That's a good point.. If the PC crowd thinks their processes would yield better software, they should fork and create a development effort around their principles.. Lets see who does a better job in the long run.
some possibilities: 1. kernel programming isn't something most people can do. not just linux, but in general. 2. the project is mostly stable at this point. 90% of the work is drivers anyway, and those are submitted by hw manufacturers for the most part.
It's not like he's constantly flying off the handle as claimed.. It happens occasionally, and for good reason. Broken code from senior people and/or closed drivers make a ton of extra work for the rest of them, so he's justified. Look at what happened to android. If he yields to political correctness, he then has to clean up the mess left behind by people who need a grilling they now won't receive. Choosing between not hurting feelings and/or keeping these people away, and getting the job done right isn't hard.
Nothing wrong with direct, blunt communication.. It's refreshing compared with the passive aggressive kittycat games of typical government and corporate interaction. I think his blunt style is part of what keeps the kernel dev team clear of that passive aggression. It keeps the emos who can't handle blunt truth away.
Nvidia got what they deserved, and it is clear to all other manufacturers what the kernel team thinks of closed drivers making debugging a royal pain.
It only takes participation in one of these invasive networks to lose your privacy. 'apps', facebook, whatever.. it's all the same. The only winning move is not to play.
yeah.. then there's reality.. not all individuals or races are rational..certainly not all the time...and the terrans certainly aren't these monolithic blocks that the starfleet culture expected them to be. To their credit, the maquis delved into this a bit as both sides had an argument, but I always thought trek needed more realism in its politics.. By my early teens, the Radiant Socialist Future stuff caused me to lose interest when it became obvious just how unrealistic it was.
Low reaction time without contextual awareness simply decreases the amount of time it takes to die. Considering the sorry state of IO and AI compared with humans, I'll take the sometimes inconsistent human over the dumbass johnnycab.
the jury's still out how legions of these things will actually perform on the road where they'll have to handle the unexpected.
No. the freedom to have control over the machinery that you own and are responsible for. The freedom to have what you own do your bidding rather than that of bureaucrats and corp-rats who see you as nothing more than a statistic. Oh, and the freedom to evade out-of-box situations that stupid johnnycab computer was never programmed to deal with.
You complain about the morality of humans, then want to replace them with a machine?
That is a fallacious comparison. satnavs don't drive the car for you, they only babble instructions (that are sometimes wrong btw), and even with that much of a meat baffle, they still end up encouraing people to make sharp turns right into buildings as a reward for listening to them. Now you basically want to automate that process?
You are dismissing legitimate problems with these things and labeling critics as idiotic phobics when there ARE legitimate concerns being ignored. That is not an argument and your tone reeks of smarmy arrogance. If you want to compare johnnycabs with the internet, then a more apt analogy would be: johnnycabs are to driving like social media is to the internet. Convenience at the cost of everything that makes us free individuals is the first world version of living in the muck. I'll pass.
I have way too much convenience as it is.. I don't need anymore, and frankly, if you live in a western country, neither do you. What the west is short on these days is liberty. I'd like that back please.. I'm not interested in trading more of that away so you can play video games on the way to work.
I don't think these vehicles have any place on a public roadway.. We can't even get trains, vehicles with defined, fixed paths, to operate 100% safely without human intervention. I95 during rush hour near most cities? forget it!
Of course, these johnnycabs will do exactly the speed limit, right up until they hit something their weather damaged sensors didn't see... or force you to be hit by an oncoming semi that lost control, whether you're a passenger, or driving your own standard car that is now blocked in by johnnycabs on all sides. The possibilities are endless...and if they're network linked, oh boy, watch for the carnage on the news as one lemming triggers the rest into pulling harakiri en masse, if not by equipment failure or software bug, then deliberately by some asshole with a laptop and too much time on his hands. Hey, it will happen because I KNOW the state will get its back door in each and every one of these things..
