Which doesn't at all change the point the parent is making... you don't have many options to verify that that button actually does what it claims to do, whereas it is a pretty well known fact among those who ever digged into the technology for a little bit, that a cellphone can be located to within a couple hundred meters, smartphone or not, location services or not.
If the military wants to make sure soldiers aren't trackable during deployment, forbidding cellphones alltogether is the only option.
I'd like to point out 2 things here: 1. this is a form of re-cycling 2. there are many uses of plastics that are near impossible to avoid as a consumer.
So while I agree with your statement about bottled water, I think your statement about re-use/re-cycle/substitute is overly simplified, and ignores that this is just another way of re-cycling.
Yes, those things will help a fair bit but having a way to better re-cycle the plastic we end up with anyway is solving a problem independent of if people re-use/substitute plastics wherever they can.
That said, if turning it back into some form of oil and then burning it is an environmentally friendly solution is a good question.
The Chinese aren't so nice to not try to have spies gather any and all info they are interested in.
Is not so simple that the only way for the Chinese to figure out those things is by means of this leak. Rather, this leak shows how easy it was to obtain this information because of too many people having access to it (if its supposed to stay secret)
I think some people may be exposed, but is that the consequence of the actions of the whistle-blower?
Or would it be the consequence of bad policies that sabotaged transparency, and the response to that?
The government acts on behalf of the people it supposedly represents, that is why secrecy by the government is completely different from you being able to communicate privately with your inlaws.
Actions and communications by the government need to be open for scrutiny. You are right that there exist cases where it is in the interest of 'the people' that the government can communicate securely and privately, but those should be the exception, and not the default.
The government isn't a person, it is a very useful entity, but also a very scary one if not kept in check. Being able to see practically everything it does is paramount to being able to keep it in check.
is where closedsource, not anyone else, brought up a n arbitrary claim about 10x faster code. The only place where I ever mention it is in saying it is not a comparable claim.
If experience would tell me you are a brilliant programmer often finding novel and much faster ways of doing something, and you'd now claim that you invented a 10x faster sort algorithm, I'd likely believe you on faith. Lacking that experience however I'd like to see your thing in effect to gain such experience.
And I was pointing out to ClosedSource that this 10x faster code HE brought up isn't anywhere similar to a programmer being able to produce code in 1/10th of the time.. so I think your reply should have been to ClosedSource instead?
If I told you that I developed a new sorting method that is 10x faster than any known method, would you accept it on faith or expect some proof? Why should we get sloppy about these productivity claims?
No, but if you claimed you on your own implemented some very complex system in less time then a competing group of 10 programmers did, I'd at least consider it possible.
Not to mention, you are comparing apples and oranges. That someone can do the same as a larger group and needs less time for it does in no way whatsoever compare to someone developing a 10x faster algorithm.
The fact that YOU don't understand the ideas of RMS does not make those ideas arbitrary or extreme. It MAY as well say something about your level of understanding as about those ideas.
If you want to call them arbitrary and extreme, that is your good right, but if you do so in a discussion, you better be prepared to provide an argument as to why you think so.
Matter of fact is that in certain parts of the market, those ideas have been quite succesful, and seem to be understood by lots of people.
whoops, me bad. Was following the posts from someone else (closedsource) who was using virtually the same argument, and failed to notice the name above your post.
Yes. Specifically, real engineers and their companies get hauled to court if the product they designed blows up in the user's face. Software engineers don't; they and their company get paid more to help the users deal with the errors they made - this is known as "support".
May I point out that for example IBM has quite a few 'software engineers' that have the IBM follow title? And the same applies at for example HP. So this is definitely not limited to 'physical engineering'.
I've been reading through many of your posts in this discussion. Many of the things you say are true in certain kinds of environments, but definitely not true in other environments.
I find the 'one size fits all' kind of reasoning you express rather disturbing, 'one size fits all' is a well known management trap that inevitably results in (long term) failure. Yes, it makes management easier, but it makes your competitive position a lot worse in any market where perceived quality plays any role (that is, where the perception of the customer of delivered quality is important)
What you express is the difference between what I'd call a 'code factory' and a 'tech company'.
