Very nice post, Except for the part where you cite slashdot as a credible source of information. It has a really terrible track record of "reporting". Its really just a terrible summary that only sometimes links back to a source that kind of resembles the summary.
If I get hit by a driverless car built with a defect like poor winter vision by Google/Ford. You'd better believe I'm suing them. So, I guess you could call the resulting lawsuits, bad PR.
Your head, maybe. Mine does just fine. I used to play Early VR games in the mid 90's. Other people puked, but not me.
I can only assume this is because my ancestors were actually time travelers from a future where wearing badly tuned VR headsets is an essential skill of survival if one wishes to reproduce.
Unfortunately, it seems wearing a VR headset has just the opposite affect in this day and age.
Right, because detecting paperbags and small animals are the only things a self driving car needs to be aware of. Certainly not objects like street signs, lane markings, people or rusted off car parts.
Its part of the hacker mindset, to explore the boundries of the rules of the system looking for loopholes. Of course the morality of it would prevent me from doing it. But morality isn't consistant with the laws of any particular state. I'm interested in learning what the legal requirements are for someone who didn't request an object to safeguard that object. Those requirements could dictate the amount I'd charge them for "shipping and handling" of their product, if charging them a fee is allowed under the law. If I'm legally required to safeguard it, I might choose to put it in a safety deposit box while we sort the situation out.
Assuming you live in the UK, and that the law says you have to send it back to them, what's to prevent the recipient from just smashing the PS Vita to bits and shipping that back? Are there any UK laws that say you are responsible for the safetly and security of unordered merchandise?
That wouldn't be the nicest thing to do, per se, but I don't see how anyone has any more responsiblity for keeping an unrequested item safe. It could also be stolen in the mean time. What then?
Oh, I understand what you're saying. Its just not at all relevant. We were discussing how to persuade someone who has a different frame of reference than yourself.
I suggested establishing a common frame of reference as a necessary starting point.
You suggested that language was so malleable that it was impossible to do so.
Which, sounds like you are trying to prove that gravity doesn't work. There is obviously something holding us to this spinning globe. Its obvious that people of different cultural references can break through their own filters, if they are willing.
I think you took offense at that point. My fault I guess. Pointing out arguments as not germane to the topic can be insulting to the one making the argument.
Your point is irrelevant to this conversation. Obviously, it is possible for people to change their belief set. Obviously, it is possible to learn from cultures other than your own despite all existing cultural filters and language barriers.
Nothing is wrong with the language. You just need to listen with an ear toward understanding. Ironically, what you are trying to do is exactly what Christian Evangelists do. You have to understand their world view in order to effectively communicate your own. Of course, if you happen to meet a well trained Christian Evangelist, he'd be more than willing to help set up the common understanding. But don't go in expecting to convert a person based on your unassailable logic, and convincing prose over the course of a five minute conversation. People have free will, you can expose them to the truth any number of times but they have to decide for themselves what they believe.
Its Microsoft, the company that bled its competitors to death while beating them mercilessly with their own severed appendages during the 90's. I'm sure they just need to unleash their inner bastards and they'll be fine.
Just take a survey of all Indian government software licenses. Given the expense and the insanity involved in tracking MS licenses, I'm sure that they could be found to owe at least 3.4 Billion in Licensing and penalty costs.
What you have is two different world views, that lack a single frame of reference to have an honest dialog. Doing anything other than trying to establish such a frame of reference ( which is what Dawkins et all do), is fruitless.
Science doesn't need anything, its science. The last thing I'd hope anyone would try using it to do, would be to prove an un-provable statement. That would seem to be the atheist version of heresy.
If he's stuck on Access, he's more or less stuck on Windows. He'd need some man power to convert those ancient DB files, It would be worth it in the long run, but he might have a tough time convincing managment of that. I'd suggust a skunkworks program done in secrecy over a period of time, then propose the solution when you already have it up and running in a back office.