Yeah, the batman autodrive was completely in batman's control, just like KITT was to michael knight, and even in the latter, the concept of KITT being taken over by adversaries was touched upon.. both of those machines demonstrated contextual awareness far beyond even the most advanced supercomputer powered AI to date. A nice fantasy..
No matter what the lawyers want to believe, their legal 'code' has no bearing on the laws of physics, and just because they make something illegal doesn't mean it won't be done anyway.
I'm not sure I want to live in such a surveillance society where I have 20 computers around me analyzing my driving and reporting it to every local authority along the way.
For now. I'm sure you can see where this is going. We all know that computers are too tempting an opportunity for state and corporate interests to meddle in our affairs for their own interests.
I refuse to sacrifice my liberty for the sake of dumbing things down for invalids who could easily take the bus or a taxi. We already do too much dumbing down as it is.
Yeah well your little utopia requires authority that doesn't abuse its power, and corporates that don't corner markets.. Good luck. I'll keep my current car. At least it does what I tell it to do, not what some DC bureaucrat or marketing droid thinks I should be doing.
Not good enough. See, I still care about my personal safety, not just my legal liabilities. I don't care how brilliant google et al thinks their programmers are, they have not accounted for all the variables.. It's a nearly impossible task given current technology. We can't even get automated trains to run correctly 100% of the time without accidents, which is why we still pay someone to sit at the controls even though a lot of it is automated. millions of freewheeling cars making their own way? no thanks. that's a multideath trap of epic proportions just waiting for the right bug to trigger. Computers are faster than humans, and more consistent at repetitive tasks, but they are TERRIBLE at dealing with the unexpected. The latter requires contextual awareness, which, for now, is a human-only featureset. I'll take the occasional drunk driver over the fragile and MASSIVE fuckup potential that legions of 'smart' self-driving cars would be on the road.
Just like the soviets were after chernobyl..From the locals at the plant doing the 'safety' test, to just after the initial accident, to the delays in evacuations, to the kremlin's international response..
Pride is ok, but it's gotta be rational.. There's no reason to feel prideful when you fuck up. Now, I could see the argument for 'honor' (It's our mess, we should be the ones to clean it up), but for something like this, if you need help, you should ask. Governments with strong ideological bias often have trouble accepting that the laws of physics don't care about political borders.
You can bet that before the revolution, before the congress, before there was a country, and they were still operating under the king's rule, the principals were VERY anonymous with their communication to other would-be interested parties. Without it, the revolution would not have gotten off the ground. Anonymous communication and broadcast is a key component of liberty. I find it very interesting that the ones railing against it are usually those who have something to lose when the smoke is blown away and mirrors shattered. Emotionally driven politics like those behind huffington post are a typical example of this.
It's true there's some trash in anonland (like mr cleanpc's 'interesting' pitches), but also a lot of good points that buck the dominant cultures posting at the site. The thing is, the people who most need to hear these points, are usually ones who make it a point to filter out truth they don't want to hear. Thus all the system becomes is a soft censor.
I guess it depends on what they (and you) mean by 'good' and 'bad'. It's obvious huffingtonpost is a pro-feminist site that focuses on those issues, so you'd think if the bolts truly ran all the way through the ideological positions in their articles, they wouldn't need to silence objections, no matter how badly worded. No, it is more likely they wish to silence facts and reason that do not support their political convictions.
Interesting.. Whether I agree with individual posts or not, I usually find the user commentary a lot closer to the reality of the situation reported on by the posted article itself, especially for politics. This commentary 'goes there' when the politically correct 'reporter' or 'journalist' does/will not. lots of vitriol in the commentary usually indicates the article is likely biased irrationally, or just wasn't written well.
Free societies should require the freedom of speech for everyone, anonymous or not. The problem is that people usually don't have the right to speak anonymously when it is needed the most. I have a better idea: let the individual choose how to handle his affairs, just as the readers of his message ought (instead of demanding the state punish the sender for their butthurt feelings).
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good point.. If the PC crowd thinks their processes would yield better software, they should fork and create a development effort around their principles.. Lets see who does a better job in the long run.
not just about remembering it, but experiencing it again, which is quite nice.
some possibilities:
1. kernel programming isn't something most people can do. not just linux, but in general.
