Agreed that the "worth" of just about everything else, including gold, is an agreed-upon fiction, but there really is an absolute standard of value: the stuff you need to survive.
This is close, but nearer to the truth is "the stuff that makes you less miserable". People want to grow their own food so they don't go hungry. They want blankets so they won't be cold. They want to be married so they don't die alone.
Survival is a byproduct of reducing your suffering. E.g. see cigarettes, Big Macs, etc.
The display was shown at the SIGGRAPH 2007 Emerging Technologies exhibition in August 2007 in San Diego, California, where it won the award for "Best Emerging Technology".
Way to keep up, Slashdot.
Actually if I felt like searching I'm sure I could find this same story posted years ago.
I think this tells us something about the internet as an informational medium. Old news, but how many of us heard of it for the first time today? I know I never saw the 2008 posting, nor would I have frequented whatever site that link is from. Makes you wonder how many things, neat or otherwise, are simply lost to a digital wasteland.
Amen. They could have saved a lot of keystrokes...
Dubbed extreme scale computing, such machines are needed, DARPA says, to crack into the gmail accounts of millions of Americans and discern how to keep the wool firmly over their eyes.
Forums are a good example. I think texts suffer from brevity due to their input methods and the size of the recipient's screen. Brief tends to lead to more frequent, and less important individually.
Imagine slashdot where we're restricted to only ten characters per post, for example.
Innovation leads to change and change leads to pissed off people who are so stuck in their ways that they cannot deal with the fact there are things now that weren't there before.
Your point is valid, and true, but only because 'innovation' makes for an extremely huge bucket. You could compare the impact of 'nuclear weapons' to that of the 'disposable razor', for example. Both innovations had an impact, and neither would have been without critics. But I'd wager a guess that they didn't have perfectly equivalent impacts.
So your premise of "in the end SMS is not leading to collapse of society" isn't exactly all that enlightening.
These are the points, individually distilled:
1) The devices are ubiquitous 2) They offer instant gratification 3) They encourage frequent use
Notice how 'new' didn't make the list, because that is absolutely anecdotal to what I said. Did every telegraph line terminate in each of the cowboy's pockets? No, I don't think they did. Did every teenager in the eighties have their own phone number? Not so much.
This article demonstrates that not only do 'hit orders' exist, but they are not prohibited from using such orders against citizens who are constitutionally guaranteed to stand trial.
So while parent may have seen too many movies, you, dear friend, have seen too few congressional hearings.
One day truly serious info will be released and cause the bad sort of trouble that will make the Rosenbergs look like common gossips.
Which is why we need to adapt. In the IT industry we've long understood that security by obscurity doesn't work. The military and political worlds had better start catching up. If it needs to be secret, find a way to remedy it, and quick. Make all your secrets public, and you'll have nothing to fear from Wikileaks and the like.
Same is good advice if you're about to take on the Scientologists, by the way.
Yes, companies fire people for being gay so they can get sued. I'm also really really sure that your statement with zero context is 100% factually correct.
Sexual orientation is not a protected class in most states, and there is no federal statute, so you can't sue for being fired for being gay.
Further, many of the states are 'at will', which means they can fire you and simply not give any reason whatsoever. You'll get unemployment, but that's a small compensation for discrimination.
I like how this comment ignores the generational gap between digital natives and digital immigrants.
Note
but perhaps they're not relevant to your lifestyle
Communication without disturbing anyone nearby (on public transport, during lessons at school, in the office)
There exists a mental technique called 'patience'. The huge downside to instant communication, and instant gratification from it, is that we fail to realize that half of our thoughts aren't important enough to actually send. If/when you have to wait 20-30 minutes to communicate it, you tend to condense things down. Your brain chews on them a while. Try it. Even with the digital tech, you may find the practice to be enlightening. This is what people used to do before cell phones, because, believe it or not those situations did pop up within their lifestyles.
Communications when the recipient is busy, or might be busy, but can respond later
See the above. And as you said, email might be better, and would likely be less intrusive. Texts tend to be small and very, very frequent. Again I assert that a great many of them are 'junk' that are only sent because they can be, rather than because they actually benefit either the sending or receiving party.
A note that doesn't need a reply when the sender doesn't want to be drawn into a conversation (e.g. text parent/partner to say you'll be late)
This is actually a decent example, but you may be surprised to note that before everyone had a phone in their pocket, people used to just try and not be late. They'd let others know to expect them well prior to the event, rather than twenty minutes beforehand. And on the flip side, we'd typically just stop inviting people who weren't dependable in this way. Life would happen, as it does today, and the party who arrived late would typically have a story to tell, which often garnered some sympathy, etc. Today it is "I got a text from Jim, he'll be late," and it has become just a bit too mundane.