MS Access, Really? I'd like to think those aren't used by anyone for anything serious. I haven't had anyone ask me to do anything with access in a long time. I hope that means they are really dead.
Care to share the Distro of choice on those linux based non chromebook machines? Is it a free employee option ? Are there a set number of pre-approved distros? Is there a top-secret Google Gnu-Linux Distro that dispenses chocolates on the half hour?
Open source is free. Saying anything else is crazy fud talk. Opportunity costs apply to everything you do or use. Only a good faith examination of all technologies strengths and weaknesses will allow you to determine the right solution.
ESR was only looking at the negative side of LInux back in the day. How many people spent time learing linux only to have it lead to a promising career. Far from costing anything for these people, the time spent setting up Linux was money *earned*.
Or it was a terrible misquote of him in the slashdot summary.
His real quote was
“The current system for Universal Credit is a conventional system being developed on a waterfall approach. When you look at digital [the enhanced system], it’s very different – it relies not on large amounts of tin, black boxes, but uses open source and mechanisms on the web to store and access data,” Shiplee told MPs.
When asked why he didn’t adopt this approach two and a half years ago at the start of the project, Shiplee said: “Technology is moving very rapidly, such things weren’t available as they are today.”
So he might not have meant that opensource wasn't availible, but that the" mechanisims on the web to store and access data" weren't *as* available as they are today. Without knowing what technologies he's using, he could be right. They might not have existed, or have been as mature as they are now.
As the contents of Osama's layer revelaed, even someone as fanatical as him didn't. There is the person we project to the outside world, and the person we really are. Seldom are the two the same person.
Slashdot Mirror
Very nice post, Except for the part where you cite slashdot as a credible source of information. It has a really terrible track record of "reporting". Its really just a terrible summary that only sometimes links back to a source that kind of resembles the summary.
If I get hit by a driverless car built with a defect like poor winter vision by Google/Ford. You'd better believe I'm suing them. So, I guess you could call the resulting lawsuits, bad PR.
What is that price point, IYHO?
Your head, maybe. Mine does just fine. I used to play Early VR games in the mid 90's. Other people puked, but not me.
I can only assume this is because my ancestors were actually time travelers from a future where wearing badly tuned VR headsets is an essential skill of survival if one wishes to reproduce.
Unfortunately, it seems wearing a VR headset has just the opposite affect in this day and age.
But video games aren't childish, they're pubescent. Every well adjusted adult has an deep abiding, ingrown fear of his pubescence.
Right, because detecting paperbags and small animals are the only things a self driving car needs to be aware of. Certainly not objects like street signs, lane markings, people or rusted off car parts.
Its part of the hacker mindset, to explore the boundries of the rules of the system looking for loopholes. Of course the morality of it would prevent me from doing it. But morality isn't consistant with the laws of any particular state. I'm interested in learning what the legal requirements are for someone who didn't request an object to safeguard that object. Those requirements could dictate the amount I'd charge them for "shipping and handling" of their product, if charging them a fee is allowed under the law. If I'm legally required to safeguard it, I might choose to put it in a safety deposit box while we sort the situation out.
Nice. As a Norwiegian American, I'm fine with that too.
Assuming you live in the UK, and that the law says you have to send it back to them, what's to prevent the recipient from just smashing the PS Vita to bits and shipping that back? Are there any UK laws that say you are responsible for the safetly and security of unordered merchandise?
That wouldn't be the nicest thing to do, per se, but I don't see how anyone has any more responsiblity for keeping an unrequested item safe. It could also be stolen in the mean time. What then?
Well, if Europe doesn't want Scotland. We could use a 51st state. Especially one with such great scotch.
Oh, I understand what you're saying. Its just not at all relevant. We were discussing how to persuade someone who has a different frame of reference than yourself.
I suggested establishing a common frame of reference as a necessary starting point.
You suggested that language was so malleable that it was impossible to do so.
