Lawyers do not make the law or even make a company follow the law. Lawyers determine whether the risk is worth the action.
i agree and never said differently.
You are simply deluded and believe everything people tell you, as long as they are a person of authority. Works fine until you are hit with a sexual harassment charge and have your life ruined.
all i ever said was that in at-will states, an employer can terminate their relationship with an employee at any time, without any reason. that's so obvious my only conclusion is that you are 12 years old and have never been employed and don't speak with your parents much.
i realize that the imaginary conversation you are having with me is much more complex, but you'll also have to imagine my responses from now on since i'm only able to converse with you in the realm of reality.
Oh, like the fact that you have no idea if he even had a contract?
in the face of a lack of information, the right thing to do is go on what you do know and fill in the rest with common sense... not speculate on every silly possibility in the universe. you want to know how i know he didn't have a contract? i know that because MIT has many, many lawyers at it's disposal. do you really think this matter wasn't discussed with their legal counsel?
How about the fact that he could not be "fired" because he was not employed as a professor so this removal seems to be purely vindictive?
the fact that he wasn't employed makes it much simpler. do you really think that a private organization isn't allowed legally to terminate it's relationship with an individual that it doesn't even employ?!?
yes well we're talking about Massachusetts, so no need to speculate on what might be the case in other states eh?
The professor may or not have a contract that negates this theory.
also, he may or may not have magical powers that allow him to set his enemies on fire. how about focusing on the facts we know?
Further, even with the "right to work" laws Companies can not stomp on a persons rights under the Law of the Land (US Constitution) without repercussion.
terminating an employee doesn't equate to "stomping on their rights". see below.
Can an employee be fired for no reason? , Archived from Boston Globe, 2005 "Although it seems almost impossible to believe, employers in Massachusetts, or in any other employee-at-will state, can fire any employee at any time for any reason — or even for no reason at all. An employer can terminate any employee, with or without notice." http://www.mass.gov/courts/cas...
A company can not take legal action against an employee or person based solely on accusation or allegation
MIT didn't take legal action. they just disassociated themselves from him and his work.
The purpose of the Government is to protect people's Constitutional rights. In this case, with no facts or trial MIT acted against the professors rights and should face full prosecution for their actions.
the govt isn't involved (unless they decide to prosecute criminally). it's a relationship between an employer and an employee. and as i stated, nothing needs to be proven. you might not like it, but that's how it is (in the US).
and putting all that aside, you can trust in this: MIT knows exactly what they can and cannot do. they've been here before 1000x. they have staff lawyers. trust me they are doing exactly what they have the right to do.
I don't care if he was a rapist or serial killer! Where is the philosophy department when you need it?? (The only practical thing they are good for is defending freedom; aside from teaching.) Lets throw out everything NASA ever did under Wernher von Braun because he was a Nazi!
dude, he lectures are still online, it's just that MIT doesn't want an association with him or his lectures. it's their right not associate with him. it's your right to think they stink for doing so (or whatever your point is).
What ever happened to being innocent until proven guilty?
you are thinking about certain legal systems, not employer-employee relationships.
an employer doesn't have to prove anything to terminate an employee. almost all employment (in the US) it at-will meaning either party can terminate the relationship at any time for most any reason (excluding sexual and racial discrimination, and probably a few other things i'm not smart enough to think of right now).
There is no reason to expect an AI to have self-interest, or even a will to survive, unless it is programmed to have it.
there's also no reason that AI will brew better beer, unless you program it to do so. if coding for self-interest has come up 100x in this thread, i'm pretty sure someone will attempt it.
does a mouse that avoids a cat, and breeds as much and fast as it's facilities will allow have self interest? does a virus that replicates as fast as it's programming allows have self interest? does a computer virus that is coded to spread between systems have self interest?
self interest doesn't need to be a complicated notion. self interest is programming, biological or otherwise, to increase your numbers (your family, your species, or whatever). we often think a self interest as the will to survive, but biologically speaking, the only purpose of a longer life is to reproduce (more).
"Ask the human in the street what 'Artificial Intelligence' means, and they won't say 'a chess computer' or 'something that answers questions on a TV quiz show'."
fortunately, we don't base our definitions on popular ignorance. this is from wikipedia,
"the study and design of intelligent agents",[1] where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chances of success."
which sounds about right, and clearly encompasses things lesser than self-awareness.
AI will do what it is programming to do and follow the rules we lay out for it to follow.
humans have been known to introduce destructive elements into the environment of other humans. it's almost certain that AI if and when it exists will be used as a weapon, and given specific "programming" and "rules" to do harm.
