When there is no evidence for a thing, that thing is not "a point of view", it's idle speculation and not in the least newsworthy. yes, religion, I'm looking at you.
I'm conservative - far more so than most republicans on most issues (not all, but most.) I'm for a very literal interpretation of the constitution, I think most left wing political agenda is wrong-headed (not all, but most), and I lean libertarian more often than not.
Yet I understand perfectly well that fox news is an aggregator and inventor of lies and nonsense. It's not about political spectrum. It's about propaganda, which is what fox puts in front of its viewer. Fox is despicable people doing despicable things, socially and politically speaking.
there is a good bit of evidence from other studies that people find ideologically conformant information comfortable and ideologically nonconformant information uncomfortable
Sure, but that's not what is going on. Fox news doesn't "inform", it bloody outright lies and misinforms. It's not a question of a legitimate conservative viewpoint, it's a stream of unending bullshit and worse. Seriously, watch them for a couple of news cycles, listen to the "personality" shows, and see if you can come away actually believing half the crap they spew. Then start researching it: They literally lie right to the viewer's faces.
There are plenty of conservative voices out there that try hard to actually address the objective facts, likewise there are plenty of liberal and all points in between -- but fox news isn't even on the spectrum. It's propaganda, plain and simple.
Watch yourself some Daily Show just to observe the show's fox news coverage. Over the course of a few weeks, you'll see the fox news people quoted - video takes - and then the facts presented (and sometimes, their own statements.) Plus it's pretty funny, the presentation, that is. I'm not suggesting this to promote Stewart, simply the show's treatment of fox news, which is informative and useful to any prospective news consumer.
Outlets that habitually lie and misinform, as fox does, are not "news" outlets. What they are, I leave to you, as I've already used up my expletive quota for the day.
c'mon mods, read the link, then mod him up to 11. In one quiet post, he showed all the previous posters up by dropping the objective facts on the table.
I don't watch movies to "be impressed by special effects." I watch them to enjoy the story. The better the effects get, and the more they can use them whenever they need them, the more latitude they'll have in telling stories. I've seen the insides of huge spaceships (starship troopers, various treks, star wars), ancient cities (various movies have shown Egypt as she might have been), whole planets (avatar)... dragons, aliens, and who knows what I've seen that I didn't even know were CGI... geez, what's not to like? If I never see another TV-show class "alien" with an obviously glued on nose and caked-on makup, that'll be just fine with me. And when the time comes, as I hope it will, to put Niven's Ringworld on the big screen -- or even just a General Products spacecraft hull (or a Puppeteer!) -- I'll be expecting some faaaaabulous CGI. Likewise the next time someone seriously does a WWII naval or air battle, or a martian landscape, or magic, or... Why *would* you use real stuff these days, even presuming "real stuff" applies to the story at hand?
If people are watching movies to be impressed, I guess they must have some motivation really different than mine. Not to say that sometimes I'm not actually impressed - but that's not what I lay money down for, that's for certain. Tell me a story. Do it well. Convince my eyes; convince my ears; do it so well that I don't have to suspend my disbelief, just go around it and immerse me in what, as best I can tell, is some kind of reality, Please sir, may I have another?
Bitching because CGI is too good, or widespread? Incomprehensible to me.
I can barely justify the expense of having a cellphone -- and the only reason that makes the cut is because I have to be available 24/7 in case our servers go down. If that requirement went away, I'd just junk my cellphone with a smile. Every other communications need I have is filled by the Internet. I can voice or voice+video call my stepmother in Greece, I get short text messages via Adium, news over my Roku and browser... I can send SMS to most people by sending an email to phonenumber@carrier.com -- and can't Skype (or something) get into the telephone network too if you want it to? Yeah, cellphone... it just has that one remaining hook in me. Very annoying.
Satellite services are expensive because spacecraft are expensive. Without massive government subsidy (like GPS... which has extensive military utility), that kind of thing will never be more than a luxury. At the current price, my reaction to seeing one is just amusement on every level.
I just use different passwords everywhere, and track 'em in a database here. Most sites let you stay logged in, plus the browser remembers a lot of them, so it's really very little trouble. And the benefit - that a hack on one site doesn't compromise any other... that's worth a lot. Especially if you're doing *any* financial stuff on the net.
As for Gawker, I went and changed my password, but if they're using the same cheezy crypt routine, I dunno how much it's going to help. Any day now, someone might post "as me." Oh, heavens.:)
But yeah, if you're using the same password across the net... you might be about to learn a harsh lesson.