The point being, people haven't changed much. The technology exists to prop up a certain level of impulsiveness that is the trademark of youth, but even the youths of yesteryear got by without such things. I think, too, that there are benefits of both points of view. And I think many of the older generation can see the benefits of the newer tech. On the other hand, none of the youngsters seem to get it, and I worry that society is feeding their sense of self-importance just a bit too quickly for our collective good.
Short of looking at screenshots and reading old guidebooks, there's no way of returning to those worlds as they just don't exist any more.
Which parallels the real world perfectly, doesn't it?
If one wanted to know what your hometown looked like in 1885, you'd need a photograph. If you'd rather view your birthday party five years ago, there hopefully exists video of that event. I'm not certain that video games actually deserve more preservation than reality does.
This is an unfortunate consequence of 95% of the people lacking the qualifications to have 95% of their opinions. Unfortunately in the US we let these people vote. In Wikiland, we let them pollute.
And on slashdot we let them harbor delusions of superiority.
As a historian once told me, a statement of pure facts would render everything meaningless. It would reduce history to mere chronicle. It's all "what" and no "why." Nothing can have an effect, things just follow one another in a rote manner with no real connection of cause.
It is possible to state opinions as facts in this context, if you can cite them from an outside source. E.g. "So-and-so said this[#], while Other-party disputed it thusly[#]"
So you could remain neutral without deciding whose statements are credible, and you'd still get your "why".
Well I suppose my terms were ambiguous. They aren't personally invested in the primary, but they don't want the Red guy to win. They got the 'Blue is good' part of the message, and nothing else. Due, in my opinion, to apathy.
Slashdot Mirror
How many USB ports did your old MacBook have?
Agreed that the "worth" of just about everything else, including gold, is an agreed-upon fiction, but there really is an absolute standard of value: the stuff you need to survive.
This is close, but nearer to the truth is "the stuff that makes you less miserable". People want to grow their own food so they don't go hungry. They want blankets so they won't be cold. They want to be married so they don't die alone.
Survival is a byproduct of reducing your suffering. E.g. see cigarettes, Big Macs, etc.
The display was shown at the SIGGRAPH 2007 Emerging Technologies exhibition in August 2007 in San Diego, California, where it won the award for "Best Emerging Technology".
Way to keep up, Slashdot.
Actually if I felt like searching I'm sure I could find this same story posted years ago.
I think this tells us something about the internet as an informational medium. Old news, but how many of us heard of it for the first time today? I know I never saw the 2008 posting, nor would I have frequented whatever site that link is from. Makes you wonder how many things, neat or otherwise, are simply lost to a digital wasteland.
...or is a 'nuclear reactor' quiet different from a 'fusion reactor'?
Fission and fusion reactors are both operating on the nuclear level, so I don't really see a conflict here.
Follow the superhero story link in TFA, that one's really touching, too.
Amen. They could have saved a lot of keystrokes...
Dubbed extreme scale computing, such machines are needed, DARPA says, to crack into the gmail accounts of millions of Americans and discern how to keep the wool firmly over their eyes.
Forums are a good example. I think texts suffer from brevity due to their input methods and the size of the recipient's screen. Brief tends to lead to more frequent, and less important individually.
Imagine slashdot where we're restricted to only ten characters per post, for example.
Innovation leads to change and change leads to pissed off people who are so stuck in their ways that they cannot deal with the fact there are things now that weren't there before.
Your point is valid, and true, but only because 'innovation' makes for an extremely huge bucket. You could compare the impact of 'nuclear weapons' to that of the 'disposable razor', for example. Both innovations had an impact, and neither would have been without critics. But I'd wager a guess that they didn't have perfectly equivalent impacts.
So your premise of "in the end SMS is not leading to collapse of society" isn't exactly all that enlightening.
These are the points, individually distilled:
1) The devices are ubiquitous
2) They offer instant gratification
3) They encourage frequent use
Notice how 'new' didn't make the list, because that is absolutely anecdotal to what I said. Did every telegraph line terminate in each of the cowboy's pockets? No, I don't think they did. Did every teenager in the eighties have their own phone number? Not so much.
Valve does outside sales? To whom?
Our US thuggery is fairly predictable. I'm sure the CIA or equivalent has already been given hit orders.
You've seen a few too many movies.
Before attempting to dismiss other's fears as being mere fantasty, do a little research:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/license-kill-intelligence-chief-us-american-terrorist/story?id=9740491
This article demonstrates that not only do 'hit orders' exist, but they are not prohibited from using such orders against citizens who are constitutionally guaranteed to stand trial.
So while parent may have seen too many movies, you, dear friend, have seen too few congressional hearings.
Perhaps it is reasonable to simply accept that different people communicate differently?
And ignore the impact technology has on society? Why?
