This seems to be a shirking of the responsibilities of a free citizen.
No, it was simply the smartest thing to do. Previously, a stereotypical hijacking meant someone wanted the plane to fly to Cuba. Well, just fly there, land the plane, let the would-be immigrant out of the plane and continue your journey. It was a minor annoyance, causing a delay of a few hours, on par with bad weather. It would be extremely foolish to risk your life to fight someone causing you a minor annoyance.
On the other hand, nowadays the stereotypical hijacking means someone shouting "Allah Ackbar!" and killing everyone on board. That means the smartest thing to do is to attack him immediately, even at the risk of getting a knife on your guts.
The only people whom you can guarantee will be at the scene of a crime, when it happens, are the criminal, and the victim (theft by stealth not withstanding). This means that, as a free citizen, the victim is the first responder. It is up to the citizen to protect himself and his society.
Yes. And the best way to protect yourself in a hijacking in times gone by was to sit tight and let the moron get imprisoned in a city of his choice, rather than to fight to get him imprisoned in a city of your choice.
Should people have fought on planes before? Absolutely, I don't care how well trained a couple of hijackers are, against several hundred people, from all sides, they will lose. Flight 93 was doomed, in part, by the "be a victim" mentality. The people started fighting far too late, the hijackers were already in control of the aircraft.
Flight 93 was doomed by a mistaken but perfectly reasonable assumption on the part of its passengers. "Victim complex" means you don't bother trying because you figure you will fail anyway; Flight 93's passengers waited before starting to fight because they estimated that to be the course of action likely to lead to the best outcome for them.
Were the scenario to go more along the lines of the hijackers starting trouble, and the people on the plane immediately giving them a beat-down (or maybe even shooting them) the plane would be far less likely to crash as the pilots will always be in control of the aircraft.
Yes, and that's what's happened in hijackings since, AFAIK.
I dunno. Seems fairly permanent this time. The only thing I could see them doing is pulling a DC "continuity reset.
A headshot is a mere flesh wound. Especially since that was actually Mr. Skull-for-a-Head who got shot, who had just previously used his previously non-existent telepathic magic powers to steal his body - it already happened once, to Dr. Doom, who was seemingly atomized in front of hundreds of witnesses by Silver Surfer falling from the orbit. Or Thanos who was resurrected by Death itself to kill people. Or, well, just about anyone there.
Seriously. Marvel Universe doesn't have a revolving door. It's more like a vertical wall of slippery ice where if your grip slips, you'll fall back to life. It's just not possible to stay dead there. And that's not even counting the periodic universal destruction specials.
No, the only real question is: when they bring him back, what modifications will they include in a failed effort to make the character more "hip"?
Causing pain to another human without their consent violates trust, respect and their core dignity. It is abuse.
And that serves to teach a very important lesson: you are only guaranteed these things if there isn't anyone stronger than you around. If there are, you'd better concentrate on kissing their ass, because otherwise they'll beat yours.
Trust no one. That's the most important lesson to learn.
I agree with Hubbard that people willfully stupid enough to believe in superstition deserve to be callously exploited, but not to where they cause problems for the rest of us intelligent enough to be without spirituality.
If you let predators prey on the weak, they grow stronger and bolder and eventually turn on you too. At that point they have plenty of followers who'll back them up. Scientology is a great example of just that happening. Other historical examples would include the Nazis, most communist movements, and in fact every example ever of someone whipping a mob into a frenzy and making themselves a king.
On this basis, your sentence was not only callous, but also arrogant and stupid; how very efficient of you.
Will that work with my Kimber 1911 or do I have to find an original Colt Government Model to destroy my thetan with?;)
Silly suppressive, you can't destroy a thetan, even by stuffing it into a volcano, nuking it, and forcing it to watch Xenuist propaganda films. You can merely kick it out. Anything which leaves a hole in your skull should suffice. Mind you, it's a delicate procedure, so you might wish to ask a scientology leader to assist; they're glad to, that's why they're in trial.
* - it's worth noting (though I can't find the citation) that the method by which the cdns held kapyong against the 3-5:1 odds was by calling down artillery on their own position
Don't you think that that's taking sporting spirit a bit too far ?-)
However, in context to the article, the example was "here is something that everyone does in C, but I did it in LISP and it was faster!" And that is my challenge: one, relatively small app written in any higher language will be faster when written in C. There are no restrictions to the challenge based on maintainability or number of lines of code.
