding.It doesn't.
The answer to how to make coding "fun" and how to teach new coders so they retain interest is simple:
BE HONEST UP FRONT about what the real work is...
we need to stop pretending that us coders who have 'figured it out' have some magical intuition...it's all hammer-to-forehead slogging uphill...and finding cheats and shortcuts
I think it might end up looking too similar to a simple random generated behavior.
yeah, I know what you mean...
my idea is to have the 2d realm change in a way that is kind of independent of the 3d game world
I guess you could call that 'evolving'...I assumed my 2d conway game would have all the possible things...even at different scales...I've seen videos of what happens when you 'evolve' a simple conway pattern over so many quintillion computer cycles and it's interesting
you've definitely brought up some interesting possibilities
Unfortunately you and Blackberry's leaders have the same problem
You think *any* idea for how to solve a problem is *innovation*
It's not.
Without having a definition battle, linking to stuff, let me try to explain.
Commonalities emerge in any repeated action. In a job, you typically have similar problems on a daily basis that have similar solutions.
Humans naturally look for these commonalities and progressions and try to learn them.
**innovation**...like true innovation that is worth getting excited about...that is when a person goes outside that typical problem/solution modality in a way that changes all future context (sometimes on a bigger scale than others)
You are wanting the Nobel Prize for finishing your dissertation.
See, I know this b/c I am a HCI researcher and I was trained in telecommunications. I know the history of technology and where things like SMTP were...I agree that some **engineers** used innovative solutions to getting cell towers to speak SMTP
But that is what you expect from a tech company.
So nothing out of the ordinary or unpredictable about Blackberry's success...or failure
Don't be too hard on RIM, going from selling profes.io...
sorry to do this but I have to...for everyone's sake...we *need* to know what works and why, otherwise we will have to endure the next generation fucking things up the same way in tech business
They were innovators for professional use.
this is why I refuse to let Blackberry and RIM off the hook...god bless their employees...i'm sure many did great work
but, look...here's the deal:
in the mid-90s **high school kids** had pagers...they were such barbaric 1-way only text gagets...but compared to nothing it was like telepathy
**ANYONE** with half a brain at that time would logically conclude that there is a market for a **two-way** texting device
the next logical step in functionality is not innovation
they had some pretty clever stuff around data compression and getting emails to phone in realtime over limited 2G connections that nobody else could do for years
I can take your word for it I guess, but this is credit to *engineers* not businesspeople
That's why I give Blackberry no respect...it was in the right place at the right time in cell phone evolution for a moment
Whatever 'innovation' happened when real engineers were hired to figure it all out and make it work...I can buy that...
But any rich idiot could have pounded their fist on the table and said "make me a pager that sends email and makes phone calls" and with enough money and the right engineers it would happen...
after that it's about their 'enterprise' strategy (which another post above in this thread has some good info on)
The Republicans have learned that saying they're against evolution gets them the votes and campaign contributions from a large chunk of people who don't believe in evolution, and they want to perpetuate that block of voters
for sure I agree...it's a 'vote getter' in some states like Texas
I just wonder what is the endgame?
it seems that Republicans (at the party/national level, not our neighbors who vote GOP) are willing to full-on destroy their party...fine...that happens...
but then what?
IMHO, whether or not the GOP 'destroys itself' in some grand moment, the steps *after* are the same...they have to **change their policy positions**
but how will they change?
if you can predict that, you could have alot of success...idk...
obviously it's towards 'libertarianism' but any true libertarian has been holding their nose voting for Democrats ever since 9/11 and the Patriot Act
that's what i'm saying....the GOP can't just 'go libertarian' b/c they ruined that option too...they had their chance to plausibly go that route but instead we got another Bush...
yep...I just don't know what ground the GOP has left to go to once the smoke clears
hey man, I definitely think that textbook writers should be the best we can find...that's what I mean't by 'professional'...if you're trying to make the best thing you get the best to make it
Common Core is not the result of 'anti-American progressives'...jeez...