I understood your post. What you wrote is a simple truism; and I agree, yes, everything obeys the laws of physics. It's a given. Yet within those bounds remain enormous room for screwing up or getting things done as intended. Which explains why I wrote what I did.
The first rule of slashdot is that all criticism of slashdot moderation gets modded down.
The second rule is that moderation is meaningless because (a) it can't bring the worthwhile posts to the top not due to enough mod points and (b) because moderation *down* is allowed, quality content is guaranteed to be hidden via effective "-1 disagree" moderations.
The third and final rule is that you either read at -1 or you miss great posts, which in turn goes right back to moderation is meaningless.
The only worthwhile moderation scheme is one where only upwards mods are allowed; that way, minority voices have a chance.
As it stands here, if a moderator with an agenda that doesn't match yours has points, you would be generally screwed. If anyone serious paid attention to the mod points. Which we don't:)
Fuck ups are generally avoided by the designer following a careful course that takes into account the laws of physics. Certainly those laws define the playing field; but they in no way say that the best course of action is to bang your head against the goalposts.
Generally speaking, it's down to human error in almost all cases. You assume the computer is always going to give you the right answer? Your error. I've designed a lot of small computer systems, and if you, or anyone else, ever asked me if I expected those systems to always produce the answer dictated by the hardware interacting normally and in isolation with the programming, I'd simply say no. You want a computer like that, it's going to be well shielded, incorporate some fairly sophisticated error correction (right up to and including fellow identical systems that can vote on outcomes) and it's going to cost an arm, a leg, and your firstborn.
And even then you're back to errors in hardware design and programming, not to mention the correctness of the concepts that underlie both.
No, he's not being a dick, you're simply being politically correct in the face of a hugely destructive social disease, one that specializes in victimizing the young. Church services aren't simply events where consenting adults get together and promulgate nonsense, you know.
No... in the case of bandwidth, you can actually do this, and I think that was the point. My ISP does this all the time. It's because "bandwidth" is a damned flaky metric in the consumer space. I pay for 10 mb/sec (supposedly) DSL but rarely, if ever, do I actually get that -- even locally, from home to business -- because they grossly oversell the capacity they actually have in place. My ISP specifically says in the service agreement that they don't have to supply the designated plan bandwidth, and if you can't connect as you need to, tough cookies. Legalese to that effect. I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that if you added up the bandwidth my ISP sells against the pipe they actually have, you'd find a mismatch of several orders of magnitude. This allows them to sell bandwidth for less than they pay for it by making it up in volume -- it's an inferior product, that's all.
No matter how amazingly (artificially) intelligent computers ever get, I will always be able to argue that they are simply executing the logic that they were programmed with.
Sure, but I can make the same argument, with exactly the same precursors, for people. Yet in the end, it doesn't matter -- what matters is how what individuals do affects others. If the individual is biological or silicon, it's really neither here nor there. Assuming, of course, that we ever get to silicon individuals, which is another discussion entirely.
The FDIV bug, however, was the direct consequence of a person at Intel screwing up. Everything after that was just more crap rolling downhill.
It is very seldom indeed that a computer makes an actual error. It happens - ram bits flip, gamma rays arrive and cock up what was perfectly operating circuitry for a cycle... but FDIV = 100% human error.
the New York Times has an app, when they could do all this in the browser?
Funny you picked the NYT. I'm a regular reader. They made an app because they're trying to be "cool." Compare the app to the NYT website. The website is many times more functional. Blogs have links that work, and comments. The app shows exactly one blog entry. The links are text-only (no URL) and don't work. The app crashes a lot too, though hopefully they'll fix that. Overall, the NYT experience is far better in the browser. I would guess they're going to (re)-erect a paywall and see if it works within the Apple ecosystem; it definitely didn't work outside it (nor do I actually expect it to work inside), but I can't blame them for trying. But if you're looking for some kind of functionality the website can't or doesn't offer... don't think you're going to find it.
Why, in fact, are there any apps at all?
