what is it with IT people and refridgerators?? By now I've seen 'glimpses of the futuer' with refridgerators being net-terminals, being able to automagically tell what's inside it, suggesting recipies, being a 'home communication nexus' (i.e. replacing notes and magnets with an internal email system), being karaeoke machines, displaying its contents, ad nauseaum. It seems, if it's doable on a screen, our refridgerators will do it. People, there's a _reason_ mankind invented desks, and desktop computers to put on them. Do you _really_ need to play Quake, surf for pr0n and check your stock portfolio in front of your fridge?
Besides, I bet the screen will go all strange once the users start placing a few refridgerator magnets on it:)
Ok, I just couldn't resist replying to this post, even though I agree with the posters position... Call me a philosopher, I don't mind...
Mathematics: People have paraded so called 'savants' as an example of how humans can do inhuman feats of calculations. It has always turned out (and very interstingly) that htese unfortunate people have chanced upon/discovered a known algorithm for calculating the function in question. Evidencne is in no small part by giving them problems ov a given complexity, then comparing their time requirements with known algorithms. It has always turned out that they have independently discovered an efficient algorithm to figure out the result.
Now, this _is_ very impressive, and there is a lot of work available for any psychologist or neurologist to understand just why theser unfortunate people have chanced upon these algorithms or why they are sticking to them no matter what (the same applies to those unfortunates that can draw an etnire scene after one look, or that can hum an entire opera after just one exposure, of course).
To sum it up, please feel free to study neurology, psychology and computer sdcience. Just bear in mind that what you are doing could well be a part of the solution to awareness and cognition as we know it.
Yes, from a couple of years ago, you can have dual citicenship..
Also, One of our ministers recvently downloaded a CD full of mp3 songs and challenged the ploice to arrest her for illegal copying. The local district attorney stated that she had done nothing wrong, and that only the ones supplying her with the songs could possibly be charged.
While I agree that Cyc isn't the future of intelligent computing, I have to disagree with you on another point.
Searle has _not_ proved anything of the sort. he argues for his position fairly well, but on closer inspection thay are just arguments, not any kind of proof. For a good rebuttal, read Dennet for instance.
For those that haven't heard about it, It's the 'chinese room' thought experiment, where a room contains a person and a large set of rulebooks. A story - written in chinese - and a set of questions regarding the story is put into the room. The person then goes about transforming the chinese characters according to the rules, then outputs the resulting sequence - which turns out to be lucid answers to the questions about the story. This is supposed to prove that computers cannot think, as it is 'obvious' that humans work nothing like this. Problem is, it isn't at all obvious that we do not work like this (no, not rulebooks in the head, or even explicitly formulated rules, that's not needed for the analogy).
You want to know more, I can heartily recommend a semester of philosophy of the mind!
...they will not agree to any increase in your salary unless everybody else gets the same.
Short answer: Wrong.
Longer answer: General salary incrreases would be proportional to your previous salary, but then you get an additional increase depending on what you are doing, how well you are doing it, and what responsibilities you get. In addition, whenever you want (or when you get a new position) you are free - and encouraged - to negotiate for a new salary on an individual basis; the union will frequently help out by showing what level others in your situation have, and, if you want, by helping out with the negotiation process.
IANAGH, but as far as I know, the main goal of 2.0 is to move it to GTK+2.0, Pango et. al., which is a highly nontrivial task. Moving everything to a pure component architecture at the same time was apparently considered, but it was decided that doing that as well would be trying to do too much at the one time.
As I understand, nobody has said that GNOME should not move to libgnomeui, just that it shouldn't be done at the same time as the move to GTK+2.0.
If I'm terribly, tragically wrong on this please feel free to flame...
Ehhh... No. I work for the employer, but it's the employer and the unions that negotiates. Of course, on top of that I can negotiate for benefits and salary on top of that if I'm considered a key employee.
To make it a bit more confusing, I'm also a part owner of a small company, which makes me an employer (or would, if we had any emplyees but ourselves), which doesn't stop me from being unionized anyway...
...But that's in Sweden, not the US. Unions and their relationships with the employers seems to work somewhat differently here; often, the employers prefer to have a union to negotiate with rather than having to do it individually with everybody. Also, since unions have a right to give input to cutbacks and other workplace matters, the decisions tend to be better grounded among the employees. Not that everything is peachy, but it seems to work...