Suppose we remove the condition "relatively small app". Suppose we start the challenge by writing small and simple apps, and make them progressively larger and more complex. How long is it going to take until your C programs become buggy and slow simply because you don't have time to debug and optimize them?
Assembly is the fastest language there is if you have infinite time to optimize the program. Once you remove that assumption and impose some reasonable limit after which it has to be done, most programs will be slower when written in assembler. The same happens to C, thought it will hang in there longer; and it'll happen to every programming language. That's one of the reasons why we're moving to higher-level languages: those languages are faster than lower-level languages for programs with complexity greater than some limit.
So, the upshot of this is that C is very close to the bare metal of how the system works. Thus if you are good with it, you can produce extremely efficient code. The higher level stuff may be nice, but it all slows things down. When you have a managed language that takes care of all the nasty stuff for you, well it is spending CPU cycles doing that. Now the tradeoff is quite often worth it, since CPUs have loads of power and maintainability of code is important, but don't trick yourself in to thinking it is more efficient.
However, all of that is only true if you're smarter than the compiler. If your compiler is a human-level or better AI, then it doesn't matter what language you write in, because it can simply treat the high-level language as a "design document" and do all the same clever low-level optimization you could; if it's smarter than you, it then it'll do even better. That's why high-level languages today are much closer to C than they once were, and C itself closer to assmebly than it was. The speed of all languages are converging.
In the far future, I see computers becoming intelligent agents with strong AI, who aren't programmed in the commonly understood way, but rather are given (possibly very generic) tasks and create subroutines - which are incrementally improved through experience - to perform them. Ever-higher level programming languages are steps in that direction, pushing more and more details to the computer itself.
Strong AI will emerge from a programming language which is high enough level to be indistinguishable to giving instructions to a human.
I hate this... the crap you hear about code maintenance from those who think they know better. Good code is good code, whether or not it has "good comments". If the idiot employed to maintain it can't follow it, this does not mean it's bad code, it means the maintainer is nowhere near as intelligent as the original programmer. (Little wonder that person no longer works your company...).
So if code is commented, it's easier to figure out what it's doing, and to alter this function as desired. That's pretty much the definition of maintainability. I guess that means those people who asserted that really know better than you. Furthermore, since you simultaneously disagree with them and prove them correct, guess who comes out as the idiot here?
So what happens... the smart, well written code that executes quickly gets replaced by crappy (probably very buggy) code, but gee whiz, the halfwit manager who does the code reviews can now follow it, so it must be better!
Believe me, I have watched this happen so many times its not funny. Code originally written by 2 or 3 people gets maintained (in the end) by teams of 20 to 40 people. Code gets slower, code gets bloated, code gets very buggy, but hey, look, the managment are proud of how maintainable it is!
And all that could had been avoided if the 2 or 3 people who wrote it in the first place would had bothered commenting it! I guess that explains why the management wants comments.
If the predecessor does write the passwords down, he deserves to be fired.
Either he writes the passwords down, or he uses weak passwords that a human mind can remember.
Besides, a password is a security token. A piece of paper or a little plastic card with the password printed on it or a USB stick with SSH key or whatever saved on it are also security tokens. They aren't inherently less secure than memorized passwords; you simply have to secure the physical object by, for example, locking it in a safe.
"Passwords should never be written down" is an idiotic rule, right there with "never use goto".
Wow, so you read what I said and interpreted it as a desire to throw people into prison for life over playground fights as kids? Perhaps I should have qualified my statement better, since those who read my remark apparently can't apply a little bit of common sense.
No, we who read your sentence can't guess what you actually meant, but have to make do with what you wrote. Sorry. My telepathy has been a bit flaky lately, especially when it comes to authoritarian lunatics.
When you commit an act of unprovoked violence against another fellow human being you forfeit your right to live among the rest of us. It should be obvious that I'm talking about hardened criminals who use violence as a means to an end (i.e: to commit robbery, defend their drug turf, to commit rape, to intimidate witnesses against them, etc) and not children who have a playground altercation or adults who have a dispute with a friend or family member.