it's b/c Republicans want to **end public education** and in some states that means setting them up to fail...
let me repeat: some state GOPers are so desperate they will tank their own education system to pave the way for privatization
**that** is the whole reason 'Common Core' exists
if you want to talk about specifics of Common Core...and how, say, you think the Math part isn't rigorous enough...*fine* let's talk...but don't blame 'liberal anti-American progressives' for GOP greed
purely my imagination...if I think about it, I have to say it relates to how the story is told and the 'zomg switch!' tone of the article
I checked the wikipedia, and there is plenty of details. The pilot reported a fuel leak in a wing during in-flight refueling. Problem got worse, were told to go into holding pattern to use up fuel to prep for landing...fuel leaks too fast (?) then:
"As it descended through 10,000 feet (3,000 m) on its approach to the airfield, the pilots were no longer able to keep the aircraft in trim and lost control of it. "
They 'lost control'...
Is it from the fuel leak? Are we assuming that the wing had damage and that's why the fuel was leaking?
Sounds plausible for sure...
I guess I buy it, but it is a fact that our government leaks out state secrets like this...just look at the 9/11 Commission Report...or the Gulf Of Tonkein stuff...or the fact that some info about the Kennedy Assasination doesnt' get declassified for another decade at least...
I'm just always looking for messages between the lines...
Can you imagine someone sabotaging the plane somehow?
Russia could get all the benefit of having nuked us with none of the blame or retaliation!
The whole "Lawsuits in Motion" thing distracted them, but mostly they missed the boat
You're giving Blackberry too much credit here...a company of thousands doesn't get "distracted"...the decision makers may be completely out of touch with their market or now technology works...that sure is possible...but a company can't get "distracted" any more than it can "take a shit"
developing the smartphone market for people who want the shiny toys
You talk about Apple as if the iphone is all just bullshit eye candy...
the iphone was better in practically every way...because Blackberry sucked at R&D
they had alot of users b/c for a long time their phones were the only game in town to send email and *also* another big factor is their 'enterprise' deals where they'd sell work phones to big companies on contract, ergo employees get company Blackberries
**that's** why Blackberry had users...and profits
their product was never actually competitively better and they didn't pioneer a market...just offered a service on a device first (email)...that's not really innovation
right, I agree that the article is completely burying the lead (seriously talk about FUD..."It was a single switch!"...)
but what bothers me is the ridiculous lack of detail about **how the plane 'dropped' the bombs in the first place**
that's the first thing I looked for as I skimmed TFA
this is all we get:
The accident happened when a B-52 bomber got into trouble, having embarked from Seymour Johnson Air Force base in Goldsboro for a routine flight along the East Coast. As it went into a tailspin, the hydrogen bombs
"got into trouble" ok...so...what trouble?
"routine flight along the East Coast" with two nukes...I'm assuming this was part of our Cold War deterrence strategy...always having airborn assests...I can buy that...
"as it went into a tailspin" ok...again...why a tailspin?
what happened on that plane?
**THAT'S THE QUESTION**
I can't help but think sabotage of some kind...it's such a fundamental detail to the story...why isn't it discussed?
You and the author of TFA take a mind-numbingly reductive framing of the issue and it just causes **more** arguments and solidifies the opposition harder...
Your first problem is that you take the word of an idiot.
These Texas book controversies...they **defy all logic**. You'd agree and so would TFA's author. People have written tomes on this very discussion thread that impressively elucidate the sub-moronic notions of these wackos...
Yet you just **assume** that their words can be taken at face value that they truly are describing their reasons for pushing these textbooks.
And it's about textbooks, and public education and society in general here...if these people just kept their mouth shut and let professionals write the text you'd have *no gripe* with their dumbness...
No...YOU are an idiot for **taking their stated reasons seriously**
You do exactly what they want, fall into the predictable opposition mode...
WHICH HELPS THEM SELL MORE FUCKING TEXTBOOKS
This really is about money pure and simple....there is a built-in market for these textbooks and in the greater sense suppressing science helps corporations avoid accountability on a host of issues...