As recently as two eyars ago, IT workers tended not to unionize, now, however, there seems to be a renewed interest:)
Hey, don't try to agree to things here! Where would academia (or open source) be if everybody suddenly started agreeing with each other?:)
Seriously, this is of course a rather pointless, unimportant argument, and (as a previous poster impolicated) this will all be sorted out through the normal language mechanisms of common usage. However, pointless, unimportant arguments can be rather fun (as nobody gets seriously offended), so here's my 2 cents:
The point made above that 'Voice over IP' was capitalized is an entirely valid one (and I totally missed that). When the poster talks of 'common usage', however, I feel it breaks down somewhat as (unlike FTP) the term simply isn't very common.
If you tell me to use 'file tranfer protocol', I'll assume that you mean FTP (and is - for some reason - on a let's-expand-all-acronyms-trip). If you say to use 'a file transfer protocol', I'll probably start by trying ssh, as it is safer, then FTP if ssh doesn't work (and rsh never, ever).
In the same vein, if you are talking about VoIP, you are talking about that specific protocol. If you are talking about 'voice over IP', that could mean anything (well, as long as it's about voice over IP, that is). This is even more so for 'voice over IP' than for 'file tranfer protocol', as FTP is a far more well known, widely used term than is VoIP.
So, VoIP is a specific protocol, 'voice over IP' is a technology application with many potential specific solutions.
Then we could get into the whole area of commoditisation of terminology (think thermos), but that would lead this post far beyond what is reasonable...
'Survivor' is a rebranding of the original swedish 'Robinson' (named after Robinson Crusoe). Now we have to be sorry about that one too, as well as ugly mobile phones and ABBA:)
Is it just me, or have 'reality' shows gone off the deep end lately? 'Robinson' (or 'survivor' as the american version is called) had at least some kind of idea behind it (semi-recreate being stranded on an island). It is ironic that the latest crop of 'reality' shows are based on premises that would immediately be rejected by a B-grade sci-fi producer as being far too outlandish...
Well, I get 2.4Mbit/s, always on (non-metered), and fixed ip for ~25USD a month - they could double that price and it would still be worth it for me (attn. Bonet employees: please disregard previous statement).
It's not the speed of broadband that is its greatest asset, it's the always-on quality. The ability to leave a large file transfer overnight without the need to get up and disconnect, no tying up of a phone line, be notified of mail as soon as it arrives, being available over ICQ whenever you want. For my part, the speed is just a nice bonus.
As said in the article, it wasn't even a ground (sea) hit, merely a piece of rock disintegrating in the atmosphere. And yet, the first thing happening is an increase in the nuclear readiness detection systems of the largest nuclear force of the world.
The risk of a 'retailation' was, of course, nil; however, imagine a larger piece exploding at or near a major population center in the US, and I would be worried that a 'retaliatory' strike would be launched at enemy X (whoever X is at the time) before the real couse of the incident would be determined.
I hope I'm wrong.
/Janne
Deciding when you are using the net.
on
Virtual Addiction
·
· Score: 5
Thing is, some people today have "broadband" access at home (I do), and the most compelling feature isn't the speed, it's the fact that you are _always_ online. There is zero resistance to checking something out on the web (if nothing else, just to reload/. to see if any new items have popped up), mail is received at all times, and friends are just one ICQ window away.
Add to that that I work a lot on the machine, and that the most comfortable chair in my apartement is by the desk, and one interpretation could be that I'm using the net 18 hours a day, every day.
So how much _am_ I using the net? Do I count only when I do a volitional act to access the net (like using a browser to check a wab page), whenever my computer accesses the web (autochecking for mail), or whenever I'm sitting at my desk? Am I using the net if I'm composing a mail on the hotmail site, but not when writing the same letter in gvim (even if I intend to send the finished text as mail)?
Deciding when you are using something too much is kind of hard when it quits being a separate activity and blends seamlessly into everyday life.
I dont have the figures, but i would estimate that more than 5% of the energy (electric) produced in europe is lost in the transmission lines.
I did a check on this, and the numbers seem to indicate that the power lines to residential homes lose about 7-8%, while large power lines will lose about half the energy over a transmission length of a few hundred (american) miles. As those distances are common, there would probably be a fairly substantial benefit to be able to store energy locally.