Not to mention the forced prison labor market. Felons get to learn "valuable skills" (for third world countries) and make products to sell at full value while getting paid a pittance. Refuse to work? No problem, 3 months in solitary will cure that, or you'll just go nuts. Really, the prison system is just slavery by another name.
you know, they are in prison, right? they already have TV, books, internet in some cases, gyms, organized sports, vocational programs, college degree programs, consensual sex, conjugal visits in some cases, access to illegal drugs. they shouldn't get paid anything, and they shouldn't have most of those freedoms. let them have a mentally-scarring experience in prison. it's supposed to be a deterrent.
yeah you'll probably bring up the injustices in the legal system, for-profit prisons, unfair sentencing, and so on. the solution to those things isn't to make prison a country club. 49% of convicts are violent offenders. you think those people should have a comfortable stay? you don't think they should be put to work to repay their crimes? if someone raped your daughter, do you think they should get to watch cable TV and smoke marijuana in their cell?
It still won't update from a 0.9 to a 1.0 version with a regular patch, prepare for all kinds of sorrow while you try to upgrade. Dependencies, good luck. Back up everything you have, twice, before you attempt updating through the SDK Manager.
that's why up until now, Eclipse / ADT was the blessed IDE. it's the difference between a beta and a stable release. if they keep breaking compatibility after 1.0, then that's a problem. and if you didn't like it, you should have been using ADT, or Intellij as it has all the same features (and more) of AS, but is on a regular stable release cycle.
For those that don't know, Android Studio is JetBrains' Intellij product re-packaged to promote Android. If you like Intellij, there you go. It's a much, much better experience than Eclipse / ADT.
yeah, so what's this over? one guy submits a silly pull request to change the word "him" to "them", and an argument ensues about the correct wording, and then morphs into a discussion about discrimination of women in tech. 228 comments ensue. the pull requests gets closed when someone (correctly) makes the observation that is has gotten hopelessly off topic and is a complete waste of time.
fast matters to those of us that have busy lives. now, if you are a hipsters with a trust fund, i'm sure you have all the time in the world to wait for your gourmet mango chutney encrusted quinoa patty.
This was the company that "succeeded in spite of itself". Demonstrating that incompetent government isn't the only way to kill competitiveness, Commodore fielded a superior product which could have been even more successful if they hadn't been cursed with incompetent management.
i know you wouldn't want to pass over the opportunity to talk down to someone and try to make them sound stupid, but you know he said "Under ideal conditions" right?
A company who knows that their shit could be forked will either behave themselves
it depends.
for a company that's the primary contributor, the benefits of accepting external contributions doesn't balance out the gain. in fact there's significant overhead. of course there's a breaking even point, but in my experience it's way below 50-50. companies get a net gain when they are very minor contributors, and not so much after that.
that's not to say there aren't ancillary benefits. community good will, joint effort between companies, and, in the case of Google Android, a concession to business partners (we'll buy into Android, as long as we can part ways w/ Google and keep Android).
We evolved to an understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics in a few million years
if by "we" you mean life, it's been much more than a few million years. if you meant homo sapiens, it's been much less than that. what arbitrary point in evolution are you picking?
"To date, the district has spent $70 million on the project, purchasing a total of 90,713 devices."
that works out to $771.66 / device, which is pretty good considering it includes the network infrastructure, device administration, and software costs.
Well you answered your own question there, people want new shiny. Advertising is waaaaaay too effective on some people.
and let me guess, you are one of those people, smarter than average, upon which advertising has no effect? thank god for people like you that can tell us what to do.
the article doesn't give the cost of the iPad, but educational institutions don't pay retail. that, and the $1B included upgrades to networking infrastructure to support the devices, which would have been required no matter what.
while certainly shiny, iPads are pretty capable devices that can run applications for just about anything. they are easier to manage and lock down than a PC. they are tech-illiterate friendly. they aren't a terrible choice for this. what's the alternative? chromebooks? they don't really work offline which was probably a requirement. chinese cheapo garbage tablets?
Slashdot Mirror
Lawyers do not make the law or even make a company follow the law. Lawyers determine whether the risk is worth the action.
i agree and never said differently.
You are simply deluded and believe everything people tell you, as long as they are a person of authority. Works fine until you are hit with a sexual harassment charge and have your life ruined.
all i ever said was that in at-will states, an employer can terminate their relationship with an employee at any time, without any reason. that's so obvious my only conclusion is that you are 12 years old and have never been employed and don't speak with your parents much.
i realize that the imaginary conversation you are having with me is much more complex, but you'll also have to imagine my responses from now on since i'm only able to converse with you in the realm of reality.