The first doesn't produce technology, they implement it. For that, an industrial process is often very useful because of its predictability.
The later is the kind of company that actually gets us 'new' things, the results are not always easy to predict.
And I rather disagree with your statement about code excellence belonging in CS academia if anywhere. Any place where mediacore is not 'good enough' is a place for this, that includes many 'mission critical' applications, any place where getting those few % better performance is important (and don't tell me those don't exist, I work for one, and I know many examples of places where this can be a really big competative advantage), or any similar requirements.
What you describe is the method used for producing 'consumer' and 'commodity' software. Your process has no place outside those areas because it can never achieve the above mediacore quality required.
Attaching a real technical writer to a really good technical programmer however can quite do the trick. Its a bit more expensive, but it can easily overcome the mediacore barrier.
Not to mention, I am amazed by your 'one size fits all' kind of reasoning. Doing the same as everyone else is a guaranteed way of having a business that will only survive for as long as the market is good to excelent, or stuck on your standard due to cost of moving to something else. It will never ever survive in an environment where you actually have to compete on product quality, hence in the long term it is doomed.
This all isn't saying that documentation and QA is not important, but it is saying that there are many ways to achieve this, and that the result is what counts, and being stuck in one way to achieve this result is a sure way to miss business oppertunities.
My point is that it doesn't matter if we tell them to piss off, they are in this to protect themselves, so what we have to say about it doesn't matter one way or the other.
If it becomes too troublesome, enough will eventually take their loss to make the whole thing collapse.
The rest of the world would probably complain if we didn't let them bail us out.
I explicitly stated that letting the US economy collapse is going to be painful, so obviously many prefer to repair things over letting them collapse.
This doesn't at all change the point I was making:
If you think you don't have to answer to those keeping you afloat you are a fool bound to find yourself without help at some point when you need it. That has nothing to do whatsoever with self censorship and everything with getting rid of some arrogance.
And obviously, you are totally entitled to your own beliefs, but I think the OP was making a point in a possibly somewhat provokative way.
I am in this case critisizing the USA. That does in no way mean that I limit myself to the USA, just that that happens to be the country being discussed in this case.
Pointing at others to deflect critisism is a nice example of a stawman argument, hence invalid.
If that 'investment' ever pays off is questionable, but what is totally not questionable is that the USA would be bankrupt a few times over without such investments.
But hey, its soooo smart to tell people whom you happen to need to piss off...
At any rate, people like you are the exact reason why there are many people on this planet who despise the USA (and yeah, they should despise people like you instead of an entire country)
Oh, and your 2nd ammandment does not provide any protection against jetfighters, missiles and what not, and it is also not needed to enable a population to act against repressive government (see the French revolution, and many many many more revolutions arount the world for proof of that)
Anyway, I doubt you understand any of this, considering the brilliant argumentation you presented.
Don't overstate your point. This isn't the reverse Marshall Plan we are talking about here. There is a reason that other countries are supporting our economy currently.
Where did I say that this is some form of charity or a 'reverse marshial plan' ?
My simple point is that telling someone to piss off when you also need that someone is stupid.
Yeah, I've heard of it. So what's your point? I was responding to the comment that the US somehow has to answer to other countries just because they buy our goods and services.
I made the point that the rest of the world is funding the deflicts of the USA, you responded to that. Are you too stupid to understand that your comment was just irrelevant?
Some of the Founding Fathers advocated for a non-interventionist foreign policy free of "entanglements" (Washington). Others (Jefferson) were in favor of an interventionist foreign policy. Trying to paint all of the founding fathers with one broad brush stroke is a mistake.
Sure, but there is one USA as a result. Besides, this is not a matter of non intervention, but of when you do intervene.
The idea that you do not get entangled in foreign conflicts by a non interventionalist foreign policy is rubbish anyway because you are not alone on this world, and what happens in the rest of the world affects you as much as what you do affecting the rest of the world.
Non interventionalist ideas are a pipe dream.
Again, the question is when and how you intervene.
