Perhaps that is the way to go - escue all technology and move to the woods - collect our own cotton and wool and build human powered looms (even that is a bit too much technology...) to make our RFID-Free clothes...
The solution (if this comes to pass) is to form a barter club. Here's how it would work:
I do a job for you - you credit my 'barter account' with X number of points.
I want to get a new tire for my car, so I surf to the internet 'tire' guy's website, and order a tire. The number of points needed to get the tire are deducted from my barter account.
Its as simple as that. No real money enters the system.
The drawback is that you would need to have a skill or provide a product or service that people would want. Every member of the barter club would have to have something to barter.
There would be no legal precidence for taxing these 'transactions' since no money is passing between hands.
The key word in your statement is 'estimates'. Who made these estimates? What criteria did they use to make these estimates? Was there evidence to actually support these numbers?
The Radicati Group is run by a person who "...held senior technical and business planning positions at Xerox, 3Com and Novell", per the Radicati Group website. It is hard to believe that this group would provide a balanced representation given their pedigree.
To get to the bottom of the issue of these obviously inflated damage claims - specific evidence should be presented to support that claim. As it is, this usually does not happen - other than the 'expert' testimony of corporate hirelings - who have a vested interest in keeping corporate customers happy.
We have yet to see specific evidence that shows such astounding amounts of actual damages in practice. Unfortunately, the perpetrators continue to be sentenced based on these questionable damage claims. Don't get me wrong - I agree those that do damage should be punished. However, the punishment should fit the crime - which I have difficulty swallowing in these cases.
I would argue there are more professional quality athletes than there are professional quality teachers. The reason we don't pay to have as many of the professional quality teachers in our schools (and thus end up with crowded classrooms and substandard teachers) is a choice we make about what is important to us. Obviously, an athletic team is more important than a teaching 'team'. To couch it in your terms, the 'demand' for good teachers is artificially lowered as a result of the choices our schoolboards and communities make about paying teachers (or not paying teachers).
Similarly, there are certainly more business administration graduates every year than there are computer scientists. In this case as well, your thesis does not hold: supply and demand is irrelevant in these instances because the supply of CS people is low - yet we do not raise salaries to keep and acquire what we need to run our businesses effectively. Instead, we leave positions open, heap more work on already strained IT staff, and continue to pay executive level managers more and more money for work that does not add anything to the bottom line. Another example of your 'demand' being artificially manipulated.
'Supply and demand' in the context of the economy is a natural process. In the context of paying teachers or IT professionals it does not apply. The people making the rules about what is demanded and what is not demanded in this context is not the whole population; it is a select few with the power to manipulate the system to their own ends. In the case of the politicians on school boards, the motivation is to keep taxes low so that they can be re-elected. In the case of businesses it is to keep all expenses low so they can turn a profit and continue to pay their executives and stakeholders.
Each case must be weighed to determine the proper sentencing. In many of these cases the companies who are the victim provide inflated estimates of potential loss of revenue. In actuality, there is no way to validate if the company actually lost any money at all.
Sending someone to jail for 20 years for doing the equivalent of petty larceny is a crime in itself. However, if someone brings a major network down and the loss is quantifiable - then they absolutely should pay the price - both in restitution and jail time if appropriate.
Each case has different circumstances, and each punishment should be allocated accordingly.
1500 lines of code would be about 50 words per minute for 10 hours straight (assuming the average line has 25 words).
Thus:
10 hours = 600 minutes; 1500/600 = 2.5 lines per minute: 2.5 x 25 = 62.5 words per minute - round down to 50 for error correction (no one types 60 wpm without making errors).
I find it highly unlikely that anyone can keep up that pace while developing a new concept(presumably he was developing and testing this thing as he went along).
A key immutable law of publishing is 'verify your sources before you go to press - or you will be sorry'.
You were taken down the primrose path, it seems. Good to know we are all human - even the slashdot crew.
