When the extra time lost from reinforcing privacy issues exceeds the average cost(that is, probability of privacy being violated x time it takes to recover from privacy violation), then it's useless.
We see this all time - companies building shoddy products because it's worth their time to just send a new product or deal with tech support for the few who whine than to remake/design their product.
Notice - if your data is infinitely valuable, you can't ever be too paranoid.
That's all it seems he's talking about.
TFA mentions:
The reason it pays to put off even those errands is that real work needs two things errands don't: big chunks of time, and the right mood. If you get inspired by some project, it can be a net win to blow off everything you were supposed to do for the next few days to work on it. Yes, those errands may cost you more time when you finally get around to them. But if you get a lot done during those few days, you will be net more productive.
In fact, it may not be a difference in degree, but a difference in kind. There may be types of work that can only be done in long, uninterrupted stretches, when inspiration hits, rather than dutifully in scheduled little slices. Empirically it seems to be so. When I think of the people I know who've done great things, I don't imagine them dutifully crossing items off to-do lists. I imagine them sneaking off to work on some new idea.
He's saying that an approach that does tasks when they should be done that results in a net productivity increase is procrastination, specifically type-C procrastination.
Really though, it just seems like effective time manangement. The true intent of the article seems to lie in DEFINING time management - that is, not "Crossing items off of a list" but rather doing things when they should be done, or "sneaking off to work on some new idea"
I don't see why just blurring out the images or putting giant black boxes over them won't work.
If they really wanted to be devious, they could even switch the places around on the map (i.e. 180 degrees of rotation, then mirrored over X or Y axis), add 'fake' security measures to make the building look impenetrable, etc.
Google is willing to do it, India is willing to do it, problem solved.
How do the trees produce MORE heat than just the sunlight hitting, say, the ground? Presumably the energy is going to all become heat eventually, so it doesn't matter if the trees are doing it instead of the ground, right?
This is obviously true, and this is where restraint and common sense come in to play. Code can't smack you in the face if you do a poor job of writing it (Although this might do for some better programmers;) ), but I'm sure that any sort of robot with the force to kill someone will have INSANE amounts of testing required, especially at first.
'It seems every electronic gadget is "going to isolate us from every other human being on the planet".'
And of course, these words are heard over what?
The TV. The Radio. Online News Sites.
All three are 'electronic gadgets' (TV's, Radios, Computers), perhaps the biggest and most widespread of them all. And their main purpose is to do what?
Allow people to communicate.
If it becomes: Radio, TV, Internet, Robots, Chronologically speaking, then robots are sure to be accepted into our lives. Robots are quite different from the above three, but I'm just showing that the people who assume new gadgets are "going to isolate us from every other human being on the planet" are short-sighted at best. Also, who knows what robot tech will expand to eventually. Who knows, they might become a prime force in communications, or anything else for that matter.
~Ruff_ilb
P.S. - Parent poster, I know you don't take the above stance "going to isolate us from every other human being on the planet", so I'm not trying to troll! =)
In "I Robot" (The movie) where the robot's running off with someone's purse? (The cynical detective thinks he's stealing it - he's actually returning it to its owner)
Well EVERY SINGLE DAY we have the equivalent of this happening, only with credit card transactions, paypal, stock exchanges, etc.
If this analogy is off topic: What I mean to say is that the robots that we're capable of producing now are simply code in motion. Sure, very complex code, but still, they're programmed. They're not to a level of intelligence and mass production where we worry about having to welcome our new robot overlords, and I doubt they'll even need anything as complex as Asimov's 'Three Laws' for a VERY long time.
We depend on code in our computers every day to carry out tasks, just as I'm depending on it now to get this comment up on slashdot - the robot equivalent would be a very quick messenger robot. Again, code in motion. The Japanese are wise to accept robots as just this, instead of cross-applying way too many bad science-fiction movies that couldn't be realizable today even if a malevolent force WAS trying to get robots to take over the world.
I think the coloquial use of the word "addiction" implies no dependence, but dictionary.com says (sorry, I didn't renew my OED)
"
1. To cause to become physiologically or psychologically dependent on a habit-forming substance: The thief was addicted to cocaine.