And, pray tell, who is a sufficiently hardened criminal that violence should earn a lifelong punishment? Because everyone who uses violence uses it as a means to an end, including two kids who are having a playground fight - a turf fight if there ever was one - so that can't be a criterion. And why should spousal abuse or beating your kids be okay - that is what you meant with "dispute with a friend or family member", right? Or is that another case where I should disregard what you wrote and use "common sense" to know what you actually meant?
And when they've demonstrated that they are willing to use violence to obtain compliance from their victims they should be punished by a life sentence with no possibility of parole.
And since you are apparently fine with doing likewise - unless you wish to suggest that they are going to go to and stay in jail without the threat of violence - why shouldn't that include you? Or is it okay if you're willing to outsource the actual violence to other people?
What I simply don't understand is: why do you get your panties in a bunch over the chance of someone getting beaten up or killed, when you clearly don't care about someone else getting locked up for life? It sucks either way, yet one seems to be a terrible tragedy to you while the other is awwwright. Do you have personal traumas, or is this some weird parody of being though on crime?
Right, such as when you demonstrate that you have no regard for human life and are willing to maim and kill to achieve your criminal objectives.
Which is something you haven't actually demonstrated until you've maimed or killed someone. Which is the answer to your original question of why violent people are let out of the jail: they haven't yet done anything to deserve permanent incarceration.
Yep, that's exactly what I'm willing to do. Every single time someone is murdered by a thug who already had a violent criminal record that's a murder that could have been prevented if that thug had been appropriately punished for his prior crimes.
He was, as demonstrated by the fact that he had that criminal record. You are arguing that he should be punished by lifelong incarceration for any crime involving violence, which is disproportionate to the crimes he has committed, but according to you justifiable based on his increased chances of committing more serious crimes. In other words, you wish to punish him based not on what he's done, but what he might do.
The funny thing is, based on your zeal in locking up criminals, I'd say you're exactly the type to vote for increased surveillance in society - it helps catch criminals, after all - which in turn is a threat to me, since it also helps any would-be tyrants oppress honest people such as myself. Should we pre-emptively lock you up because you have increased chances of helping some violent thug gain political power? After all, it might potentially prevent a lot of deaths.
I've seen statistics that say that at least 80% of murderers already had violent criminal records when they first committed murder. To me that begs the question of why did they get out of jail in the first place?
They get out of jail because we only punish people based on what they've done, not what they might do in the future. It might be worth it to demand that violent offenders see a psychologist in jail or as a condition of their release, thought.
To my way of thinking, once you commit an act of violence against a fellow human being society owes you nothing except an 8'x10' cell for the rest of your miserable life.
Interesting. You never got into fights as a child, then? Because I certainly did. I still might, given the right circumstances.
It might also be argued that you aren't granted freedom by the society, but have it by virtue of existing, and it may only be taken of by the most pressing circumstances.
Prior to that we owe a fair shot at paying your debt to society and re-entering it as a productive citizen, but once you demonstrate that you are willing to use violence against your fellow citizens you forfeit any right to live among the rest of us.
Who is this "us" you're talking about, you who are willing to use violence to keep some of your fellow citizens in a jail forever?
My father still plays Nethack occasionally and will use od and a hex-editor to modify save files.
Amateur! I hacked the source to win! And learned C while doing that. Seriously, I didn't know anything except good old BASIC (you know, with line numbers and goto) before it.
I even published a variant - Nethack Extended - but it never really went anywhere. I should write my own game one of these days...
If this war on terror is so important, sign up. If you can't, get your brother or sister or even better, sign your kids up. If they're not of age yet, they'd better be in the JROTC.
This isn't antiquity or some Middle-Eastern hellhole. Your children are not your property and may not be sacrificed to help your cause. If you wish to conduct human sacrifice, lay down at the altar; because the only heart you have the right to offer to the gods of war is your own.
Then you can talk to me about how using drones and missiles isn't the dominion of motherfucking cowards. It's for freedom lovers defending freedom!
Hiding behind your children is the epitome of heroism.
Only a Westerner would think that another culture needs some "enlightenment" that is conveniently delivered via a media program with a Western perspective.
True enough. Based on the history of Imperial Japan, they would deliver said enlightenment at gunpoint. Ask their neighbours about the details, the Japanese themselves seem to dislike talking about their glorious deeds for some strange reason.