Well, I don't think you're going to implement a fully live astronomy application on a website - no one has managed it yet, anyway - but the iPxd environment does it well. It's a dedicated computer. This is great for complex games (none in porn I ever heard of), for compute heavy tasks that you don't want server-side and are really cumbersome client-side within a supposedly secure environment (again, nothing like that in porn.) Apps also run away from a connected situation, whereas you have to be connected for anything beyond the basics if the functionality is being provided by the website. That's a good reason for an NYT app, but not for porn - no need to be connected there at all, just save the content you want and there you have it. Active tools like ping and trace are better as apps (the network may be in trouble.) Terminals are great apps and lousy websites. Anything where you don't want to share your data with unknowns; spreadsheets, word processing -- that all works pretty well on the iPad, not so much on the iPod. Music apps, like iSequence or Digidrummer... pretty useless over a laggy network connection. As apps, though, they're awesome. GPS apps... that's hardware specific, you need an app for that... Seismograph and Acceleration apps, again, website won't cut it... meditation and the like where loops and generated sound with images give you something to zone out by, that's a pure waste of network bandwidth but a great job for an app... Chinese character tutor is a great app, works on the web, but when you're not connected, an app is better. A nice banner app is great for when you're in a car and you want to tell someone their lights are/are-not on, or pass your cell number...
Emulators would be *really* great apps... if they were allowed. Sigh. My single greatest regret about the Apple ecosystem. Emulated classic computers, HP calculators, genetic code generators... these all call to me.
See, porn is easily available media, at least at the moment. There's nothing about it that requires an app. And Apple does, in fact, have every right to say they're not going to get involved. I think it's cowardly, wrong-headed (especially in light of all the extreme violence they're perfectly happy to sell) and socially retarded (in a nutshell, sex is good, even in casual form) but still, they have the right. If it really trips your trigger, just jailbreak the thing and be done with it. Otherwise, you're dealing with Apple, not some porn firm. Get used to it. Jobs is stubborn, and the odds of him admitting he made a socially poor choice... they seem low to me. Very. Especially since it seems to be a financially high quality choice.
Whether gays should be allowed to marry in my opinion should be based on whether or the public wants it.
Yes? And this also applies to enslaving blacks, and women? Democracy is a foul way to protect (or assure the equal rights of) the people who most need it, you know... this isn't news.
Sorry, I just don't find your position convincing.
Actually, it kind of looks like he was. Why... would it be terrible for you if he was? You think the apple would have fallen up instead of down?
And you mentioned Turing twice.
Yeah, and I wrote "spit" where I meant to write "split." Sometimes I edit poorly. It's not that I'm extra fond of Turing; I *am*, however, extra fond of Bacon.:)
Slashdot Mirror
When there is no evidence for a thing, that thing is not "a point of view", it's idle speculation and not in the least newsworthy. yes, religion, I'm looking at you.
I'm conservative - far more so than most republicans on most issues (not all, but most.) I'm for a very literal interpretation of the constitution, I think most left wing political agenda is wrong-headed (not all, but most), and I lean libertarian more often than not.
Yet I understand perfectly well that fox news is an aggregator and inventor of lies and nonsense. It's not about political spectrum. It's about propaganda, which is what fox puts in front of its viewer. Fox is despicable people doing despicable things, socially and politically speaking.
Sure, but that's not what is going on. Fox news doesn't "inform", it bloody outright lies and misinforms. It's not a question of a legitimate conservative viewpoint, it's a stream of unending bullshit and worse. Seriously, watch them for a couple of news cycles, listen to the "personality" shows, and see if you can come away actually believing half the crap they spew. Then start researching it: They literally lie right to the viewer's faces.
There are plenty of conservative voices out there that try hard to actually address the objective facts, likewise there are plenty of liberal and all points in between -- but fox news isn't even on the spectrum. It's propaganda, plain and simple.
Watch yourself some Daily Show just to observe the show's fox news coverage. Over the course of a few weeks, you'll see the fox news people quoted - video takes - and then the facts presented (and sometimes, their own statements.) Plus it's pretty funny, the presentation, that is. I'm not suggesting this to promote Stewart, simply the show's treatment of fox news, which is informative and useful to any prospective news consumer.
Outlets that habitually lie and misinform, as fox does, are not "news" outlets. What they are, I leave to you, as I've already used up my expletive quota for the day.
Not to worry. While they may be removing anything that hints at fucking your siblings, in the prcess, they're assuring they can still fuck you.
European atoms don't shave their legs or pits. Or use deodorant.
You've got nothing on American clichés, you silly euro-cule.
My address is DROP_TABLE@ALLJOINS.DB
and of course...
c'mon mods, read the link, then mod him up to 11. In one quiet post, he showed all the previous posters up by dropping the objective facts on the table.
So... your argument against the use of CGI that looks good enough now... is that CGI will be better, later? Did I get that right?