Denying evolution indirectly helps the bottom line of tobacco companies, fossil fuel companies and so on. Why wouldn't they help out the cause?
yes...this is the answer to the questions posed by TFA
it's about money and dumbing people down to make them better consumers
in America today, one form it takes is fundmentalist religious people fighting science on religious grounds...
another form is the 'pink washing' of the breast cancer causes....we know now that certain plastic food containers cause breast cancer...so the companies that use those very plastics (which are not illegal) actually contribute to Susan G. Komen and get a little pink ribbon on their logo...
it's taking advantage of people's failings for profit
Biological (1) Determine the nature and inventory of organic carbon compounds (2) Investigate the chemical building blocks of life (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur) (3) Identify features that may represent the effects of biological processes (biosignatures) Geological and geochemical (4) Investigate the chemical, isotopic, and mineralogical composition of the Martian surface and near-surface geological materials (5) Interpret the processes that have formed and modified rocks and soils Planetary process (6) Assess long-timescale (i.e., 4-billion-year) Martian atmospheric evolution processes (7) Determine present state, distribution, and cycling of water and carbon dioxide Surface radiation (8) Characterize the broad spectrum of surface radiation, including galactic and cosmic radiation, solar proton events and secondary neutrons As part of its exploration, it also measured the radiation exposure in the interior of the spacecraft as it traveled to Mars, and it is continuing radiation measurements as it explores the surface of Mars. This data would be important for a future manned mission
Whoop-de-fucking-do! A radiometer!
Anything to do with *actually* preparing for human habitation of Mars was a complete footnote to Curiosity's mission.
So you must be hypercritical of Curiosity's current mission (b/c it is not human-colonization focused) in order for your logic to be consistent...
It's a false dichotomy....WE USE ROBOTS FOR EVERYTHING NOW....of course we will use them in space exploration...the question is what will be the focus of those missions?
will it be doing evolutionary geology or **location scouting**
Is human space exploration really necessary? Can’t we just send robots for exploration and let them do the dangerous work?
Wrong. That is a beguiling and dishonest question....
The question this article **really** is asking is, "Do you want to *ever* plan for humans to live off-world?" and if you agree with TFAs three points then you have to say "No" if you are honest.
If you **ever** want humans to colonize other worlds THAT WORK HAS TO START NOW
It is a complete and total distinction without a difference to ask "manned or robot?"
Of course we should use robots...use the best ones we have...but the question is, "Use them for what mission?"
If you *ever* want humans up there, robot missions absolutely must have a component that furthers our understanding of what **human** habitation requires.
If we send out robots to other worlds and *do not* have some sort of research that puts us closer to being on that world included, then we are **actively choosing not to colonize** it's not prolonging it...we start now or never
Are we working to put human colonies on other worlds? It is a yes or no that is systemic...if we are serious, then any robot mission has a **future** human component.
Reality for a Conway's game of life creature is about cells being empty or full, nothing more, nothing less is real.... Reality is the name given to an abstraction by agents belonging to that same level of abstraction. Simulation is what has one more level of abstraction. The creator hypothetically resides in one less level of abstraction.
So forgetting 'god' questions & w/e for a minute...
I was trying to think of a way to go 'one abstractin layer down' as a sort of heuristic for programing a machine to make random choices, in an autonomous independent agent kind of scenario.
So assuming humans make choices in 3 dimensions (no reason whatsoever to think this way but hear me out...)...to go 'one abstraction layer down' is 2 dimensions
To me that sounds alot like Conway's Game of Life.
The idea is, say we're making a Sim's type game. Human avatars (to continue your analogy) and I want to **program** my avatar to make truly random choices (from my programmer's perspective) but have them function within a system that also is programmed to maintain the avatar character (keep them fed, make them wipe their ass, etc)...so this Sim's automaton can sustain their existence but no other user would ever be able to predict their behavior beyond the basics for any character.
