While you are right I would wager you are also a bit harsh. I doubt a CTO or CIO needs to be able to hack away on a CLI... But most CTOs, CIOs I know about have no clue, hence the computing world is since 30 years in the stone age.
I would argue that CIO and CTO are "management" jobs, not tech jobs. As long as those guys can work with Outlook and Excel, they're in good shape.
Expanding on your example, what was the MacOS way to set the color on 7,000 items, out of 10,000 that were in that location? Did the GUI tool that you are so certain is the "One True Way" provide an easy way to do that?
GUIs may be great for the type of work you do, but I assure you, there is a LOT of work to be done for which GUI tools are absolutely horrible.
Any dumbass can do stuff in a GUI, but real BAMFs rock a terminal.
I think nearly all experienced professionals would simply say that both types of tools have their place.
I spend 99% or more of my time on the job working in a bash shell. But if you're talking about a new piece of software that I've never configured before, and probably will never have to again, then pop up the GUI, set the options, and move on with my day.
That said, while a CLI does have a much steeper learning curve, it is far more powerful in most cases. I don't avoid GUI tools out of some sort of "elitist" mentality, I avoid them simply because they're so limiting.
The answer: Yes, an erasable internet would kill the whole internet, of which Goolge is a part.
You're assuming it's an either/or situation....
There are lots of resources on the Internet that would make no sense to make "erasable".
However, you could completely wipe both Facebook and Twitter out of existence, and neither the Internet as a whole, or the human race, would suffer for it.
If you could find a way to show them that "right to be forgotten" was intimately tied to them getting laid, drunk, or high more often - then you'd have a chance.
I don't see how it's tied to them doing those things more often.
What it is tied to is those things not still haunting them 2 decades down the road.....
a better outcome would be accepting parties as a good thing:)
Never happen.
We are currently raising a generation of kids who are going to be in for a rude awakening one day, and have to learn the hard way that documenting every aspect of your life for the world to see can backfire in a multitude of ways.
Sure, he'd probably eat a assault/battery charge (though getting a conviction off it is not 100% certain),
You're assuming the police ever get involved. Unless there happens to be one right there when everything is happening, there's unlikely to even be an arrest. Around here reporting an assault after the fact will accomplish nothing aside from you having a 10 minute conversation with a cop who is annoyed that you're wasting his time with your petty crap.
As for the broken Glass, he'll fill out a report for you so you can submit it to your insurance company. That's pretty much as involved as the police like to get with minor stuff.
Regardless of what I, personally, may or may not do, I feel quite confident in my prediction that once people realize the creepy shit Glass is capable of, unpleasant incidents, up to and including violence, against Glass users will not be "rare". I also predict that prosecutions will represent a very, very small percentage of actual incidents.
Google Glasses brings out the Internet Tough Guys.
On the one hand, sure, there are "Internet Tough Guys" who talk big online but would never back it up in the real world.
On the other hand, there are "realists". The simple fact of the matter is that the world is full of people who have ZERO problem with assaulting somebody for invading their space. I don't have to claim that I'll punch anyone personally in order to point out that it is an absolute FACT that Glass wearers are going to face physical consequences for their invasive behavior.
Dear god, what an idiot. You're gonna waste half your life developing something, just to take someone's eye out with that.
It's hardly a waste.
Given that the Glass-wearing assholes either don't realize how fucking creepy they are, or just don't care, this is clearly a product for which there is a huge societal need.
If there won't be a consensus that wearing something like Google Glass with even just the potential for facial recognition or other data extraction is unacceptable,
Slashdot Mirror
While you are right I would wager you are also a bit harsh. ...
I doubt a CTO or CIO needs to be able to hack away on a CLI
But most CTOs, CIOs I know about have no clue, hence the computing world is since 30 years in the stone age.
I would argue that CIO and CTO are "management" jobs, not tech jobs. As long as those guys can work with Outlook and Excel, they're in good shape.
Because preventing crime isn't the purpose of the cameras. That's just the sales pitch that's trotted out to get the public to accept their presence.
Wow... Just wow...
Expanding on your example, what was the MacOS way to set the color on 7,000 items, out of 10,000 that were in that location? Did the GUI tool that you are so certain is the "One True Way" provide an easy way to do that?
GUIs may be great for the type of work you do, but I assure you, there is a LOT of work to be done for which GUI tools are absolutely horrible.
Technology changes and calling people names does not motivate them to stay stuck in the past.
If the students in question are going to spend their careers in Marketing or HR, you might have a point.
If the students in questin are going to spend their careers in IT, the inability to use the CLI == incompetent.
Sorry if you don't like it, but that's the way it is.
Well, sure, but what about when you first started getting into computers?
Um, there really weren't any GUIs back then...