I don't watch movies to "be impressed by special effects." I watch them to enjoy the story. The better the effects get, and the more they can use them whenever they need them, the more latitude they'll have in telling stories. I've seen the insides of huge spaceships (starship troopers, various treks, star wars), ancient cities (various movies have shown Egypt as she might have been), whole planets (avatar)... dragons, aliens, and who knows what I've seen that I didn't even know were CGI... geez, what's not to like? If I never see another TV-show class "alien" with an obviously glued on nose and caked-on makup, that'll be just fine with me. And when the time comes, as I hope it will, to put Niven's Ringworld on the big screen -- or even just a General Products spacecraft hull (or a Puppeteer!) -- I'll be expecting some faaaaabulous CGI. Likewise the next time someone seriously does a WWII naval or air battle, or a martian landscape, or magic, or... Why *would* you use real stuff these days, even presuming "real stuff" applies to the story at hand?
If people are watching movies to be impressed, I guess they must have some motivation really different than mine. Not to say that sometimes I'm not actually impressed - but that's not what I lay money down for, that's for certain. Tell me a story. Do it well. Convince my eyes; convince my ears; do it so well that I don't have to suspend my disbelief, just go around it and immerse me in what, as best I can tell, is some kind of reality, Please sir, may I have another?
Bitching because CGI is too good, or widespread? Incomprehensible to me.
I can barely justify the expense of having a cellphone -- and the only reason that makes the cut is because I have to be available 24/7 in case our servers go down. If that requirement went away, I'd just junk my cellphone with a smile. Every other communications need I have is filled by the Internet. I can voice or voice+video call my stepmother in Greece, I get short text messages via Adium, news over my Roku and browser... I can send SMS to most people by sending an email to phonenumber@carrier.com -- and can't Skype (or something) get into the telephone network too if you want it to? Yeah, cellphone... it just has that one remaining hook in me. Very annoying.
Satellite services are expensive because spacecraft are expensive. Without massive government subsidy (like GPS... which has extensive military utility), that kind of thing will never be more than a luxury. At the current price, my reaction to seeing one is just amusement on every level.
I just use different passwords everywhere, and track 'em in a database here. Most sites let you stay logged in, plus the browser remembers a lot of them, so it's really very little trouble. And the benefit - that a hack on one site doesn't compromise any other... that's worth a lot. Especially if you're doing *any* financial stuff on the net.
As for Gawker, I went and changed my password, but if they're using the same cheezy crypt routine, I dunno how much it's going to help. Any day now, someone might post "as me." Oh, heavens. :)
But yeah, if you're using the same password across the net... you might be about to learn a harsh lesson.
I understood your post. What you wrote is a simple truism; and I agree, yes, everything obeys the laws of physics. It's a given. Yet within those bounds remain enormous room for screwing up or getting things done as intended. Which explains why I wrote what I did.
The first rule of slashdot is that all criticism of slashdot moderation gets modded down.
The second rule is that moderation is meaningless because (a) it can't bring the worthwhile posts to the top not due to enough mod points and (b) because moderation *down* is allowed, quality content is guaranteed to be hidden via effective "-1 disagree" moderations.
The third and final rule is that you either read at -1 or you miss great posts, which in turn goes right back to moderation is meaningless.
The only worthwhile moderation scheme is one where only upwards mods are allowed; that way, minority voices have a chance.
As it stands here, if a moderator with an agenda that doesn't match yours has points, you would be generally screwed. If anyone serious paid attention to the mod points. Which we don't :)
Fuck ups are generally avoided by the designer following a careful course that takes into account the laws of physics. Certainly those laws define the playing field; but they in no way say that the best course of action is to bang your head against the goalposts.
Generally speaking, it's down to human error in almost all cases. You assume the computer is always going to give you the right answer? Your error. I've designed a lot of small computer systems, and if you, or anyone else, ever asked me if I expected those systems to always produce the answer dictated by the hardware interacting normally and in isolation with the programming, I'd simply say no. You want a computer like that, it's going to be well shielded, incorporate some fairly sophisticated error correction (right up to and including fellow identical systems that can vote on outcomes) and it's going to cost an arm, a leg, and your firstborn.
And even then you're back to errors in hardware design and programming, not to mention the correctness of the concepts that underlie both.
No, he's not being a dick, you're simply being politically correct in the face of a hugely destructive social disease, one that specializes in victimizing the young. Church services aren't simply events where consenting adults get together and promulgate nonsense, you know.