I'm trying to program that let's say...
Using my 3d>2d heuristic, I would have to have a 'sub-martingale game' running underneath my Sim's character's existince.
This 2d game IMHO would look alot like Conway's simulation...precisely b/c of what you said above, it is binary ("is about cells being empty or full, nothing more, nothing less...")
In this 2d game, for each decision is either 'do or not'...each cell can be filled or empty...binary. In the 3d game, when the Avatar geospacially reaches some sort of decision node (player finds a bike...ride bike or do not ride bike)
In the 2d sub-game that would look something like two gliders interacting in a conway game. When they interact, they can, theoretically reconfigure to form a gosper gun, or a bigger glider, or obliterate each other...these interactions could (theoretically) be used to guide the 'choices' of avatar
ex: the autonomous avatar is represented in 2d by a two antithetical gliders that also function as a gosper gun that shoots crawlers. so here is this sort of mobile Conway yin/yang glider that moves in the 2d space in some relation to the 3d avatar
when the 3d avatar encounters some decision node in the game, that is represented in 2d by some kind of interaction with the 2d yin/yang glider and something else that can make the 2d yin/yang glider shoot out new gliders in a new direction...or make a fountain...something...
is any of this making sense? what do you think man?
Netflix provides a back catalog but rarely has current content.
yeah I do occasionally hit up hulu.com when Daily Show and Colbert new episodes don't update on Comedy Central fast enough...usually they post the new episodes just after 12pm Pacific but sometimes it doesn't cycle through till later
Also, I'll choose hulu.com over some network's free airing (like when I watch New Girl) b/c Hulu.com's players is actually pretty smooth
so I have *used* hulu.com but only as a sort of 'hack' to get better quality of something that was already available elsewhere...
my goto for tv on the web is www.free-tv-video-online.me
Exclusivity was the game 5 years ago, before Netflix sort of cornered the market w/ userbase & began its successful 'original programming' venture.
Getting BBC 'content' that is already available on competitors, fee or not, is kind of sad, really.
Maybe Dr. Who is a big 'get' (look IMHO its shit scifi, but i don't know what people like)...maybe it'll boost 'clicks' by 20%...that's just polishing the brass on the titanic
the 'profit model' iceberg sunk Hulu.com a long time ago...we're just watching it play out now...
**if** the copyright holders decided to just dump their content onto hulu exclusively for free...that would change things, but that's virtually impossible
my prediction: hulu.com dies a slow sad death and gets bought by some Mark Cuban type for $1.2 Million in 5 years who uses it for MMA fights or something
Slashdot Mirror
it could...
ex: iphone app for diabetics...you test your blood on a dongle conncted to the phone and the data gets sent via internet to your doctor's office or to a parent
if you don't check or your blood sugar goes below a set limit the system sends txt message reminders to you/your parents/your doctor
this data is covered by HIPPA
HIPPA has privacy rights built in, but I've also read it has some back doors for doctors to share info w/ big pharma
it's not perfect but it's *definitely* HIPPA data...which gives the user more protection and removes the obligation to show damages in a civil case against a hacker
I like where you're coming from, and I agree that small businesses do this, but this has *absolutely* nothing to do with what we see happening with Surface 2 and M$
Surface 2 was too far in the development pipeline to stop. Microsoft couldn't stop it if it tried...
Large corporations *cannot* just put the kibosh on a multi-year multi-million product roll out.
It's because of scale, marketing, & stupidity...
Product development today in America is a Kafkaesque nightmare...today's business strategy puts decision makers so far from the product it's like being on the moon. The development cycle takes so long and has so many moving parts where workers try to put their special 'finger print' on the product as it passes by...nothing can get changed.
M$ had the Surface 2 designed concurrently with the Surface...distribution...ad buys...they all are in a giant 'plan'
In the end, you can of course find a similarity between M$ and a failing small business...but you're really under the wrong impression of you think M$ did this b/c of hubris...**they had no choice because they boxed themselves in a corner with dumb product development tactics**
I agree with your point about how these articles are a waste of time to read b/c they are essentially just one random person's diary of their tech travails in life....