All powers eventually decline. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing my country decline a little bit and focus on the home front instead of the globe. I would want to see another Democracy come forward and assume our place in the World first though
1. define democracy 2. a better alternative might not be recognizable to you as such 3. this does not at all change the fact that I am being critical of the attitude of SOME people in the USA. Bringing in other countries does nothing whatsoever to dispute my comments.
-- since that doesn't appear too likely in the next few decades I think we'll have to resign ourselves to our respective roles in the World. You may not like it
That is an easy, cheap and bad conclusion.
Being critical of some specific behavior says nothing whatsoever about if I like the USA or not, or about my general opinion about the position of the USA. It says something about my opinion about that specific behavior. Please stop jumping to conclusions about what I think unless I actually say what I think.
It is much much much more likely that I actually like the USA in that position over some other country, but still am critical of some specific behavior of some people.
but ask yourself if you'd really be happier seeing China or Russia in our place.
Strawman argument. Them being arguably worse does in no way dispute the critisism I am voicing.
And no, I don't think that is a desirable situation, but this attitude of "fuck you, we don't answer to anyone" is an even bigger problem in the long run.
All Great Powers have that attitude. Nothing is ever going to change that fact. The British had that attitude once upon a time. The Russians and Chinese currently have that attitude. The French still have traces of this attitude (nuclear testing in the South Pacific and the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior). Why are you limiting your criticism to the United States?
Bush took it to an extreme and foolishly pissed away a lot of our goodwill in the World but that attitude is never going to completely vanish. The United States is one of the few countries that has the power to influence events on a global scale -- it stands to reason that we are going to wield that power to advance our interests and protect our citizens. I don't know which country you call home but your country would be doing the exact same thing if it had the resources and power of the United States.
Yeah sure, forget your founding fathers. Land of the free eh?
See, the USA claims it is different, either it lives up to that, or many will ridecule it.
but the rest of the world can quite do without the USA, for most of its history it did.
The rest of the world is what created the interventionist United States. You dragged us into both of your World Wars and into a trans-Atlantic military and economic alliance that kept us engaged with the World.
hrm yes, that is exactly how it went...
Prior to WW1 the United States was a non-aligned economic power that was largely content to remain within our own hemisphere and trade with the rest of the world. If you want to blame someone for the United States becoming an interventionist power then you should start by looking at Berlin, Paris and London.
Oh really?
War in the rest of the world meant that that trade was being endangered. Sea warfare made it difficult, dangerous and expensive to transport anything anywhere, and as a consequence, the USA had a direct reason to get involved.
Oh, that is only looking at one side of the issue? sure, but so did you.
At any rate, to come back to your initial argument that all world powers do it, keep in mind that all world powers also find out at some point that its not true. Usually that comes together with their decline, and often their destruction.
If you think that is a good way to go then be my guest, but I personally think it would be a lot better to learn a little lesson from history and not fall into the same trap.
Lessee, 300m consumers on a world population of 5 bilion. It sure would hurt, but the rest of the world can quite do without the USA, for most of its history it did.
And no, I don't think that is a desirable situation, but this attitude of "fuck you, we don't answer to anyone" is an even bigger problem in the long run.
It logically must. For you to have your very first "observation", in any meaningful sense, you must have certain tastes that point you to that which will interest you, a certain level of logical reasoning, a certain attachment or detachment to this or that perspectives, and so on and so for. All of this form a subjective basis which leads you to perceive your very first observation. Absent this minimal theoretical framework, you simply won't notice that which would lead you to further new observations. A theory, no matter how simple, comes first. It only doesn't come first if you consider the process by which one learns to interact with the world, but even there, you still have a minimal set of core belief that you cannot depart with, such as that there's an external world, and in turn condition the way you interact with it.
When I drop an apple, it falls to the ground. That is not exactly an observation that needs prethought measurements, scope or anything, but it can lead to a theory (according to tradition, it did, but I leave that to historians to argue about:) ). That you then design all kinds of experiments to verify that theory, and for practical reasons limit the scope of those experiments, think about what to observe and such as a result is another thing alltogether.
I'll reply to the rest of your post later, its getting late here, but you make a good point there.