We don't really have an energy production problem, we have problems with storage and transportation once the energy is generated in a usable form.
_Good_ programmers are hired for their communication and management skills as well as their programming skills. Lots of people can code, but a programmer that is an asset management-wise as well is worth his/her weight in gold.
What I'd really would like is to have their special commbox for my otherwise ordinary PC. Something along the lines of one box by the computer where all the video, keyboard, mouse, sound and the like is plugged in, a cable, and another box at my desk where all connectors are available locally. That way I could put the computer in a closet somewhere and not have to listen to that incessant humming every single day...
802.11 is a wireless replacement for ethernet. Bluetooth is a replacement for short-haul cable like serial cables, wireless phones, and such. They are not in direct competition, but complement each other. 802.11 is high speed, but expensive and power-hungry, while bluetooth is short range, low speed, cheap and power efficient (an important requirement for PDA:s, phone handsets and other gadgets with a limited battery life). You wouldn't use Bluetooth as a replacement for cable networks, and you won't want to use 802.11 as a replacement for serial or parallel cable.
I don't want either 802.11 or Bluetooth, I want both -- and use them for the different things they are meant for.
You mean you don't!? Then how do you keep your chain safe from the bitloss demons? I honestly think that the mandated sacrifice of a black goat over a SCSI interface at least once a year should have been written into the specification...
Disclaimer: IANAL, IANAAC, IDKWITA, but here goes:
Since there seems to be a law requiring them to give thirty days notice, it is entirely possible that the state will pay the operating cost for the next thirty days -- money which will in turn be pulled in from the bankruptcy proceedings. I believe the order of importance during a bankruptcy is the government, primary creditors (like banks, lawyers and accountants), secondary creditors (you and me), then the owners (fat chance). This means that they would be fairly sure of getting their money back.
Damn, and I really wanted at least one Sci-Fi staple to come true... Maybe they can get some of the same effect by shooting really bright lightbulbs with a railgun:-)
Slashdot Mirror
what is it with IT people and refridgerators?? By now I've seen 'glimpses of the futuer' with refridgerators being net-terminals, being able to automagically tell what's inside it, suggesting recipies, being a 'home communication nexus' (i.e. replacing notes and magnets with an internal email system), being karaeoke machines, displaying its contents, ad nauseaum. It seems, if it's doable on a screen, our refridgerators will do it. People, there's a _reason_ mankind invented desks, and desktop computers to put on them. Do you _really_ need to play Quake, surf for pr0n and check your stock portfolio in front of your fridge?
:)
Besides, I bet the screen will go all strange once the users start placing a few refridgerator magnets on it
/Janne
Ok, I just couldn't resist replying to this post, even though I agree with the posters position... Call me a philosopher, I don't mind...
Mathematics: People have paraded so called 'savants' as an example of how humans can do inhuman feats of calculations. It has always turned out (and very interstingly) that htese unfortunate people have chanced upon/discovered a known algorithm for calculating the function in question. Evidencne is in no small part by giving them problems ov a given complexity, then comparing their time requirements with known algorithms. It has always turned out that they have independently discovered an efficient algorithm to figure out the result.
Now, this _is_ very impressive, and there is a lot of work available for any psychologist or neurologist to understand just why theser unfortunate people have chanced upon these algorithms or why they are sticking to them no matter what (the same applies to those unfortunates that can draw an etnire scene after one look, or that can hum an entire opera after just one exposure, of course).
To sum it up, please feel free to study neurology, psychology and computer sdcience. Just bear in mind that what you are doing could well be a part of the solution to awareness and cognition as we know it.
/Janne
Yes, from a couple of years ago, you can have dual citicenship..
Also, One of our ministers recvently downloaded a CD full of mp3 songs and challenged the ploice to arrest her for illegal copying. The local district attorney stated that she had done nothing wrong, and that only the ones supplying her with the songs could possibly be charged.
/Janne
While I agree that Cyc isn't the future of intelligent computing, I have to disagree with you on another point.
Searle has _not_ proved anything of the sort. he argues for his position fairly well, but on closer inspection thay are just arguments, not any kind of proof. For a good rebuttal, read Dennet for instance.