I'm really getting tired of this West-bashing. While it is indeed unlikely that a Discovery Channel special will dispel someone's silly notions about people being tainted because their ancestors buried corpses rather than made them, that doesn't change the fact that said notions are indeed silly, and making decisions that negatively affect other people based on them is downright evil. If Japanese culture is still subject to such stupidity, and Western culture is not, then Western culture is indeed superior to the Japanese one in that respect.
This whole thing is simply the Japanese equivalent of Ku Klux Klan, nothing more. We should look down to such people with disgust and contempt, here and abroad, rather than pretend that their illogical and petty positions are somehow valid or acceptable because they have existed for a long time. Such people retard the growth of their culture and shame their ancestors by ensuring that they are remembered by their worst, rather than best; and in the process they hurt plenty of innocent people too. Way to go, Japan/Klan!
So, if processing power doubles every 2 years, this should realistically take about 35 years to accomplish.
Actually, since neural networks are massively parallel, you could probably run it right now if you convinced Google to borrow their hardware.
Which means we may have artificial human level intelligences before I retire. Perfect, now I can have a care taker that doesn't get fed up with me when I can't pour his coffee because I have parkinsons.
Unfortunately, no. That would require us to be able to produce AIs to specification, rather than simply copy human or cat brains. We are nowhere near that.
Harrison Ford was a great casting job in the latest Indiana Jones. The movie just sucked so hard that moments after its release, urbandictionary already had a new word for the movie.
Crystal Skull was actually a great movie. It simply wasn't an awesome movie like Riders of the Lost Ark. However, had it not been "Indiana Jones 4", it would probably been the best movie of its year.
Instead of 'jumped the shark', it's now 'nuked the fridge'.
Which, in the context of "pulp movie" was actually a perfectly reasonable thing. In fact, it's pretty feasible even in real life: the heat and radiation pulse of a nuclear weapon only lasts a few seconds, so if you're covered during those, you'll be fine.
Well, according to the founders, it's better than a tyrannity of the majority, so...no, fuck it, I can't figure out what those old coots were thinking either.
Clog everything with red tape and bureuecracy so no one can get anything done. It's quite ingenious, actually.
The real question would be: how would you map the various radio wave lengths to what your eyes would actually be able to see?
The best solution would be to bypass your eyes entirely and simply map the thing directly to your vision cortex. Use a phased array of implanted wires to get 360 degree detection, combine with a microprocessor to translate the info into amplitude and frequency in every direction, and this data in paired cables into the brain. Sure, it would be an utter mess at first, but after a few weeks you should be able to make sense of it.
Slashdot Mirror
All industrialized nations are at near-zero population growth. Many in fact have negative growth.
No, it was simply the smartest thing to do. Previously, a stereotypical hijacking meant someone wanted the plane to fly to Cuba. Well, just fly there, land the plane, let the would-be immigrant out of the plane and continue your journey. It was a minor annoyance, causing a delay of a few hours, on par with bad weather. It would be extremely foolish to risk your life to fight someone causing you a minor annoyance.
On the other hand, nowadays the stereotypical hijacking means someone shouting "Allah Ackbar!" and killing everyone on board. That means the smartest thing to do is to attack him immediately, even at the risk of getting a knife on your guts.
Yes. And the best way to protect yourself in a hijacking in times gone by was to sit tight and let the moron get imprisoned in a city of his choice, rather than to fight to get him imprisoned in a city of your choice.
Flight 93 was doomed by a mistaken but perfectly reasonable assumption on the part of its passengers. "Victim complex" means you don't bother trying because you figure you will fail anyway; Flight 93's passengers waited before starting to fight because they estimated that to be the course of action likely to lead to the best outcome for them.
Yes, and that's what's happened in hijackings since, AFAIK.
A headshot is a mere flesh wound. Especially since that was actually Mr. Skull-for-a-Head who got shot, who had just previously used his previously non-existent telepathic magic powers to steal his body - it already happened once, to Dr. Doom, who was seemingly atomized in front of hundreds of witnesses by Silver Surfer falling from the orbit. Or Thanos who was resurrected by Death itself to kill people. Or, well, just about anyone there.
Seriously. Marvel Universe doesn't have a revolving door. It's more like a vertical wall of slippery ice where if your grip slips, you'll fall back to life. It's just not possible to stay dead there. And that's not even counting the periodic universal destruction specials.
No, the only real question is: when they bring him back, what modifications will they include in a failed effort to make the character more "hip"?