Slashdot Mirror
Which doesn't at all change the point the parent is making... you don't have many options to verify that that button actually does what it claims to do, whereas it is a pretty well known fact among those who ever digged into the technology for a little bit, that a cellphone can be located to within a couple hundred meters, smartphone or not, location services or not.
If the military wants to make sure soldiers aren't trackable during deployment, forbidding cellphones alltogether is the only option.
I'd like to point out 2 things here:
1. this is a form of re-cycling
2. there are many uses of plastics that are near impossible to avoid as a consumer.
So while I agree with your statement about bottled water, I think your statement about re-use/re-cycle/substitute is overly simplified, and ignores that this is just another way of re-cycling.
Yes, those things will help a fair bit but having a way to better re-cycle the plastic we end up with anyway is solving a problem independent of if people re-use/substitute plastics wherever they can.
That said, if turning it back into some form of oil and then burning it is an environmentally friendly solution is a good question.
Nice and simple? no not at all.
The Chinese aren't so nice to not try to have spies gather any and all info they are interested in.
Is not so simple that the only way for the Chinese to figure out those things is by means of this leak. Rather, this leak shows how easy it was to obtain this information because of too many people having access to it (if its supposed to stay secret)
I think some people may be exposed, but is that the consequence of the actions of the whistle-blower?
Or would it be the consequence of bad policies that sabotaged transparency, and the response to that?
Hmm, you think, the Chinese gov needs Wikileaks to know about those things?
I think that is slightly naive...
The government acts on behalf of the people it supposedly represents, that is why secrecy by the government is completely different from you being able to communicate privately with your inlaws.
Actions and communications by the government need to be open for scrutiny. You are right that there exist cases where it is in the interest of 'the people' that the government can communicate securely and privately, but those should be the exception, and not the default.
The government isn't a person, it is a very useful entity, but also a very scary one if not kept in check. Being able to see practically everything it does is paramount to being able to keep it in check.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1047369&cid=25955783
is where closedsource, not anyone else, brought up a n arbitrary claim about 10x faster code. The only place where I ever mention it is in saying it is not a comparable claim.
So excuse me?
If experience would tell me you are a brilliant programmer often finding novel and much faster ways of doing something, and you'd now claim that you invented a 10x faster sort algorithm, I'd likely believe you on faith. Lacking that experience however I'd like to see your thing in effect to gain such experience.
And I was pointing out to ClosedSource that this 10x faster code HE brought up isn't anywhere similar to a programmer being able to produce code in 1/10th of the time.. so I think your reply should have been to ClosedSource instead?
If I told you that I developed a new sorting method that is 10x faster than any known method, would you accept it on faith or expect some proof? Why should we get sloppy about these productivity claims?
No, but if you claimed you on your own implemented some very complex system in less time then a competing group of 10 programmers did, I'd at least consider it possible.
Not to mention, you are comparing apples and oranges. That someone can do the same as a larger group and needs less time for it does in no way whatsoever compare to someone developing a 10x faster algorithm.
The fact that YOU don't understand the ideas of RMS does not make those ideas arbitrary or extreme. It MAY as well say something about your level of understanding as about those ideas.
If you want to call them arbitrary and extreme, that is your good right, but if you do so in a discussion, you better be prepared to provide an argument as to why you think so.
Matter of fact is that in certain parts of the market, those ideas have been quite succesful, and seem to be understood by lots of people.
whoops, me bad. Was following the posts from someone else (closedsource) who was using virtually the same argument, and failed to notice the name above your post.
Yes. Specifically, real engineers and their companies get hauled to court if the product they designed blows up in the user's face. Software engineers don't; they and their company get paid more to help the users deal with the errors they made - this is known as "support".
May I point out that for example IBM has quite a few 'software engineers' that have the IBM follow title? And the same applies at for example HP. So this is definitely not limited to 'physical engineering'.
I've been reading through many of your posts in this discussion. Many of the things you say are true in certain kinds of environments, but definitely not true in other environments.