Which, sounds like you are trying to prove that gravity doesn't work. There is obviously something holding us to this spinning globe. Its obvious that people of different cultural references can break through their own filters, if they are willing.
I think you took offense at that point. My fault I guess. Pointing out arguments as not germane to the topic can be insulting to the one making the argument.
Your point is irrelevant to this conversation. Obviously, it is possible for people to change their belief set. Obviously, it is possible to learn from cultures other than your own despite all existing cultural filters and language barriers.
Nothing is wrong with the language. You just need to listen with an ear toward understanding. Ironically, what you are trying to do is exactly what Christian Evangelists do. You have to understand their world view in order to effectively communicate your own. Of course, if you happen to meet a well trained Christian Evangelist, he'd be more than willing to help set up the common understanding. But don't go in expecting to convert a person based on your unassailable logic, and convincing prose over the course of a five minute conversation. People have free will, you can expose them to the truth any number of times but they have to decide for themselves what they believe.
Its Microsoft, the company that bled its competitors to death while beating them mercilessly with their own severed appendages during the 90's. I'm sure they just need to unleash their inner bastards and they'll be fine.
You haven't succeeded in establishing a common language. You have to do that first.
Just take a survey of all Indian government software licenses. Given the expense and the insanity involved in tracking MS licenses, I'm sure that they could be found to owe at least 3.4 Billion in Licensing and penalty costs.
What you have is two different world views, that lack a single frame of reference to have an honest dialog. Doing anything other than trying to establish such a frame of reference ( which is what Dawkins et all do), is fruitless.
Science doesn't need anything, its science. The last thing I'd hope anyone would try using it to do, would be to prove an un-provable statement. That would seem to be the atheist version of heresy.
Dark chocolate is kind of healthy, and can be organic as well as fairly traded.
I'd suggust the following replacement:
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/products/whole-foods-market-organic-dark-chocolate-bar-tanzania-schoolhouse-project
I mean its for kids! In Africa! How better to not be evil, than by activily doing not evil?
If he's stuck on Access, he's more or less stuck on Windows. He'd need some man power to convert those ancient DB files, It would be worth it in the long run, but he might have a tough time convincing managment of that. I'd suggust a skunkworks program done in secrecy over a period of time, then propose the solution when you already have it up and running in a back office.
MS Access, Really? I'd like to think those aren't used by anyone for anything serious. I haven't had anyone ask me to do anything with access in a long time. I hope that means they are really dead.
Care to share the Distro of choice on those linux based non chromebook machines? Is it a free employee option ? Are there a set number of pre-approved distros? Is there a top-secret Google Gnu-Linux Distro that dispenses chocolates on the half hour?
Open source is free. Saying anything else is crazy fud talk. Opportunity costs apply to everything you do or use. Only a good faith examination of all technologies strengths and weaknesses will allow you to determine the right solution.
ESR was only looking at the negative side of LInux back in the day. How many people spent time learing linux only to have it lead to a promising career. Far from costing anything for these people, the time spent setting up Linux was money *earned*.
Or it was a terrible misquote of him in the slashdot summary.
His real quote was
“The current system for Universal Credit is a conventional system being developed on a waterfall approach. When you look at digital [the enhanced system], it’s very different – it relies not on large amounts of tin, black boxes, but uses open source and mechanisms on the web to store and access data,” Shiplee told MPs.
When asked why he didn’t adopt this approach two and a half years ago at the start of the project, Shiplee said: “Technology is moving very rapidly, such things weren’t available as they are today.”
So he might not have meant that opensource wasn't availible, but that the" mechanisims on the web to store and access data" weren't *as* available as they are today. Without knowing what technologies he's using, he could be right. They might not have existed, or have been as mature as they are now.
As the contents of Osama's layer revelaed, even someone as fanatical as him didn't. There is the person we project to the outside world, and the person we really are. Seldom are the two the same person.