For those that haven't heard about it, It's the 'chinese room' thought experiment, where a room contains a person and a large set of rulebooks. A story - written in chinese - and a set of questions regarding the story is put into the room. The person then goes about transforming the chinese characters according to the rules, then outputs the resulting sequence - which turns out to be lucid answers to the questions about the story. This is supposed to prove that computers cannot think, as it is 'obvious' that humans work nothing like this. Problem is, it isn't at all obvious that we do not work like this (no, not rulebooks in the head, or even explicitly formulated rules, that's not needed for the analogy).
You want to know more, I can heartily recommend a semester of philosophy of the mind!
/Janne
...they will not agree to any increase in your salary unless everybody else gets the same.
Short answer: Wrong.
Longer answer: General salary incrreases would be proportional to your previous salary, but then you get an additional increase depending on what you are doing, how well you are doing it, and what responsibilities you get. In addition, whenever you want (or when you get a new position) you are free - and encouraged - to negotiate for a new salary on an individual basis; the union will frequently help out by showing what level others in your situation have, and, if you want, by helping out with the negotiation process.
/Janne
IANAGH, but as far as I know, the main goal of 2.0 is to move it to GTK+2.0, Pango et. al., which is a highly nontrivial task. Moving everything to a pure component architecture at the same time was apparently considered, but it was decided that doing that as well would be trying to do too much at the one time.
As I understand, nobody has said that GNOME should not move to libgnomeui, just that it shouldn't be done at the same time as the move to GTK+2.0.
If I'm terribly, tragically wrong on this please feel free to flame...
/Janne
Ehhh... No. I work for the employer, but it's the employer and the unions that negotiates. Of course, on top of that I can negotiate for benefits and salary on top of that if I'm considered a key employee.
To make it a bit more confusing, I'm also a part owner of a small company, which makes me an employer (or would, if we had any emplyees but ourselves), which doesn't stop me from being unionized anyway...
Told you, it's different.
/Janne
...But that's in Sweden, not the US. Unions and their relationships with the employers seems to work somewhat differently here; often, the employers prefer to have a union to negotiate with rather than having to do it individually with everybody. Also, since unions have a right to give input to cutbacks and other workplace matters, the decisions tend to be better grounded among the employees. Not that everything is peachy, but it seems to work...
:)
As recently as two eyars ago, IT workers tended not to unionize, now, however, there seems to be a renewed interest
/Janne
Hey, don't try to agree to things here! Where would academia (or open source) be if everybody suddenly started agreeing with each other? :)
Seriously, this is of course a rather pointless, unimportant argument, and (as a previous poster impolicated) this will all be sorted out through the normal language mechanisms of common usage. However, pointless, unimportant arguments can be rather fun (as nobody gets seriously offended), so here's my 2 cents:
The point made above that 'Voice over IP' was capitalized is an entirely valid one (and I totally missed that). When the poster talks of 'common usage', however, I feel it breaks down somewhat as (unlike FTP) the term simply isn't very common.
/Janne
Hmmm... Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
If you tell me to use 'file tranfer protocol', I'll assume that you mean FTP (and is - for some reason - on a let's-expand-all-acronyms-trip). If you say to use 'a file transfer protocol', I'll probably start by trying ssh, as it is safer, then FTP if ssh doesn't work (and rsh never, ever).
In the same vein, if you are talking about VoIP, you are talking about that specific protocol. If you are talking about 'voice over IP', that could mean anything (well, as long as it's about voice over IP, that is). This is even more so for 'voice over IP' than for 'file tranfer protocol', as FTP is a far more well known, widely used term than is VoIP.
So, VoIP is a specific protocol, 'voice over IP' is a technology application with many potential specific solutions.
Then we could get into the whole area of commoditisation of terminology (think thermos), but that would lead this post far beyond what is reasonable...
/Janne
Well, that _is_ a file transfer protocol, not to be confused with the file transfer protocol known as FTP... Not stupid, not a problem.
/Janne
'Survivor' is a rebranding of the original swedish 'Robinson' (named after Robinson Crusoe). Now we have to be sorry about that one too, as well as ugly mobile phones and ABBA :)
/Janne
Is it just me, or have 'reality' shows gone off the deep end lately? 'Robinson' (or 'survivor' as the american version is called) had at least some kind of idea behind it (semi-recreate being stranded on an island). It is ironic that the latest crop of 'reality' shows are based on premises that would immediately be rejected by a B-grade sci-fi producer as being far too outlandish...