2. To occupy (oneself) with or involve (oneself) in something habitually or compulsively: The child was addicted to video games. "
I'd say by both definitions, you ARE addicted to food. You're physiologically dependant on food, and you habitually occupy yourself with it. Ergo you are both dependant and addicted.
And this is NOTHING to be concerned about.
Technology is defined as:
"
1. The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.
2. The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective.
"
Ok - FIRE is a technology. So are things as simple as forks, or spoons, or plates. The human race is addicted to technology, for better or for worse. America's only addicted to the most recent advancements more than the rest of the world.
There is nothing wrong with this "Addiction" - They say it like it's a bad thing. Without technology, we'd still be running around like apes.
Seconded. AMD64 3000+ and a 6600GT, runs fine.
Both sites are slasdotted, so it's hard to say, but I know of a LOT of people that liked nintendogs. Perhaps they weren't all hardcore gamers (I bet *I* for one, would HATE nintendogs), but that doesn't make them not great.
On the other hand, one of the only reasons that it was so popular was because it pretty much came stock with any DS purchase. Then again, perhaps that's why the DS was so popular... It's hard to say.
Exactly. But this is an important component of self-awareness; before, robots couldn't even distinguish between themselves and others. Without this distinction, self-awareness is impossible.
Wikipedia's stregnths lie in the fact that it's editable by everyone. These stregnths or the merit of these stregnths are debatable, but if wikipedia has an edge, it's through this.
Digital Universe is simply an online traditional encyclopedia. I am of the opinion that Wikipedia is a great place to get started or to learn about relatively non-controversial topics. No one source should be used for anything, and that goes for Wikipedia as well.
But for Digital Universe to compete with Wikipedia, or vice versa, they have to share the same niche. They don't - Digital Universe aims to be traditional, just online. There's no way it'll have anywhere near as many articles as Wikipedia, but the content of these articles will be very trustworthy. I'd likely use both, because each does something different and unique. Just as I use Urbandictionary.com to search for words like "1337" or "Slashdot", I'd use wikipedia to search for obscure or pop-culture topics. Just as I use the OED to get 27 variations on the word "Rights", I'd use Digital Universe to get specific information on "The history of Computing", etc. I'm not saying there's no overlap, but at least for me, these two services would do two different things.
As saying that Linux and windows can run at the same time on the same hardware, with quick switching between the two?
Depending on how easy that is to do, this either makes the story a lot more or a lot less interesting.
Sure, in Email, but neither Yahoo nor Google has ANYTHING on MS in terms of software. Yahoo has their web portal for now, and we all know what google does.
Just wait until MS finds some way to integrate email into the OS (And, of course, they recommend using "New Improved MS HOTMAIL")
Shouldn't be mad at each other. The Yahooligan knows that Yahoo is still the #1 most visited website, the MS Man knows that his OS owns, and the google guy gloats over Gmail. Heck, Yahoo and MS have been around way longer than google. It's the upstart, even in this field.
I'm not advocating rash action - quite the opposite.
But OTOH, Seriously, if this were a bomb and they had a 24 hour time limit, do you think they could do something similar? The article leads me to believe not, which is what concerns me. This should be a situation that they can deal with EASILY in under 3 weeks.
It's funny how quickly we ignore the solutions that would be evident to people without our level of technology - Just like the mechanical comments.
BUT - Assuming a Faraday cage would even work (another poster says not in this case), the data cable would have to leave a "hole" in the cage. I can't think of a good workaround, other than shielding that area (where the cable meets the 'bot) extra hard to compensate.
Or just use a really, really tiny fiber optic cable. Heck, it doesn't even have to have a quick transfer rate. Speed isn't the problem here, and I'm sure commands sent to the robot are quite, quite small.
Regardless of WHAT they're doing with it (which is QUITE a valid question by itself), this begs even MORE questions!
How did it get in a container that couldn't contain it for long enough? Why was it being transported through this tubing that (obviously) didn't have appropriate levels of fail-safe applied (although no one was hurt, I'm sure their plans didn't include a 3 week delay and use of a robot)? Why don't they have other ways of dealing with this?