2. the project is mostly stable at this point. 90% of the work is drivers anyway, and those are submitted by hw manufacturers for the most part.
It's not like he's constantly flying off the handle as claimed.. It happens occasionally, and for good reason. Broken code from senior people and/or closed drivers make a ton of extra work for the rest of them, so he's justified. Look at what happened to android. If he yields to political correctness, he then has to clean up the mess left behind by people who need a grilling they now won't receive. Choosing between not hurting feelings and/or keeping these people away, and getting the job done right isn't hard.
Yup! Exactly!
Except that it doesn't. It keeps thin skinned people away, who otherwise create needless drama.
Nothing wrong with direct, blunt communication.. It's refreshing compared with the passive aggressive kittycat games of typical government and corporate interaction. I think his blunt style is part of what keeps the kernel dev team clear of that passive aggression. It keeps the emos who can't handle blunt truth away.
Nvidia got what they deserved, and it is clear to all other manufacturers what the kernel team thinks of closed drivers making debugging a royal pain.
It only takes participation in one of these invasive networks to lose your privacy. 'apps', facebook, whatever.. it's all the same. The only winning move is not to play.
yeah.. then there's reality.. not all individuals or races are rational..certainly not all the time...and the terrans certainly aren't these monolithic blocks that the starfleet culture expected them to be. To their credit, the maquis delved into this a bit as both sides had an argument, but I always thought trek needed more realism in its politics.. By my early teens, the Radiant Socialist Future stuff caused me to lose interest when it became obvious just how unrealistic it was.
Low reaction time without contextual awareness simply decreases the amount of time it takes to die. Considering the sorry state of IO and AI compared with humans, I'll take the sometimes inconsistent human over the dumbass johnnycab.
the jury's still out how legions of these things will actually perform on the road where they'll have to handle the unexpected.
No. the freedom to have control over the machinery that you own and are responsible for. The freedom to have what you own do your bidding rather than that of bureaucrats and corp-rats who see you as nothing more than a statistic. Oh, and the freedom to evade out-of-box situations that stupid johnnycab computer was never programmed to deal with.
You complain about the morality of humans, then want to replace them with a machine?
That is a fallacious comparison. satnavs don't drive the car for you, they only babble instructions (that are sometimes wrong btw), and even with that much of a meat baffle, they still end up encouraing people to make sharp turns right into buildings as a reward for listening to them. Now you basically want to automate that process?
You are dismissing legitimate problems with these things and labeling critics as idiotic phobics when there ARE legitimate concerns being ignored. That is not an argument and your tone reeks of smarmy arrogance. If you want to compare johnnycabs with the internet, then a more apt analogy would be: johnnycabs are to driving like social media is to the internet. Convenience at the cost of everything that makes us free individuals is the first world version of living in the muck. I'll pass.
I have way too much convenience as it is.. I don't need anymore, and frankly, if you live in a western country, neither do you. What the west is short on these days is liberty. I'd like that back please.. I'm not interested in trading more of that away so you can play video games on the way to work.
I don't think these vehicles have any place on a public roadway.. We can't even get trains, vehicles with defined, fixed paths, to operate 100% safely without human intervention. I95 during rush hour near most cities? forget it!
Of course, these johnnycabs will do exactly the speed limit, right up until they hit something their weather damaged sensors didn't see... or force you to be hit by an oncoming semi that lost control, whether you're a passenger, or driving your own standard car that is now blocked in by johnnycabs on all sides. The possibilities are endless. ..and if they're network linked, oh boy, watch for the carnage on the news as one lemming triggers the rest into pulling harakiri en masse, if not by equipment failure or software bug, then deliberately by some asshole with a laptop and too much time on his hands. Hey, it will happen because I KNOW the state will get its back door in each and every one of these things..
Yeah, the batman autodrive was completely in batman's control, just like KITT was to michael knight, and even in the latter, the concept of KITT being taken over by adversaries was touched upon.. both of those machines demonstrated contextual awareness far beyond even the most advanced supercomputer powered AI to date. A nice fantasy..