And how does that Spotify usage relate to your job function?
I think you missed the entire point of the question you responded to...
Any dumbass can do stuff in a GUI, but real BAMFs rock a terminal.
I think nearly all experienced professionals would simply say that both types of tools have their place.
I spend 99% or more of my time on the job working in a bash shell. But if you're talking about a new piece of software that I've never configured before, and probably will never have to again, then pop up the GUI, set the options, and move on with my day.
That said, while a CLI does have a much steeper learning curve, it is far more powerful in most cases. I don't avoid GUI tools out of some sort of "elitist" mentality, I avoid them simply because they're so limiting.
Btw, I've seen at most companies, we'll all, that their Linux side of things is a freaking messy disaster. Why is that?
I actually haven't seen much of that at all. In the cases where I have, it boils down to one of two things:
1.) Wanting to pay Windows admin wages for a *nix admin.
or, even worse
2.) Putting the existing AD admin in charge of the new Linux servers.
Yes, it definitely depends on what you think of as "the Internet".
To me and you, it's one thing. A vast resource of valuable information.
However, to most people these days, "The Internet" == "Facebook".
As a result they end up knowing everything fairly well instead of knowing a specific chain of tools expertly.
I find your assessment of the situation overly optimistic.....
Correct use of http cache headers helps.
Expecting web developers to use ANYTHING correctly is an exercise in futility.
The answer: Yes, an erasable internet would kill the whole internet, of which Goolge is a part.
You're assuming it's an either/or situation....
There are lots of resources on the Internet that would make no sense to make "erasable".
However, you could completely wipe both Facebook and Twitter out of existence, and neither the Internet as a whole, or the human race, would suffer for it.
I don't think you can ask that question at all without first discussing if an "erasable internet" is even possible.
Snapchat proves that it's not only possible, but that it's also a rather popular idea.
If you could find a way to show them that "right to be forgotten" was intimately tied to them getting laid, drunk, or high more often - then you'd have a chance.
I don't see how it's tied to them doing those things more often.
What it is tied to is those things not still haunting them 2 decades down the road.....
a better outcome would be accepting parties as a good thing :)
Never happen.
We are currently raising a generation of kids who are going to be in for a rude awakening one day, and have to learn the hard way that documenting every aspect of your life for the world to see can backfire in a multitude of ways.
In that case, Glass wearers should probably get prepared to be attacked from behind......
Likely not as easy as that...
Sure, he'd probably eat a assault/battery charge (though getting a conviction off it is not 100% certain),
You're assuming the police ever get involved. Unless there happens to be one right there when everything is happening, there's unlikely to even be an arrest. Around here reporting an assault after the fact will accomplish nothing aside from you having a 10 minute conversation with a cop who is annoyed that you're wasting his time with your petty crap.
As for the broken Glass, he'll fill out a report for you so you can submit it to your insurance company. That's pretty much as involved as the police like to get with minor stuff.
Regardless of what I, personally, may or may not do, I feel quite confident in my prediction that once people realize the creepy shit Glass is capable of, unpleasant incidents, up to and including violence, against Glass users will not be "rare". I also predict that prosecutions will represent a very, very small percentage of actual incidents.
Now, why is it so hard to understand the same about Google Glass?
Because when a smartphone is pointed in the general direction of my feet, it's pretty easy to tell that nobody's taking my picture.
Not so with Glass. So I'll err on the side of "Get that fucking thing out of my face".
Sounds like you're in the wrong line of work......
Google Glasses brings out the Internet Tough Guys.
On the one hand, sure, there are "Internet Tough Guys" who talk big online but would never back it up in the real world.
On the other hand, there are "realists". The simple fact of the matter is that the world is full of people who have ZERO problem with assaulting somebody for invading their space. I don't have to claim that I'll punch anyone personally in order to point out that it is an absolute FACT that Glass wearers are going to face physical consequences for their invasive behavior.
Plenty of people punch plenty of other people in the face all the damn time and don't end up in jail, or even being talked to by the police.
What about people are having problems with demencia?
Know what? Too fucking bad.
The existence of a problem does not automatically mean that any and every imaginable solution to it is acceptable.
Dear god, what an idiot. You're gonna waste half your life developing something, just to take someone's eye out with that.
It's hardly a waste.
Given that the Glass-wearing assholes either don't realize how fucking creepy they are, or just don't care, this is clearly a product for which there is a huge societal need.
You do that to people with smartphones now?
If somebody I don't know is pointing their smartphone camera at me? You bet your ass they're going to get (at least) a talking to.
If there won't be a consensus that wearing something like Google Glass with even just the potential for facial recognition or other data extraction is unacceptable,
But there will be a consensus.
In fact, it seems that there already is.