You know, the design of the tubing doesn't seem very intelligent. It makes me wonder if these guys are really qualified to deal with Cobalt-60 radiation;)
Slashdot Mirror
When the extra time lost from reinforcing privacy issues exceeds the average cost(that is, probability of privacy being violated x time it takes to recover from privacy violation), then it's useless. We see this all time - companies building shoddy products because it's worth their time to just send a new product or deal with tech support for the few who whine than to remake/design their product. Notice - if your data is infinitely valuable, you can't ever be too paranoid.
TFA mentions:
He's saying that an approach that does tasks when they should be done that results in a net productivity increase is procrastination, specifically type-C procrastination.
Really though, it just seems like effective time manangement. The true intent of the article seems to lie in DEFINING time management - that is, not "Crossing items off of a list" but rather doing things when they should be done, or "sneaking off to work on some new idea"
And yet, they both feel so good.
I don't see why just blurring out the images or putting giant black boxes over them won't work. If they really wanted to be devious, they could even switch the places around on the map (i.e. 180 degrees of rotation, then mirrored over X or Y axis), add 'fake' security measures to make the building look impenetrable, etc. Google is willing to do it, India is willing to do it, problem solved.
How do the trees produce MORE heat than just the sunlight hitting, say, the ground? Presumably the energy is going to all become heat eventually, so it doesn't matter if the trees are doing it instead of the ground, right?
This is obviously true, and this is where restraint and common sense come in to play. Code can't smack you in the face if you do a poor job of writing it (Although this might do for some better programmers ;) ), but I'm sure that any sort of robot with the force to kill someone will have INSANE amounts of testing required, especially at first.
'It seems every electronic gadget is "going to isolate us from every other human being on the planet".'
And of course, these words are heard over what?
The TV.
The Radio.
Online News Sites.
All three are 'electronic gadgets' (TV's, Radios, Computers), perhaps the biggest and most widespread of them all. And their main purpose is to do what?
Allow people to communicate.
If it becomes: Radio, TV, Internet, Robots, Chronologically speaking, then robots are sure to be accepted into our lives. Robots are quite different from the above three, but I'm just showing that the people who assume new gadgets are "going to isolate us from every other human being on the planet" are short-sighted at best. Also, who knows what robot tech will expand to eventually. Who knows, they might become a prime force in communications, or anything else for that matter.
~Ruff_ilb
P.S. - Parent poster, I know you don't take the above stance "going to isolate us from every other human being on the planet", so I'm not trying to troll! =)
In "I Robot" (The movie) where the robot's running off with someone's purse? (The cynical detective thinks he's stealing it - he's actually returning it to its owner)
Well EVERY SINGLE DAY we have the equivalent of this happening, only with credit card transactions, paypal, stock exchanges, etc.
If this analogy is off topic: What I mean to say is that the robots that we're capable of producing now are simply code in motion. Sure, very complex code, but still, they're programmed. They're not to a level of intelligence and mass production where we worry about having to welcome our new robot overlords, and I doubt they'll even need anything as complex as Asimov's 'Three Laws' for a VERY long time.
We depend on code in our computers every day to carry out tasks, just as I'm depending on it now to get this comment up on slashdot - the robot equivalent would be a very quick messenger robot. Again, code in motion. The Japanese are wise to accept robots as just this, instead of cross-applying way too many bad science-fiction movies that couldn't be realizable today even if a malevolent force WAS trying to get robots to take over the world.
~Ruff_ilb
(P.S. It's all a lie! THEY made me type it!)
If Fun(IT) = infinity, then Fun(IT) + More Fun = infinity.
And we ALL know that IT is infinitely fun.
So the answer is no.
I find this a much better idea than the opera-user-photo concept. I hope they release all the best submissions. They could be quite amusing.
I think the coloquial use of the word "addiction" implies no dependence, but dictionary.com says (sorry, I didn't renew my OED)
"
1. To cause to become physiologically or psychologically dependent on a habit-forming substance: The thief was addicted to cocaine.
2. To occupy (oneself) with or involve (oneself) in something habitually or compulsively: The child was addicted to video games.
"
I'd say by both definitions, you ARE addicted to food. You're physiologically dependant on food, and you habitually occupy yourself with it. Ergo you are both dependant and addicted.
And this is NOTHING to be concerned about. Technology is defined as: " 1. The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives. 2. The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective. " Ok - FIRE is a technology. So are things as simple as forks, or spoons, or plates. The human race is addicted to technology, for better or for worse. America's only addicted to the most recent advancements more than the rest of the world. There is nothing wrong with this "Addiction" - They say it like it's a bad thing. Without technology, we'd still be running around like apes.