The question of the post, about coding being 'fun' I think goes to something deeper though, something that TFA tries lamely to address:
Coding languages are non-sensical. That's what makes them so 'hard' to learn.
First, let me contrast between 'easy' and 'hard' & 'simple' and 'complex'....so, the task of 'dig a 5x5x5' hole in the ground' is a simple task, but it's not 'easy' with just a spade shovel...it's at least a day task for most /. readers
Coding is 'hard' AND 'complex'....contrast with the game of chess...a child can learn the basic rules of how the pieces move and interact, but the game itself is as complex as anything humans do..."easy to learn, difficult to master"
One reason coding is 'hard' is that so many abstraction layers add unnecessary complexity. People encounter choices and usage of language that is completely out of context of anything they experience and so far removed, in a systemic sense, from the 'user interaction layer'....So therefore, much of the work of coding is learning how to quickly teach yourself how to do a specific task.
The problem is, many professionals have built their workflow around dealing with coding's ridiculous abstractions. They establish a system of their own using heuristics.These tactics have become **standard operating proceedure**
Which alienates new coders.
The true difficulty in coding is the abstraction. Computers can do anything in 'cyberspace' in a sense...the only limits are our ability to describe commands with language!It's **contextuallizing** that total openness into a 'language' for human users to write commands for the computer to execute
So, to sum up, my theory is that writing code requires that the coder develop their own mental heuristic to overcome the natural limitations in the coding language in use.
"yes, duh" you might be saying...and that's why this matters in relation to TFA
Coding is not fucking 'fun' because new users expect coding languages to be intuitive instead of random and abstract. They *expect* to use their proven inteligence and methods that work for other endeavors to work with coding.It doesn't.
The answer to how to make coding "fun" and how to teach new coders so they retain interest is simple:
BE HONEST UP FRONT about what the real work is...
we need to stop pretending that us coders who have 'figured it out' have some magical intuition...it's all hammer-to-forehead slogging uphill...and finding cheats and shortcuts
yeah, I know what you mean...
my idea is to have the 2d realm change in a way that is kind of independent of the 3d game world
I guess you could call that 'evolving'...I assumed my 2d conway game would have all the possible things...even at different scales...I've seen videos of what happens when you 'evolve' a simple conway pattern over so many quintillion computer cycles and it's interesting
you've definitely brought up some interesting possibilities
Unfortunately you and Blackberry's leaders have the same problem
You think *any* idea for how to solve a problem is *innovation*
It's not.
Without having a definition battle, linking to stuff, let me try to explain.
Commonalities emerge in any repeated action. In a job, you typically have similar problems on a daily basis that have similar solutions.
Humans naturally look for these commonalities and progressions and try to learn them.
**innovation**...like true innovation that is worth getting excited about...that is when a person goes outside that typical problem/solution modality in a way that changes all future context (sometimes on a bigger scale than others)
You are wanting the Nobel Prize for finishing your dissertation.
See, I know this b/c I am a HCI researcher and I was trained in telecommunications. I know the history of technology and where things like SMTP were...I agree that some **engineers** used innovative solutions to getting cell towers to speak SMTP
But that is what you expect from a tech company.
So nothing out of the ordinary or unpredictable about Blackberry's success...or failure
sorry to do this but I have to...for everyone's sake...we *need* to know what works and why, otherwise we will have to endure the next generation fucking things up the same way in tech business
this is why I refuse to let Blackberry and RIM off the hook...god bless their employees...i'm sure many did great work
but, look...here's the deal:
in the mid-90s **high school kids** had pagers...they were such barbaric 1-way only text gagets...but compared to nothing it was like telepathy
**ANYONE** with half a brain at that time would logically conclude that there is a market for a **two-way** texting device
the next logical step in functionality is not innovation
it's just not...