I find the 'one size fits all' kind of reasoning you express rather disturbing, 'one size fits all' is a well known management trap that inevitably results in (long term) failure. Yes, it makes management easier, but it makes your competitive position a lot worse in any market where perceived quality plays any role (that is, where the perception of the customer of delivered quality is important)
What you express is the difference between what I'd call a 'code factory' and a 'tech company'.
The first doesn't produce technology, they implement it. For that, an industrial process is often very useful because of its predictability.
The later is the kind of company that actually gets us 'new' things, the results are not always easy to predict.
And I rather disagree with your statement about code excellence belonging in CS academia if anywhere. Any place where mediacore is not 'good enough' is a place for this, that includes many 'mission critical' applications, any place where getting those few % better performance is important (and don't tell me those don't exist, I work for one, and I know many examples of places where this can be a really big competative advantage), or any similar requirements.
What you describe is the method used for producing 'consumer' and 'commodity' software. Your process has no place outside those areas because it can never achieve the above mediacore quality required.
Attaching a real technical writer to a really good technical programmer however can quite do the trick. Its a bit more expensive, but it can easily overcome the mediacore barrier.
Not to mention, I am amazed by your 'one size fits all' kind of reasoning. Doing the same as everyone else is a guaranteed way of having a business that will only survive for as long as the market is good to excelent, or stuck on your standard due to cost of moving to something else. It will never ever survive in an environment where you actually have to compete on product quality, hence in the long term it is doomed.
This all isn't saying that documentation and QA is not important, but it is saying that there are many ways to achieve this, and that the result is what counts, and being stuck in one way to achieve this result is a sure way to miss business oppertunities.
My point is that it doesn't matter if we tell them to piss off, they are in this to protect themselves, so what we have to say about it doesn't matter one way or the other.
If it becomes too troublesome, enough will eventually take their loss to make the whole thing collapse.
The rest of the world would probably complain if we didn't let them bail us out.
I explicitly stated that letting the US economy collapse is going to be painful, so obviously many prefer to repair things over letting them collapse.
This doesn't at all change the point I was making:
If you think you don't have to answer to those keeping you afloat you are a fool bound to find yourself without help at some point when you need it. That has nothing to do whatsoever with self censorship and everything with getting rid of some arrogance.
And obviously, you are totally entitled to your own beliefs, but I think the OP was making a point in a possibly somewhat provokative way.
Oh, one thing I forgot in my previous answers.
I am in this case critisizing the USA. That does in no way mean that I limit myself to the USA, just that that happens to be the country being discussed in this case.
Pointing at others to deflect critisism is a nice example of a stawman argument, hence invalid.
The point is that the USA needs the rest of the world more then the rest of the world needing the USA.
If you need someone, it is pretty stupid to piss them off.
So, whom is the USA borrowing money from again?
If that 'investment' ever pays off is questionable, but what is totally not questionable is that the USA would be bankrupt a few times over without such investments.
But hey, its soooo smart to tell people whom you happen to need to piss off...
At any rate, people like you are the exact reason why there are many people on this planet who despise the USA (and yeah, they should despise people like you instead of an entire country)
Oh, and your 2nd ammandment does not provide any protection against jetfighters, missiles and what not, and it is also not needed to enable a population to act against repressive government (see the French revolution, and many many many more revolutions arount the world for proof of that)
Anyway, I doubt you understand any of this, considering the brilliant argumentation you presented.
Don't overstate your point. This isn't the reverse Marshall Plan we are talking about here. There is a reason that other countries are supporting our economy currently.
Where did I say that this is some form of charity or a 'reverse marshial plan' ?
My simple point is that telling someone to piss off when you also need that someone is stupid.
Yeah, I've heard of it. So what's your point? I was responding to the comment that the US somehow has to answer to other countries just because they buy our goods and services.
I made the point that the rest of the world is funding the deflicts of the USA, you responded to that. Are you too stupid to understand that your comment was just irrelevant?
Some of the Founding Fathers advocated for a non-interventionist foreign policy free of "entanglements" (Washington). Others (Jefferson) were in favor of an interventionist foreign policy. Trying to paint all of the founding fathers with one broad brush stroke is a mistake.
Sure, but there is one USA as a result. Besides, this is not a matter of non intervention, but of when you do intervene.