The operations you mention have a hired cadre of inhouse talent to take care of PCs.
A PC is different than a server - as far as uptime is concerned. In most cases these server machines have a dedicated group of system administrators, as well as a maintenance agreements with specified response times built into the contract (at least that is how we do it in my company). If it gets really bad on our machines (that host up to 100,000 customers) someone ends up flying on a plane and shipping parts counter to counter same day air...
Manditory certifications above and beyond the voluntary ones we have now would do nothing but hurt the little guy, and drive prices up for everyone.
Think before you post...
How hard is it to replace parts on a modern PC?
I regularly add components, and troubleshoot issues on the 5 machines I have running in my house. Nowadays, component repair isn't even done anyway (if a diskdrive is bad, they remove the data if possible, and then install a new drive). I don't know anyone who actually does desoldering and replacement work anymore.
Ugh. Having a manditory certification program would just add costs to everything - even new computer prices would go up - since most machines on waranty will have work done through the dealer, who would have to have certified repairmen.
We don't certify ditch diggers and construction workers (who potentially have more impact on our lives on a daily basis everytime we cruise down the road). Lets not create extra useless costs for the rest of us, by certifying computer repair people.
This is just so much 'mine is bigger than yours' crud - that the drunks outside the liquer store do just as effectively as these people, I might add.
This is the same reason we have professional athletes that make way more than teachers, and why the peter principle raises the BA in Business Administration into a 6 figure position with an office, while the BS in computer science sits in a cubicle pulling down half of that.
The elites keep the elites in positions of power, and use the rest of us for what they can get out of us for a minimal cost and maximum profits.
The only way to make headway in the sciences is to reinvent yourself as an indispensible asset, without which the powers that be would lose money. Once you achieve that, then you are in a position to bargan with them when pay adjustment time rolls around.
Of course, be careful not to overspecialize - or you might find yourself out of a job when technology shifts (ask mainframe cobol programmers about job prospects...)
The supply and demand argument is bogus.
In my shop we need a system administrator; in fact, we need him really bad (I am currently doubling up on those responsibilities).
We have interviewed several people already. However, they end up off the list because of one of the following:
1. The pay is too low (the powers that be refuse to break the pay rules for this specific job).
2. The person is not qualified.
We are in a catch-22 where we will only be able to fill it with someone who can not do the job correctly - which means regardless of if we fill the slot or not, I will probably end up doing the same thing I am doing now.
There is no rhyme or reason behind what bureaucracies do. I laugh at your supply and demand ideas - HA!
I don't think anyone in their right mind is confusing this with reality.
What about people who can't go outside? What about people with disabilities that prevent them from walking, running, playing, driving a dune buggy, flying etc. etc... What about people who want to explore their inner sexuality - that may be at odds with their external sex? What about people who just want to be freaks - granted this game doesn't allow you to be a strange creature - but, I think you get the drift by now.
Another thing: why would I want to be around people in my real life environment, particularly if there is no one compatible with me within 500 miles? Much better from this perspective to spend more time meeting people in the VR environment. Why settle for talk of beer and cars - when I can login online and talk with folks about things I really care about?
I agree its not for everyone. However, I wouldn't chide anyone from spending time inside of a VR world if it makes them happy.
Re:Virtual Reality must be Free and Decentralized
on
Metaverse Launched?
·
· Score: 1
Your statement, "which happens to convey information in 3D" contradicts, "rather than trying to emulate the real world (badly)". By definitition, conveying information in 3 demensions implies that you are creating a real world environment (3 space) with objects that reside in that space.
If the concept is too abstract, your broad audience base will not go for it - and only techies will use it. VR should be for everyone, and I am not saying your idea does not hold merit. However, I think most people will want to relate to the world you create in a way that coincides with their learned experience (3D world with unique and persistent geographical context).
Slashdot Mirror
I found an interesting paper on the history of the luddite movement.