I can take your word for it I guess, but this is credit to *engineers* not businesspeople
That's why I give Blackberry no respect...it was in the right place at the right time in cell phone evolution for a moment
Whatever 'innovation' happened when real engineers were hired to figure it all out and make it work...I can buy that...
But any rich idiot could have pounded their fist on the table and said "make me a pager that sends email and makes phone calls" and with enough money and the right engineers it would happen...
after that it's about their 'enterprise' strategy (which another post above in this thread has some good info on)
nothing I guess...your question doesn't make sense from a technical perspective
using STMP on a cell phone isn't innovation, because it's **the next logical step**
'email' is STMP
essentially it's a way to transmit text over a distance, **just like a telegram or pager**
it's text
phone calls are voice
combining the two functions from two devices into one device that does both is simply the next logical step
innovation is doing something outside of that simple development logic
assuming the Russians of the 60s weren't bloodthirsty animals (which is logical)...
I'd say they'd get the havok of the disaster and how it weakens our economy and nation...
ex: BP gulf oil spill...just the natural disaster effects alone did trillions of damage to the economy
that's the effect
plus it discredits whoever is in office, at that time Kennedy
if these bombs had gone off, Russia would have been able to get away with more crap...
also, any kind of anarchy like this would benefit global corporations and interests
sure that makes sense...hydraulics...this is the 60's after all
for sure I agree...it's a 'vote getter' in some states like Texas
I just wonder what is the endgame?
it seems that Republicans (at the party/national level, not our neighbors who vote GOP) are willing to full-on destroy their party...fine...that happens...
but then what?
IMHO, whether or not the GOP 'destroys itself' in some grand moment, the steps *after* are the same...they have to **change their policy positions**
but how will they change?
if you can predict that, you could have alot of success...idk...
obviously it's towards 'libertarianism' but any true libertarian has been holding their nose voting for Democrats ever since 9/11 and the Patriot Act
that's what i'm saying....the GOP can't just 'go libertarian' b/c they ruined that option too...they had their chance to plausibly go that route but instead we got another Bush...
yep...I just don't know what ground the GOP has left to go to once the smoke clears
hey man, I definitely think that textbook writers should be the best we can find...that's what I mean't by 'professional'...if you're trying to make the best thing you get the best to make it
Common Core is not the result of 'anti-American progressives'...jeez...
it's b/c Republicans want to **end public education** and in some states that means setting them up to fail...
let me repeat: some state GOPers are so desperate they will tank their own education system to pave the way for privatization
**that** is the whole reason 'Common Core' exists
if you want to talk about specifics of Common Core...and how, say, you think the Math part isn't rigorous enough...*fine* let's talk...but don't blame 'liberal anti-American progressives' for GOP greed
purely my imagination...if I think about it, I have to say it relates to how the story is told and the 'zomg switch!' tone of the article
I checked the wikipedia, and there is plenty of details. The pilot reported a fuel leak in a wing during in-flight refueling. Problem got worse, were told to go into holding pattern to use up fuel to prep for landing...fuel leaks too fast (?) then:
"As it descended through 10,000 feet (3,000 m) on its approach to the airfield, the pilots were no longer able to keep the aircraft in trim and lost control of it. "
They 'lost control'...
Is it from the fuel leak? Are we assuming that the wing had damage and that's why the fuel was leaking?
Sounds plausible for sure...
I guess I buy it, but it is a fact that our government leaks out state secrets like this...just look at the 9/11 Commission Report...or the Gulf Of Tonkein stuff...or the fact that some info about the Kennedy Assasination doesnt' get declassified for another decade at least...
I'm just always looking for messages between the lines...
Can you imagine someone sabotaging the plane somehow?
Russia could get all the benefit of having nuked us with none of the blame or retaliation!