The idea that you do not get entangled in foreign conflicts by a non interventionalist foreign policy is rubbish anyway because you are not alone on this world, and what happens in the rest of the world affects you as much as what you do affecting the rest of the world.
Non interventionalist ideas are a pipe dream.
Again, the question is when and how you intervene.
All powers eventually decline. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing my country decline a little bit and focus on the home front instead of the globe. I would want to see another Democracy come forward and assume our place in the World first though
1. define democracy
2. a better alternative might not be recognizable to you as such
3. this does not at all change the fact that I am being critical of the attitude of SOME people in the USA. Bringing in other countries does nothing whatsoever to dispute my comments.
-- since that doesn't appear too likely in the next few decades I think we'll have to resign ourselves to our respective roles in the World. You may not like it
That is an easy, cheap and bad conclusion.
Being critical of some specific behavior says nothing whatsoever about if I like the USA or not, or about my general opinion about the position of the USA. It says something about my opinion about that specific behavior. Please stop jumping to conclusions about what I think unless I actually say what I think.
It is much much much more likely that I actually like the USA in that position over some other country, but still am critical of some specific behavior of some people.
but ask yourself if you'd really be happier seeing China or Russia in our place.
Strawman argument. Them being arguably worse does in no way dispute the critisism I am voicing.
And no, I don't think that is a desirable situation, but this attitude of "fuck you, we don't answer to anyone" is an even bigger problem in the long run.
All Great Powers have that attitude. Nothing is ever going to change that fact. The British had that attitude once upon a time. The Russians and Chinese currently have that attitude. The French still have traces of this attitude (nuclear testing in the South Pacific and the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior). Why are you limiting your criticism to the United States?
Bush took it to an extreme and foolishly pissed away a lot of our goodwill in the World but that attitude is never going to completely vanish. The United States is one of the few countries that has the power to influence events on a global scale -- it stands to reason that we are going to wield that power to advance our interests and protect our citizens. I don't know which country you call home but your country would be doing the exact same thing if it had the resources and power of the United States.
Yeah sure, forget your founding fathers. Land of the free eh?
See, the USA claims it is different, either it lives up to that, or many will ridecule it.
but the rest of the world can quite do without the USA, for most of its history it did.
The rest of the world is what created the interventionist United States. You dragged us into both of your World Wars and into a trans-Atlantic military and economic alliance that kept us engaged with the World.
hrm yes, that is exactly how it went...
Prior to WW1 the United States was a non-aligned economic power that was largely content to remain within our own hemisphere and trade with the rest of the world. If you want to blame someone for the United States becoming an interventionist power then you should start by looking at Berlin, Paris and London.
Oh really?
War in the rest of the world meant that that trade was being endangered. Sea warfare made it difficult, dangerous and expensive to transport anything anywhere, and as a consequence, the USA had a direct reason to get involved.
Oh, that is only looking at one side of the issue? sure, but so did you.
At any rate, to come back to your initial argument that all world powers do it, keep in mind that all world powers also find out at some point that its not true. Usually that comes together with their decline, and often their destruction.
If you think that is a good way to go then be my guest, but I personally think it would be a lot better to learn a little lesson from history and not fall into the same trap.
Lessee, 300m consumers on a world population of 5 bilion. It sure would hurt, but the rest of the world can quite do without the USA, for most of its history it did.
And no, I don't think that is a desirable situation, but this attitude of "fuck you, we don't answer to anyone" is an even bigger problem in the long run.
The reality is we provide goods and services that the rest of the world demands.
Ever heard about trade deflict?
Wow, the USA answers to no one. Go get back in your UN ship and F*&k Off.
Now wait a minute.
As long as the rest of the world funds your economy, you DO answer to the rest of the world.
The consequences of not doing so may not be inmediately obvious, but by the time they are, it is way too late to change things.
Get a fucking clue.
When I drop an apple, it falls to the ground. That is not exactly an observation that needs prethought measurements, scope or anything, but it can lead to a theory (according to tradition, it did, but I leave that to historians to argue about
I'll reply to the rest of your post later, its getting late here, but you make a good point there.