No... in the case of bandwidth, you can actually do this, and I think that was the point. My ISP does this all the time. It's because "bandwidth" is a damned flaky metric in the consumer space. I pay for 10 mb/sec (supposedly) DSL but rarely, if ever, do I actually get that -- even locally, from home to business -- because they grossly oversell the capacity they actually have in place. My ISP specifically says in the service agreement that they don't have to supply the designated plan bandwidth, and if you can't connect as you need to, tough cookies. Legalese to that effect. I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that if you added up the bandwidth my ISP sells against the pipe they actually have, you'd find a mismatch of several orders of magnitude. This allows them to sell bandwidth for less than they pay for it by making it up in volume -- it's an inferior product, that's all.
Under-rated
Sure, but I can make the same argument, with exactly the same precursors, for people. Yet in the end, it doesn't matter -- what matters is how what individuals do affects others. If the individual is biological or silicon, it's really neither here nor there. Assuming, of course, that we ever get to silicon individuals, which is another discussion entirely.
No, he clearly meant "The Fucking TFA Article."
Kids today.
The FDIV bug, however, was the direct consequence of a person at Intel screwing up. Everything after that was just more crap rolling downhill.
It is very seldom indeed that a computer makes an actual error. It happens - ram bits flip, gamma rays arrive and cock up what was perfectly operating circuitry for a cycle... but FDIV = 100% human error.
No... it was probably T.H.R.U.S.H.
Funny you picked the NYT. I'm a regular reader. They made an app because they're trying to be "cool." Compare the app to the NYT website. The website is many times more functional. Blogs have links that work, and comments. The app shows exactly one blog entry. The links are text-only (no URL) and don't work. The app crashes a lot too, though hopefully they'll fix that. Overall, the NYT experience is far better in the browser. I would guess they're going to (re)-erect a paywall and see if it works within the Apple ecosystem; it definitely didn't work outside it (nor do I actually expect it to work inside), but I can't blame them for trying. But if you're looking for some kind of functionality the website can't or doesn't offer... don't think you're going to find it.
Well, I don't think you're going to implement a fully live astronomy application on a website - no one has managed it yet, anyway - but the iPxd environment does it well. It's a dedicated computer. This is great for complex games (none in porn I ever heard of), for compute heavy tasks that you don't want server-side and are really cumbersome client-side within a supposedly secure environment (again, nothing like that in porn.) Apps also run away from a connected situation, whereas you have to be connected for anything beyond the basics if the functionality is being provided by the website. That's a good reason for an NYT app, but not for porn - no need to be connected there at all, just save the content you want and there you have it. Active tools like ping and trace are better as apps (the network may be in trouble.) Terminals are great apps and lousy websites. Anything where you don't want to share your data with unknowns; spreadsheets, word processing -- that all works pretty well on the iPad, not so much on the iPod. Music apps, like iSequence or Digidrummer... pretty useless over a laggy network connection. As apps, though, they're awesome. GPS apps... that's hardware specific, you need an app for that... Seismograph and Acceleration apps, again, website won't cut it... meditation and the like where loops and generated sound with images give you something to zone out by, that's a pure waste of network bandwidth but a great job for an app... Chinese character tutor is a great app, works on the web, but when you're not connected, an app is better. A nice banner app is great for when you're in a car and you want to tell someone their lights are/are-not on, or pass your cell number...
Emulators would be *really* great apps... if they were allowed. Sigh. My single greatest regret about the Apple ecosystem. Emulated classic computers, HP calculators, genetic code generators... these all call to me.
See, porn is easily available media, at least at the moment. There's nothing about it that requires an app. And Apple does, in fact, have every right to say they're not going to get involved. I think it's cowardly, wrong-headed (especially in light of all the extreme violence they're perfectly happy to sell) and socially retarded (in a nutshell, sex is good, even in casual form) but still, they have the right. If it really trips your trigger, just jailbreak the thing and be done with it. Otherwise, you're dealing with Apple, not some porn firm. Get used to it. Jobs is stubborn, and the odds of him admitting he made a socially poor choice... they seem low to me. Very. Especially since it seems to be a financially high quality choice.
No, actually, I think I'll just carry on as usual. Thanks for your input, though. Cheers. :)
Yes? And this also applies to enslaving blacks, and women? Democracy is a foul way to protect (or assure the equal rights of) the people who most need it, you know... this isn't news.
Sorry, I just don't find your position convincing.
Actually, it kind of looks like he was. Why... would it be terrible for you if he was? You think the apple would have fallen up instead of down?
Yeah, and I wrote "spit" where I meant to write "split." Sometimes I edit poorly. It's not that I'm extra fond of Turing; I *am*, however, extra fond of Bacon. :)