You're giving Blackberry too much credit here...a company of thousands doesn't get "distracted"...the decision makers may be completely out of touch with their market or now technology works...that sure is possible...but a company can't get "distracted" any more than it can "take a shit"
You talk about Apple as if the iphone is all just bullshit eye candy...
the iphone was better in practically every way...because Blackberry sucked at R&D
they had alot of users b/c for a long time their phones were the only game in town to send email and *also* another big factor is their 'enterprise' deals where they'd sell work phones to big companies on contract, ergo employees get company Blackberries
**that's** why Blackberry had users...and profits
their product was never actually competitively better and they didn't pioneer a market...just offered a service on a device first (email)...that's not really innovation
right, I agree that the article is completely burying the lead (seriously talk about FUD..."It was a single switch!"...)
but what bothers me is the ridiculous lack of detail about **how the plane 'dropped' the bombs in the first place**
that's the first thing I looked for as I skimmed TFA
this is all we get:
"got into trouble" ok...so...what trouble?
"routine flight along the East Coast" with two nukes...I'm assuming this was part of our Cold War deterrence strategy...always having airborn assests...I can buy that...
"as it went into a tailspin" ok...again...why a tailspin?
what happened on that plane?
**THAT'S THE QUESTION**
I can't help but think sabotage of some kind...it's such a fundamental detail to the story...why isn't it discussed?
You and the author of TFA take a mind-numbingly reductive framing of the issue and it just causes **more** arguments and solidifies the opposition harder...
Your first problem is that you take the word of an idiot.
These Texas book controversies...they **defy all logic**. You'd agree and so would TFA's author. People have written tomes on this very discussion thread that impressively elucidate the sub-moronic notions of these wackos...
Yet you just **assume** that their words can be taken at face value that they truly are describing their reasons for pushing these textbooks.
And it's about textbooks, and public education and society in general here...if these people just kept their mouth shut and let professionals write the text you'd have *no gripe* with their dumbness...
No...YOU are an idiot for **taking their stated reasons seriously**
You do exactly what they want, fall into the predictable opposition mode...
WHICH HELPS THEM SELL MORE FUCKING TEXTBOOKS
This really is about money pure and simple....there is a built-in market for these textbooks and in the greater sense suppressing science helps corporations avoid accountability on a host of issues...
religion is only a *vector* in this instance
stop playing their fool's game
yes...this is the answer to the questions posed by TFA
it's about money and dumbing people down to make them better consumers
in America today, one form it takes is fundmentalist religious people fighting science on religious grounds...
another form is the 'pink washing' of the breast cancer causes....we know now that certain plastic food containers cause breast cancer...so the companies that use those very plastics (which are not illegal) actually contribute to Susan G. Komen and get a little pink ribbon on their logo...
it's taking advantage of people's failings for profit
religion is just the vector in this case
You say the article 'makes a good point' but your entire concept of human colonization is irreconcilable with it's 3 points.
Your scenario *starts* with robots but ends with *humans* (then 'cybernetic civillization' or w/e)
By definition, if our current robot missions do not focus on human colonization then you are completely contradictory.
Look at the Curiosity's Mission Goals
Whoop-de-fucking-do! A radiometer!
Anything to do with *actually* preparing for human habitation of Mars was a complete footnote to Curiosity's mission.
So you must be hypercritical of Curiosity's current mission (b/c it is not human-colonization focused) in order for your logic to be consistent...
It's a false dichotomy....WE USE ROBOTS FOR EVERYTHING NOW....of course we will use them in space exploration...the question is what will be the focus of those missions?
will it be doing evolutionary geology or **location scouting**
there is a fucking difference
Wrong. That is a beguiling and dishonest question....
The question this article **really** is asking is, "Do you want to *ever* plan for humans to live off-world?" and if you agree with TFAs three points then you have to say "No" if you are honest.
If you **ever** want humans to colonize other worlds THAT WORK HAS TO START NOW
It is a complete and total distinction without a difference to ask "manned or robot?"
Of course we should use robots...use the best ones we have...but the question is, "Use them for what mission?"
If you *ever* want humans up there, robot missions absolutely must have a component that furthers our understanding of what **human** habitation requires.