No matter what the lawyers want to believe, their legal 'code' has no bearing on the laws of physics, and just because they make something illegal doesn't mean it won't be done anyway.
I'm not sure I want to live in such a surveillance society where I have 20 computers around me analyzing my driving and reporting it to every local authority along the way.
Guys! YOU CAN TURN AUTO-DRIVE OFF!!!!
For now. I'm sure you can see where this is going. We all know that computers are too tempting an opportunity for state and corporate interests to meddle in our affairs for their own interests.
I refuse to sacrifice my liberty for the sake of dumbing things down for invalids who could easily take the bus or a taxi. We already do too much dumbing down as it is.
Yeah well your little utopia requires authority that doesn't abuse its power, and corporates that don't corner markets.. Good luck. I'll keep my current car. At least it does what I tell it to do, not what some DC bureaucrat or marketing droid thinks I should be doing.
Not good enough. See, I still care about my personal safety, not just my legal liabilities. I don't care how brilliant google et al thinks their programmers are, they have not accounted for all the variables.. It's a nearly impossible task given current technology. We can't even get automated trains to run correctly 100% of the time without accidents, which is why we still pay someone to sit at the controls even though a lot of it is automated. millions of freewheeling cars making their own way? no thanks. that's a multideath trap of epic proportions just waiting for the right bug to trigger. Computers are faster than humans, and more consistent at repetitive tasks, but they are TERRIBLE at dealing with the unexpected. The latter requires contextual awareness, which, for now, is a human-only featureset. I'll take the occasional drunk driver over the fragile and MASSIVE fuckup potential that legions of 'smart' self-driving cars would be on the road.
This is essentially what I said.
Just like the soviets were after chernobyl..From the locals at the plant doing the 'safety' test, to just after the initial accident, to the delays in evacuations, to the kremlin's international response..
Pride is ok, but it's gotta be rational.. There's no reason to feel prideful when you fuck up. Now, I could see the argument for 'honor' (It's our mess, we should be the ones to clean it up), but for something like this, if you need help, you should ask. Governments with strong ideological bias often have trouble accepting that the laws of physics don't care about political borders.
Just get it onto the victimlist, and the identity politics people will ensure 'equal' treatment for it.
You can bet that before the revolution, before the congress, before there was a country, and they were still operating under the king's rule, the principals were VERY anonymous with their communication to other would-be interested parties. Without it, the revolution would not have gotten off the ground. Anonymous communication and broadcast is a key component of liberty. I find it very interesting that the ones railing against it are usually those who have something to lose when the smoke is blown away and mirrors shattered. Emotionally driven politics like those behind huffington post are a typical example of this.
It's true there's some trash in anonland (like mr cleanpc's 'interesting' pitches), but also a lot of good points that buck the dominant cultures posting at the site. The thing is, the people who most need to hear these points, are usually ones who make it a point to filter out truth they don't want to hear. Thus all the system becomes is a soft censor.
I guess it depends on what they (and you) mean by 'good' and 'bad'. It's obvious huffingtonpost is a pro-feminist site that focuses on those issues, so you'd think if the bolts truly ran all the way through the ideological positions in their articles, they wouldn't need to silence objections, no matter how badly worded. No, it is more likely they wish to silence facts and reason that do not support their political convictions.
Interesting.. Whether I agree with individual posts or not, I usually find the user commentary a lot closer to the reality of the situation reported on by the posted article itself, especially for politics. This commentary 'goes there' when the politically correct 'reporter' or 'journalist' does/will not. lots of vitriol in the commentary usually indicates the article is likely biased irrationally, or just wasn't written well.
Free societies should require the freedom of speech for everyone, anonymous or not. The problem is that people usually don't have the right to speak anonymously when it is needed the most. I have a better idea: let the individual choose how to handle his affairs, just as the readers of his message ought (instead of demanding the state punish the sender for their butthurt feelings).