Oh, like the fact that you have no idea if he even had a contract?
in the face of a lack of information, the right thing to do is go on what you do know and fill in the rest with common sense ... not speculate on every silly possibility in the universe. you want to know how i know he didn't have a contract? i know that because MIT has many, many lawyers at it's disposal. do you really think this matter wasn't discussed with their legal counsel?
How about the fact that he could not be "fired" because he was not employed as a professor so this removal seems to be purely vindictive?
the fact that he wasn't employed makes it much simpler. do you really think that a private organization isn't allowed legally to terminate it's relationship with an individual that it doesn't even employ?!?
At will employment laws vary from State to State
yes well we're talking about Massachusetts, so no need to speculate on what might be the case in other states eh?
The professor may or not have a contract that negates this theory.
also, he may or may not have magical powers that allow him to set his enemies on fire. how about focusing on the facts we know?
Further, even with the "right to work" laws Companies can not stomp on a persons rights under the Law of the Land (US Constitution) without repercussion.
terminating an employee doesn't equate to "stomping on their rights". see below.
Can an employee be fired for no reason? , Archived from Boston Globe, 2005
"Although it seems almost impossible to believe, employers in Massachusetts, or in any other employee-at-will state, can fire any employee at any time for any reason — or even for no reason at all. An employer can terminate any employee, with or without notice."
http://www.mass.gov/courts/cas...
now are we done?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
are we done now?
A company can not take legal action against an employee or person based solely on accusation or allegation
MIT didn't take legal action. they just disassociated themselves from him and his work.
The purpose of the Government is to protect people's Constitutional rights. In this case, with no facts or trial MIT acted against the professors rights and should face full prosecution for their actions.
the govt isn't involved (unless they decide to prosecute criminally). it's a relationship between an employer and an employee. and as i stated, nothing needs to be proven. you might not like it, but that's how it is (in the US).
and putting all that aside, you can trust in this: MIT knows exactly what they can and cannot do. they've been here before 1000x. they have staff lawyers. trust me they are doing exactly what they have the right to do.
I don't care if he was a rapist or serial killer! Where is the philosophy department when you need it?? (The only practical thing they are good for is defending freedom; aside from teaching.) Lets throw out everything NASA ever did under Wernher von Braun because he was a Nazi!
dude, he lectures are still online, it's just that MIT doesn't want an association with him or his lectures. it's their right not associate with him. it's your right to think they stink for doing so (or whatever your point is).
What ever happened to being innocent until proven guilty?
you are thinking about certain legal systems, not employer-employee relationships.
an employer doesn't have to prove anything to terminate an employee. almost all employment (in the US) it at-will meaning either party can terminate the relationship at any time for most any reason (excluding sexual and racial discrimination, and probably a few other things i'm not smart enough to think of right now).
There is no reason to expect an AI to have self-interest, or even a will to survive, unless it is programmed to have it.
there's also no reason that AI will brew better beer, unless you program it to do so. if coding for self-interest has come up 100x in this thread, i'm pretty sure someone will attempt it.
does a mouse that avoids a cat, and breeds as much and fast as it's facilities will allow have self interest? does a virus that replicates as fast as it's programming allows have self interest? does a computer virus that is coded to spread between systems have self interest?
self interest doesn't need to be a complicated notion. self interest is programming, biological or otherwise, to increase your numbers (your family, your species, or whatever). we often think a self interest as the will to survive, but biologically speaking, the only purpose of a longer life is to reproduce (more).
"Ask the human in the street what 'Artificial Intelligence' means, and they won't say 'a chess computer' or 'something that answers questions on a TV quiz show'."
fortunately, we don't base our definitions on popular ignorance. this is from wikipedia,
"the study and design of intelligent agents",[1] where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chances of success."
which sounds about right, and clearly encompasses things lesser than self-awareness.
"If it isn't self-aware, it isn't AI. It's just a useful application."
did you learn that from hollywood?
AI will do what it is programming to do and follow the rules we lay out for it to follow.
humans have been known to introduce destructive elements into the environment of other humans. it's almost certain that AI if and when it exists will be used as a weapon, and given specific "programming" and "rules" to do harm.
more questions, like what you'd get if you gave someone make and emacs and told them to go for it?