If we send out robots to other worlds and *do not* have some sort of research that puts us closer to being on that world included, then we are **actively choosing not to colonize** it's not prolonging it...we start now or never
Are we working to put human colonies on other worlds? It is a yes or no that is systemic...if we are serious, then any robot mission has a **future** human component.
I like that you mentioned Conway's Game of Life. I really like it as an anology.
So forgetting 'god' questions & w/e for a minute...
I was trying to think of a way to go 'one abstractin layer down' as a sort of heuristic for programing a machine to make random choices, in an autonomous independent agent kind of scenario.
So assuming humans make choices in 3 dimensions (no reason whatsoever to think this way but hear me out...)...to go 'one abstraction layer down' is 2 dimensions
To me that sounds alot like Conway's Game of Life.
The idea is, say we're making a Sim's type game. Human avatars (to continue your analogy) and I want to **program** my avatar to make truly random choices (from my programmer's perspective) but have them function within a system that also is programmed to maintain the avatar character (keep them fed, make them wipe their ass, etc)...so this Sim's automaton can sustain their existence but no other user would ever be able to predict their behavior beyond the basics for any character.
I'm trying to program that let's say...
Using my 3d>2d heuristic, I would have to have a 'sub-martingale game' running underneath my Sim's character's existince.
This 2d game IMHO would look alot like Conway's simulation...precisely b/c of what you said above, it is binary ("is about cells being empty or full, nothing more, nothing less...")
In this 2d game, for each decision is either 'do or not'...each cell can be filled or empty...binary. In the 3d game, when the Avatar geospacially reaches some sort of decision node (player finds a bike...ride bike or do not ride bike)
In the 2d sub-game that would look something like two gliders interacting in a conway game. When they interact, they can, theoretically reconfigure to form a gosper gun, or a bigger glider, or obliterate each other...these interactions could (theoretically) be used to guide the 'choices' of avatar
ex: the autonomous avatar is represented in 2d by a two antithetical gliders that also function as a gosper gun that shoots crawlers. so here is this sort of mobile Conway yin/yang glider that moves in the 2d space in some relation to the 3d avatar
when the 3d avatar encounters some decision node in the game, that is represented in 2d by some kind of interaction with the 2d yin/yang glider and something else that can make the 2d yin/yang glider shoot out new gliders in a new direction...or make a fountain...something...
is any of this making sense? what do you think man?
well thanks for your good humor man...I think its all mumbo-jumbo but you defend it with enthusiasm and for that I tip my hat ;)
yeah I do occasionally hit up hulu.com when Daily Show and Colbert new episodes don't update on Comedy Central fast enough...usually they post the new episodes just after 12pm Pacific but sometimes it doesn't cycle through till later
Also, I'll choose hulu.com over some network's free airing (like when I watch New Girl) b/c Hulu.com's players is actually pretty smooth
so I have *used* hulu.com but only as a sort of 'hack' to get better quality of something that was already available elsewhere...
my goto for tv on the web is www.free-tv-video-online.me
Project Free TV rarely lets me down :P
word yeah it's all IMHO...
scifi has something for everyone
Hulu.com is doomed in its current incarnation.
Exclusivity was the game 5 years ago, before Netflix sort of cornered the market w/ userbase & began its successful 'original programming' venture.
Getting BBC 'content' that is already available on competitors, fee or not, is kind of sad, really.
Maybe Dr. Who is a big 'get' (look IMHO its shit scifi, but i don't know what people like)...maybe it'll boost 'clicks' by 20%...that's just polishing the brass on the titanic
the 'profit model' iceberg sunk Hulu.com a long time ago...we're just watching it play out now...
**if** the copyright holders decided to just dump their content onto hulu exclusively for free...that would change things, but that's virtually impossible
my prediction: hulu.com dies a slow sad death and gets bought by some Mark Cuban type for $1.2 Million in 5 years who uses it for MMA fights or something
hilarious...you just said in one sentence what it took me a paragraph to say above...
it is just like a gun or any personal tool (...) that soldiers use...the 'robot' aspect is irrelevant