/Janne
Well, I get 2.4Mbit/s, always on (non-metered), and fixed ip for ~25USD a month - they could double that price and it would still be worth it for me (attn. Bonet employees: please disregard previous statement).
/Janne
It's not the speed of broadband that is its greatest asset, it's the always-on quality. The ability to leave a large file transfer overnight without the need to get up and disconnect, no tying up of a phone line, be notified of mail as soon as it arrives, being available over ICQ whenever you want. For my part, the speed is just a nice bonus.
/Janne
As said in the article, it wasn't even a ground (sea) hit, merely a piece of rock disintegrating in the atmosphere. And yet, the first thing happening is an increase in the nuclear readiness detection systems of the largest nuclear force of the world.
The risk of a 'retailation' was, of course, nil; however, imagine a larger piece exploding at or near a major population center in the US, and I would be worried that a 'retaliatory' strike would be launched at enemy X (whoever X is at the time) before the real couse of the incident would be determined.
I hope I'm wrong.
/Janne
Thing is, some people today have "broadband" access at home (I do), and the most compelling feature isn't the speed, it's the fact that you are _always_ online. There is zero resistance to checking something out on the web (if nothing else, just to reload /. to see if any new items have popped up), mail is received at all times, and friends are just one ICQ window away.
Add to that that I work a lot on the machine, and that the most comfortable chair in my apartement is by the desk, and one interpretation could be that I'm using the net 18 hours a day, every day.
So how much _am_ I using the net? Do I count only when I do a volitional act to access the net (like using a browser to check a wab page), whenever my computer accesses the web (autochecking for mail), or whenever I'm sitting at my desk? Am I using the net if I'm composing a mail on the hotmail site, but not when writing the same letter in gvim (even if I intend to send the finished text as mail)?
Deciding when you are using something too much is kind of hard when it quits being a separate activity and blends seamlessly into everyday life.
/Janne
I dont have the figures, but i would estimate that more than 5% of the energy (electric) produced in europe is lost in the transmission lines.
I did a check on this, and the numbers seem to indicate that the power lines to residential homes lose about 7-8%, while large power lines will lose about half the energy over a transmission length of a few hundred (american) miles. As those distances are common, there would probably be a fairly substantial benefit to be able to store energy locally.
We don't really have an energy production problem, we have problems with storage and transportation once the energy is generated in a usable form.
/Janne
_Good_ programmers are hired for their communication and management skills as well as their programming skills. Lots of people can code, but a programmer that is an asset management-wise as well is worth his/her weight in gold.
/Janne
Broadcast support isn't a problem; just have a whole bunch of pigeons pull a large packet banner for everybody on the ground to see...
/Janne
What I'd really would like is to have their special commbox for my otherwise ordinary PC. Something along the lines of one box by the computer where all the video, keyboard, mouse, sound and the like is plugged in, a cable, and another box at my desk where all connectors are available locally. That way I could put the computer in a closet somewhere and not have to listen to that incessant humming every single day...
802.11 is a wireless replacement for ethernet. Bluetooth is a replacement for short-haul cable like serial cables, wireless phones, and such. They are not in direct competition, but complement each other. 802.11 is high speed, but expensive and power-hungry, while bluetooth is short range, low speed, cheap and power efficient (an important requirement for PDA:s, phone handsets and other gadgets with a limited battery life). You wouldn't use Bluetooth as a replacement for cable networks, and you won't want to use 802.11 as a replacement for serial or parallel cable.
I don't want either 802.11 or Bluetooth, I want both -- and use them for the different things they are meant for.
/Janne
You mean you don't!? Then how do you keep your chain safe from the bitloss demons? I honestly think that the mandated sacrifice of a black goat over a SCSI interface at least once a year should have been written into the specification...
/Janne
Disclaimer: IANAL, IANAAC, IDKWITA, but here goes:
Since there seems to be a law requiring them to give thirty days notice, it is entirely possible that the state will pay the operating cost for the next thirty days -- money which will in turn be pulled in from the bankruptcy proceedings. I believe the order of importance during a bankruptcy is the government, primary creditors (like banks, lawyers and accountants), secondary creditors (you and me), then the owners (fat chance). This means that they would be fairly sure of getting their money back.
/Janne
Damn, and I really wanted at least one Sci-Fi staple to come true... Maybe they can get some of the same effect by shooting really bright lightbulbs with a railgun :-)
/Janne