Not to mention the forced prison labor market. Felons get to learn "valuable skills" (for third world countries) and make products to sell at full value while getting paid a pittance. Refuse to work? No problem, 3 months in solitary will cure that, or you'll just go nuts. Really, the prison system is just slavery by another name.
you know, they are in prison, right? they already have TV, books, internet in some cases, gyms, organized sports, vocational programs, college degree programs, consensual sex, conjugal visits in some cases, access to illegal drugs. they shouldn't get paid anything, and they shouldn't have most of those freedoms. let them have a mentally-scarring experience in prison. it's supposed to be a deterrent.
yeah you'll probably bring up the injustices in the legal system, for-profit prisons, unfair sentencing, and so on. the solution to those things isn't to make prison a country club. 49% of convicts are violent offenders. you think those people should have a comfortable stay? you don't think they should be put to work to repay their crimes? if someone raped your daughter, do you think they should get to watch cable TV and smoke marijuana in their cell?
Try using an IDE and learning the features. You'll answer your own question.
It still won't update from a 0.9 to a 1.0 version with a regular patch, prepare for all kinds of sorrow while you try to upgrade. Dependencies, good luck. Back up everything you have, twice, before you attempt updating through the SDK Manager.
that's why up until now, Eclipse / ADT was the blessed IDE. it's the difference between a beta and a stable release. if they keep breaking compatibility after 1.0, then that's a problem. and if you didn't like it, you should have been using ADT, or Intellij as it has all the same features (and more) of AS, but is on a regular stable release cycle.
Google suddenly closed 11,000 bugs
Invalid / won't fix bugs do get field you know?
Gradle also hit 1.0, what a coincidence
Gradle has been on version 2.0 for months.
Download Intellij community edition. It can do everything Android Studio is capable of plus other platforms.
For those that don't know, Android Studio is JetBrains' Intellij product re-packaged to promote Android. If you like Intellij, there you go. It's a much, much better experience than Eclipse / ADT.
thanks for posting that link.
yeah, so what's this over? one guy submits a silly pull request to change the word "him" to "them", and an argument ensues about the correct wording, and then morphs into a discussion about discrimination of women in tech. 228 comments ensue. the pull requests gets closed when someone (correctly) makes the observation that is has gotten hopelessly off topic and is a complete waste of time.
the guy that closed it was correct.
you argue about the wording comments.
we code.
PMF.
http://programming-motherfucke...
fast matters to those of us that have busy lives. now, if you are a hipsters with a trust fund, i'm sure you have all the time in the world to wait for your gourmet mango chutney encrusted quinoa patty.
This was the company that "succeeded in spite of itself". Demonstrating that incompetent government isn't the only way to kill competitiveness, Commodore fielded a superior product which could have been even more successful if they hadn't been cursed with incompetent management.
i know you wouldn't want to pass over the opportunity to talk down to someone and try to make them sound stupid, but you know he said "Under ideal conditions" right?
A company who knows that their shit could be forked will either behave themselves
it depends.
for a company that's the primary contributor, the benefits of accepting external contributions doesn't balance out the gain. in fact there's significant overhead. of course there's a breaking even point, but in my experience it's way below 50-50. companies get a net gain when they are very minor contributors, and not so much after that.
that's not to say there aren't ancillary benefits. community good will, joint effort between companies, and, in the case of Google Android, a concession to business partners (we'll buy into Android, as long as we can part ways w/ Google and keep Android).
i don't have data for the Node.js Joyent relationship, but from reading this blog,
https://www.joyent.com/blog/br...
it sounds like Joyent basically ran the place.
We evolved to an understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics in a few million years
if by "we" you mean life, it's been much more than a few million years. if you meant homo sapiens, it's been much less than that. what arbitrary point in evolution are you picking?
intelligent non-human life is most likely everywhere around us
it is *not* most likely everywhere. the fact that your theory is not provably false does make it likely.
talk about too lazy. did you even look at TFA?
"To date, the district has spent $70 million on the project, purchasing a total of 90,713 devices."
that works out to $771.66 / device, which is pretty good considering it includes the network infrastructure, device administration, and software costs.
Well you answered your own question there, people want new shiny. Advertising is waaaaaay too effective on some people.
and let me guess, you are one of those people, smarter than average, upon which advertising has no effect? thank god for people like you that can tell us what to do.
the article doesn't give the cost of the iPad, but educational institutions don't pay retail. that, and the $1B included upgrades to networking infrastructure to support the devices, which would have been required no matter what.
while certainly shiny, iPads are pretty capable devices that can run applications for just about anything. they are easier to manage and lock down than a PC. they are tech-illiterate friendly. they aren't a terrible choice for this. what's the alternative? chromebooks? they don't really work offline which was probably a requirement. chinese cheapo garbage tablets?