Q: "How is the USS Enterprise like Toilet paper?"
A: "They both fly around Uranus looking for Klingons!"
Guess they found some.
Seconded. AMD64 3000+ and a 6600GT, runs fine. Both sites are slasdotted, so it's hard to say, but I know of a LOT of people that liked nintendogs. Perhaps they weren't all hardcore gamers (I bet *I* for one, would HATE nintendogs), but that doesn't make them not great. On the other hand, one of the only reasons that it was so popular was because it pretty much came stock with any DS purchase. Then again, perhaps that's why the DS was so popular... It's hard to say.
Exactly. But this is an important component of self-awareness; before, robots couldn't even distinguish between themselves and others. Without this distinction, self-awareness is impossible.
Wikipedia's stregnths lie in the fact that it's editable by everyone. These stregnths or the merit of these stregnths are debatable, but if wikipedia has an edge, it's through this.
Digital Universe is simply an online traditional encyclopedia. I am of the opinion that Wikipedia is a great place to get started or to learn about relatively non-controversial topics. No one source should be used for anything, and that goes for Wikipedia as well.
But for Digital Universe to compete with Wikipedia, or vice versa, they have to share the same niche. They don't - Digital Universe aims to be traditional, just online. There's no way it'll have anywhere near as many articles as Wikipedia, but the content of these articles will be very trustworthy. I'd likely use both, because each does something different and unique. Just as I use Urbandictionary.com to search for words like "1337" or "Slashdot", I'd use wikipedia to search for obscure or pop-culture topics. Just as I use the OED to get 27 variations on the word "Rights", I'd use Digital Universe to get specific information on "The history of Computing", etc. I'm not saying there's no overlap, but at least for me, these two services would do two different things.
Just my 2 cents.
As saying that Linux and windows can run at the same time on the same hardware, with quick switching between the two? Depending on how easy that is to do, this either makes the story a lot more or a lot less interesting.
Sure, in Email, but neither Yahoo nor Google has ANYTHING on MS in terms of software. Yahoo has their web portal for now, and we all know what google does. Just wait until MS finds some way to integrate email into the OS (And, of course, they recommend using "New Improved MS HOTMAIL")
Shouldn't be mad at each other. The Yahooligan knows that Yahoo is still the #1 most visited website, the MS Man knows that his OS owns, and the google guy gloats over Gmail. Heck, Yahoo and MS have been around way longer than google. It's the upstart, even in this field.
Then if communications aren't a problem, set up sensors a safe distance away and feed them to the lead-enhanced robot.
I'm not advocating rash action - quite the opposite.
But OTOH, Seriously, if this were a bomb and they had a 24 hour time limit, do you think they could do something similar? The article leads me to believe not, which is what concerns me. This should be a situation that they can deal with EASILY in under 3 weeks.
Really, REALLY long lead arm. Problem solved.
It's funny how quickly we ignore the solutions that would be evident to people without our level of technology - Just like the mechanical comments. BUT - Assuming a Faraday cage would even work (another poster says not in this case), the data cable would have to leave a "hole" in the cage. I can't think of a good workaround, other than shielding that area (where the cable meets the 'bot) extra hard to compensate. Or just use a really, really tiny fiber optic cable. Heck, it doesn't even have to have a quick transfer rate. Speed isn't the problem here, and I'm sure commands sent to the robot are quite, quite small.
Quick! To the patent office!
P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.ht m&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,022,227.WKU.&OS=PN/4,022,227&R S=PN/4,022,227) nowadays.
I hear you can patent ANYTHING (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
Regardless of WHAT they're doing with it (which is QUITE a valid question by itself), this begs even MORE questions!
;)
How did it get in a container that couldn't contain it for long enough? Why was it being transported through this tubing that (obviously) didn't have appropriate levels of fail-safe applied (although no one was hurt, I'm sure their plans didn't include a 3 week delay and use of a robot)? Why don't they have other ways of dealing with this?
You know, the design of the tubing doesn't seem very intelligent. It makes me wonder if these guys are really qualified to deal with Cobalt-60 radiation