And that serves to teach a very important lesson: you are only guaranteed these things if there isn't anyone stronger than you around. If there are, you'd better concentrate on kissing their ass, because otherwise they'll beat yours.
Trust no one. That's the most important lesson to learn.
If you let predators prey on the weak, they grow stronger and bolder and eventually turn on you too. At that point they have plenty of followers who'll back them up. Scientology is a great example of just that happening. Other historical examples would include the Nazis, most communist movements, and in fact every example ever of someone whipping a mob into a frenzy and making themselves a king.
On this basis, your sentence was not only callous, but also arrogant and stupid; how very efficient of you.
Silly suppressive, you can't destroy a thetan, even by stuffing it into a volcano, nuking it, and forcing it to watch Xenuist propaganda films. You can merely kick it out. Anything which leaves a hole in your skull should suffice. Mind you, it's a delicate procedure, so you might wish to ask a scientology leader to assist; they're glad to, that's why they're in trial.
Don't you think that that's taking sporting spirit a bit too far ?-)
Suppose we remove the condition "relatively small app". Suppose we start the challenge by writing small and simple apps, and make them progressively larger and more complex. How long is it going to take until your C programs become buggy and slow simply because you don't have time to debug and optimize them?
Assembly is the fastest language there is if you have infinite time to optimize the program. Once you remove that assumption and impose some reasonable limit after which it has to be done, most programs will be slower when written in assembler. The same happens to C, thought it will hang in there longer; and it'll happen to every programming language. That's one of the reasons why we're moving to higher-level languages: those languages are faster than lower-level languages for programs with complexity greater than some limit.
However, all of that is only true if you're smarter than the compiler. If your compiler is a human-level or better AI, then it doesn't matter what language you write in, because it can simply treat the high-level language as a "design document" and do all the same clever low-level optimization you could; if it's smarter than you, it then it'll do even better. That's why high-level languages today are much closer to C than they once were, and C itself closer to assmebly than it was. The speed of all languages are converging.
In the far future, I see computers becoming intelligent agents with strong AI, who aren't programmed in the commonly understood way, but rather are given (possibly very generic) tasks and create subroutines - which are incrementally improved through experience - to perform them. Ever-higher level programming languages are steps in that direction, pushing more and more details to the computer itself.
Strong AI will emerge from a programming language which is high enough level to be indistinguishable to giving instructions to a human.
So if code is commented, it's easier to figure out what it's doing, and to alter this function as desired. That's pretty much the definition of maintainability. I guess that means those people who asserted that really know better than you. Furthermore, since you simultaneously disagree with them and prove them correct, guess who comes out as the idiot here?
And all that could had been avoided if the 2 or 3 people who wrote it in the first place would had bothered commenting it! I guess that explains why the management wants comments.
Either he writes the passwords down, or he uses weak passwords that a human mind can remember.
Besides, a password is a security token. A piece of paper or a little plastic card with the password printed on it or a USB stick with SSH key or whatever saved on it are also security tokens. They aren't inherently less secure than memorized passwords; you simply have to secure the physical object by, for example, locking it in a safe.
"Passwords should never be written down" is an idiotic rule, right there with "never use goto".
If the password can be worked around, what does it matter if it gets written down in the first place?
No, we who read your sentence can't guess what you actually meant, but have to make do with what you wrote. Sorry. My telepathy has been a bit flaky lately, especially when it comes to authoritarian lunatics.
And, pray tell, who is a sufficiently hardened criminal that violence should earn a lifelong punishment? Because everyone who uses violence uses it as a means to an end, including two kids who are having a playground fight - a turf fight if there ever was one - so that can't be a criterion. And why should spousal abuse or beating your kids be okay - that is what you meant with "dispute with a friend or family member", right? Or is that another case where I should disregard what you wrote and use "common sense" to know what you actually meant?
And since you are apparently fine with doing likewise - unless you wish to suggest that they are going to go to and stay in jail without the threat of violence - why shouldn't that include you? Or is it okay if you're willing to outsource the actual violence to other people?
What I simply don't understand is: why do you get your panties in a bunch over the chance of someone getting beaten up or killed, when you clearly don't care about someone else getting locked up for life? It sucks either way, yet one seems to be a terrible tragedy to you while the other is awwwright. Do you have personal traumas, or is this some weird parody of being though on crime?