And additionally, they might have a point, as well.
Um, isn't this one of them?
One day truly serious info will be released and cause the bad sort of trouble that will make the Rosenbergs look like common gossips.
Which is why we need to adapt. In the IT industry we've long understood that security by obscurity doesn't work. The military and political worlds had better start catching up. If it needs to be secret, find a way to remedy it, and quick. Make all your secrets public, and you'll have nothing to fear from Wikileaks and the like.
Same is good advice if you're about to take on the Scientologists, by the way.
Yes, companies fire people for being gay so they can get sued. I'm also really really sure that your statement with zero context is 100% factually correct.
Sexual orientation is not a protected class in most states, and there is no federal statute, so you can't sue for being fired for being gay.
Further, many of the states are 'at will', which means they can fire you and simply not give any reason whatsoever. You'll get unemployment, but that's a small compensation for discrimination.
It seems you stopped reading once sentence too soon:
Don't believe everything you read, folks.
She's not asking you to believe her, per se. She's simply stating that YMMV, which I'd tend to agree with in basically every case.
Without these types of details, your anecdote is quite worthless.
Indeed, as your assessment of it, except within the actual context of what she was trying to say.
Probably just so they'd be easier to click on...
Either that or a conspiracy to load Oakland up on rollers and slide it away in the night!
UserFriendly's law: a company can be a good workplace for IT staff or a good workplace for salespeople. You cannot have both at once.
Amen, amen, amen.
Find an example contrary to this and I'll mail you a greenback.
I like how this comment ignores the generational gap between digital natives and digital immigrants.
Note
but perhaps they're not relevant to your lifestyle
Communication without disturbing anyone nearby (on public transport, during lessons at school, in the office)
There exists a mental technique called 'patience'. The huge downside to instant communication, and instant gratification from it, is that we fail to realize that half of our thoughts aren't important enough to actually send. If/when you have to wait 20-30 minutes to communicate it, you tend to condense things down. Your brain chews on them a while. Try it. Even with the digital tech, you may find the practice to be enlightening. This is what people used to do before cell phones, because, believe it or not those situations did pop up within their lifestyles.
Communications when the recipient is busy, or might be busy, but can respond later
See the above. And as you said, email might be better, and would likely be less intrusive. Texts tend to be small and very, very frequent. Again I assert that a great many of them are 'junk' that are only sent because they can be, rather than because they actually benefit either the sending or receiving party.
A note that doesn't need a reply when the sender doesn't want to be drawn into a conversation (e.g. text parent/partner to say you'll be late)
This is actually a decent example, but you may be surprised to note that before everyone had a phone in their pocket, people used to just try and not be late. They'd let others know to expect them well prior to the event, rather than twenty minutes beforehand. And on the flip side, we'd typically just stop inviting people who weren't dependable in this way. Life would happen, as it does today, and the party who arrived late would typically have a story to tell, which often garnered some sympathy, etc. Today it is "I got a text from Jim, he'll be late," and it has become just a bit too mundane.
The point being, people haven't changed much. The technology exists to prop up a certain level of impulsiveness that is the trademark of youth, but even the youths of yesteryear got by without such things. I think, too, that there are benefits of both points of view. And I think many of the older generation can see the benefits of the newer tech. On the other hand, none of the youngsters seem to get it, and I worry that society is feeding their sense of self-importance just a bit too quickly for our collective good.
You would be dead by 30.
And functionally dead (as in, lacking any form of a life outside of work) all the while.
Short of looking at screenshots and reading old guidebooks, there's no way of returning to those worlds as they just don't exist any more.
Which parallels the real world perfectly, doesn't it?
If one wanted to know what your hometown looked like in 1885, you'd need a photograph. If you'd rather view your birthday party five years ago, there hopefully exists video of that event. I'm not certain that video games actually deserve more preservation than reality does.
Nor ever a joke, it would seem. :)
This is an unfortunate consequence of 95% of the people lacking the qualifications to have 95% of their opinions. Unfortunately in the US we let these people vote. In Wikiland, we let them pollute.
And on slashdot we let them harbor delusions of superiority.
As a historian once told me, a statement of pure facts would render everything meaningless. It would reduce history to mere chronicle. It's all "what" and no "why." Nothing can have an effect, things just follow one another in a rote manner with no real connection of cause.
It is possible to state opinions as facts in this context, if you can cite them from an outside source. E.g. "So-and-so said this[#], while Other-party disputed it thusly[#]"
So you could remain neutral without deciding whose statements are credible, and you'd still get your "why".
Well I suppose my terms were ambiguous. They aren't personally invested in the primary, but they don't want the Red guy to win. They got the 'Blue is good' part of the message, and nothing else. Due, in my opinion, to apathy.