Perhaps that is the way to go - escue all technology and move to the woods - collect our own cotton and wool and build human powered looms (even that is a bit too much technology...) to make our RFID-Free clothes...
Ok, where did I leave my PDA?
The solution (if this comes to pass) is to form a barter club. Here's how it would work:
I do a job for you - you credit my 'barter account' with X number of points.
I want to get a new tire for my car, so I surf to the internet 'tire' guy's website, and order a tire. The number of points needed to get the tire are deducted from my barter account.
Its as simple as that. No real money enters the system.
The drawback is that you would need to have a skill or provide a product or service that people would want. Every member of the barter club would have to have something to barter.
There would be no legal precidence for taxing these 'transactions' since no money is passing between hands.
Het3,
The key word in your statement is 'estimates'. Who made these estimates? What criteria did they use to make these estimates? Was there evidence to actually support these numbers?
The Radicati Group is run by a person who "...held senior technical and business planning positions at Xerox, 3Com and Novell", per the Radicati Group website. It is hard to believe that this group would provide a balanced representation given their pedigree.
To get to the bottom of the issue of these obviously inflated damage claims - specific evidence should be presented to support that claim. As it is, this usually does not happen - other than the 'expert' testimony of corporate hirelings - who have a vested interest in keeping corporate customers happy.
We have yet to see specific evidence that shows such astounding amounts of actual damages in practice. Unfortunately, the perpetrators continue to be sentenced based on these questionable damage claims. Don't get me wrong - I agree those that do damage should be punished. However, the punishment should fit the crime - which I have difficulty swallowing in these cases.
P.S. I meant to disagree with 'Reality Master 101' - not the person immediately above my post... Just for clarification. :)
I have to disagree with you.
I would argue there are more professional quality athletes than there are professional quality teachers. The reason we don't pay to have as many of the professional quality teachers in our schools (and thus end up with crowded classrooms and substandard teachers) is a choice we make about what is important to us. Obviously, an athletic team is more important than a teaching 'team'. To couch it in your terms, the 'demand' for good teachers is artificially lowered as a result of the choices our schoolboards and communities make about paying teachers (or not paying teachers).
Similarly, there are certainly more business administration graduates every year than there are computer scientists. In this case as well, your thesis does not hold: supply and demand is irrelevant in these instances because the supply of CS people is low - yet we do not raise salaries to keep and acquire what we need to run our businesses effectively. Instead, we leave positions open, heap more work on already strained IT staff, and continue to pay executive level managers more and more money for work that does not add anything to the bottom line. Another example of your 'demand' being artificially manipulated.
'Supply and demand' in the context of the economy is a natural process. In the context of paying teachers or IT professionals it does not apply. The people making the rules about what is demanded and what is not demanded in this context is not the whole population; it is a select few with the power to manipulate the system to their own ends. In the case of the politicians on school boards, the motivation is to keep taxes low so that they can be re-elected. In the case of businesses it is to keep all expenses low so they can turn a profit and continue to pay their executives and stakeholders.
I have no illusions about what is going on.
Each case must be weighed to determine the proper sentencing. In many of these cases the companies who are the victim provide inflated estimates of potential loss of revenue. In actuality, there is no way to validate if the company actually lost any money at all.
Sending someone to jail for 20 years for doing the equivalent of petty larceny is a crime in itself. However, if someone brings a major network down and the loss is quantifiable - then they absolutely should pay the price - both in restitution and jail time if appropriate.
Each case has different circumstances, and each punishment should be allocated accordingly.
1500 lines of code would be about 50 words per minute for 10 hours straight (assuming the average line has 25 words). Thus: 10 hours = 600 minutes; 1500/600 = 2.5 lines per minute: 2.5 x 25 = 62.5 words per minute - round down to 50 for error correction (no one types 60 wpm without making errors). I find it highly unlikely that anyone can keep up that pace while developing a new concept(presumably he was developing and testing this thing as he went along).