Which is something you haven't actually demonstrated until you've maimed or killed someone. Which is the answer to your original question of why violent people are let out of the jail: they haven't yet done anything to deserve permanent incarceration.
He was, as demonstrated by the fact that he had that criminal record. You are arguing that he should be punished by lifelong incarceration for any crime involving violence, which is disproportionate to the crimes he has committed, but according to you justifiable based on his increased chances of committing more serious crimes. In other words, you wish to punish him based not on what he's done, but what he might do.
The funny thing is, based on your zeal in locking up criminals, I'd say you're exactly the type to vote for increased surveillance in society - it helps catch criminals, after all - which in turn is a threat to me, since it also helps any would-be tyrants oppress honest people such as myself. Should we pre-emptively lock you up because you have increased chances of helping some violent thug gain political power? After all, it might potentially prevent a lot of deaths.
They get out of jail because we only punish people based on what they've done, not what they might do in the future. It might be worth it to demand that violent offenders see a psychologist in jail or as a condition of their release, thought.
Interesting. You never got into fights as a child, then? Because I certainly did. I still might, given the right circumstances.
It might also be argued that you aren't granted freedom by the society, but have it by virtue of existing, and it may only be taken of by the most pressing circumstances.
Who is this "us" you're talking about, you who are willing to use violence to keep some of your fellow citizens in a jail forever?
They have a commercial agenda where they stand to benefit from sabotaging Wine. That means they probably shouldn't be in charge of Wine development.
Amateur! I hacked the source to win! And learned C while doing that. Seriously, I didn't know anything except good old BASIC (you know, with line numbers and goto) before it.
I even published a variant - Nethack Extended - but it never really went anywhere. I should write my own game one of these days...
This isn't antiquity or some Middle-Eastern hellhole. Your children are not your property and may not be sacrificed to help your cause. If you wish to conduct human sacrifice, lay down at the altar; because the only heart you have the right to offer to the gods of war is your own.
Hiding behind your children is the epitome of heroism.
True enough. Based on the history of Imperial Japan, they would deliver said enlightenment at gunpoint. Ask their neighbours about the details, the Japanese themselves seem to dislike talking about their glorious deeds for some strange reason.
I'm really getting tired of this West-bashing. While it is indeed unlikely that a Discovery Channel special will dispel someone's silly notions about people being tainted because their ancestors buried corpses rather than made them, that doesn't change the fact that said notions are indeed silly, and making decisions that negatively affect other people based on them is downright evil. If Japanese culture is still subject to such stupidity, and Western culture is not, then Western culture is indeed superior to the Japanese one in that respect.
This whole thing is simply the Japanese equivalent of Ku Klux Klan, nothing more. We should look down to such people with disgust and contempt, here and abroad, rather than pretend that their illogical and petty positions are somehow valid or acceptable because they have existed for a long time. Such people retard the growth of their culture and shame their ancestors by ensuring that they are remembered by their worst, rather than best; and in the process they hurt plenty of innocent people too. Way to go, Japan/Klan!
Actually, since neural networks are massively parallel, you could probably run it right now if you convinced Google to borrow their hardware.
Unfortunately, no. That would require us to be able to produce AIs to specification, rather than simply copy human or cat brains. We are nowhere near that.
GASP! He knows the plot! Copybusters to the rescue!
Crystal Skull was actually a great movie. It simply wasn't an awesome movie like Riders of the Lost Ark. However, had it not been "Indiana Jones 4", it would probably been the best movie of its year.
Which, in the context of "pulp movie" was actually a perfectly reasonable thing. In fact, it's pretty feasible even in real life: the heat and radiation pulse of a nuclear weapon only lasts a few seconds, so if you're covered during those, you'll be fine.
Have Lindsay Lohan fall for a kick-ass female ghost and I'll do both! Or just complete that dream scene from the first movie :).
Capitalistic? Because then the decision to value $20 over an old man's life makes perfect sense under that, and only under that.
Hurray for the free market!
Clog everything with red tape and bureuecracy so no one can get anything done. It's quite ingenious, actually.
The best solution would be to bypass your eyes entirely and simply map the thing directly to your vision cortex. Use a phased array of implanted wires to get 360 degree detection, combine with a microprocessor to translate the info into amplitude and frequency in every direction, and this data in paired cables into the brain. Sure, it would be an utter mess at first, but after a few weeks you should be able to make sense of it.