Could George have perpetrated this fraud? Or, is he just a patsy? This is almost as big a mystery as the Kennedy assasination... :)
A key immutable law of publishing is 'verify your sources before you go to press - or you will be sorry'. You were taken down the primrose path, it seems. Good to know we are all human - even the slashdot crew.
The operations you mention have a hired cadre of inhouse talent to take care of PCs. A PC is different than a server - as far as uptime is concerned. In most cases these server machines have a dedicated group of system administrators, as well as a maintenance agreements with specified response times built into the contract (at least that is how we do it in my company). If it gets really bad on our machines (that host up to 100,000 customers) someone ends up flying on a plane and shipping parts counter to counter same day air... Manditory certifications above and beyond the voluntary ones we have now would do nothing but hurt the little guy, and drive prices up for everyone. Think before you post...
How hard is it to replace parts on a modern PC? I regularly add components, and troubleshoot issues on the 5 machines I have running in my house. Nowadays, component repair isn't even done anyway (if a diskdrive is bad, they remove the data if possible, and then install a new drive). I don't know anyone who actually does desoldering and replacement work anymore. Ugh. Having a manditory certification program would just add costs to everything - even new computer prices would go up - since most machines on waranty will have work done through the dealer, who would have to have certified repairmen. We don't certify ditch diggers and construction workers (who potentially have more impact on our lives on a daily basis everytime we cruise down the road). Lets not create extra useless costs for the rest of us, by certifying computer repair people.
This is just so much 'mine is bigger than yours' crud - that the drunks outside the liquer store do just as effectively as these people, I might add. This is the same reason we have professional athletes that make way more than teachers, and why the peter principle raises the BA in Business Administration into a 6 figure position with an office, while the BS in computer science sits in a cubicle pulling down half of that. The elites keep the elites in positions of power, and use the rest of us for what they can get out of us for a minimal cost and maximum profits. The only way to make headway in the sciences is to reinvent yourself as an indispensible asset, without which the powers that be would lose money. Once you achieve that, then you are in a position to bargan with them when pay adjustment time rolls around. Of course, be careful not to overspecialize - or you might find yourself out of a job when technology shifts (ask mainframe cobol programmers about job prospects...)
The supply and demand argument is bogus. In my shop we need a system administrator; in fact, we need him really bad (I am currently doubling up on those responsibilities). We have interviewed several people already. However, they end up off the list because of one of the following: 1. The pay is too low (the powers that be refuse to break the pay rules for this specific job). 2. The person is not qualified. We are in a catch-22 where we will only be able to fill it with someone who can not do the job correctly - which means regardless of if we fill the slot or not, I will probably end up doing the same thing I am doing now. There is no rhyme or reason behind what bureaucracies do. I laugh at your supply and demand ideas - HA!
Abso-frigging-lutely!
I don't think anyone in their right mind is confusing this with reality.
What about people who can't go outside? What about people with disabilities that prevent them from walking, running, playing, driving a dune buggy, flying etc. etc... What about people who want to explore their inner sexuality - that may be at odds with their external sex? What about people who just want to be freaks - granted this game doesn't allow you to be a strange creature - but, I think you get the drift by now.
Another thing: why would I want to be around people in my real life environment, particularly if there is no one compatible with me within 500 miles? Much better from this perspective to spend more time meeting people in the VR environment. Why settle for talk of beer and cars - when I can login online and talk with folks about things I really care about?
I agree its not for everyone. However, I wouldn't chide anyone from spending time inside of a VR world if it makes them happy.
Your statement, "which happens to convey information in 3D" contradicts, "rather than trying to emulate the real world (badly)". By definitition, conveying information in 3 demensions implies that you are creating a real world environment (3 space) with objects that reside in that space. If the concept is too abstract, your broad audience base will not go for it - and only techies will use it. VR should be for everyone, and I am not saying your idea does not hold merit. However, I think most people will want to relate to the world you create in a way that coincides with their learned experience (3D world with unique and persistent geographical context).