(And this is probably off-topic, but what the hell)
Anyone know of software that can take 2 (or more) digital pics of, say, a person's face from slightly different angles and then try to make a 3d model of it? I assume it exists, I just have no idea what it would be called.
Tried googling, and am getting a bajillion results for stuff that just isn't related.
Anyway, it would be really quite interesting to see the tiling software like this coupled with the perspective/parallax type of 3d modelling and ultra high-res photos. Obviously the hardware to do this would be... uh, intense, but it would be very cool to just snap a few shots around my place (or put a camera on a tripod, set it to automatically rotate and snap, then raise up, do it again, etc, all the way from floor to ceiling) and poof, instant 3d model of the entire place. Then let me edit the model to seperate objects - coffee cup from desk, desk from floor and wall, etc. Or hell, build a library of shapes for the software and have the computer do it automatically, calling in a human only when the shapes are too complex/confusing. Heck, could even then apply textures and reflection etc. options based on the photos, create and position light sources etc. The geeklet in me is drooling at this:)
Is it staffed by people who are accountable to the electorate, even if only indirectly?
If not, why the fuck should they be allowed to have control over ratings and thus possible fines? Why should a non-governmental body have -any- ability to essentially make stuff illegal?
Say I set myself up as some kind of standards body for comic books - I give them ratings based on content. Would that suddenly give me the authority to rate things in such a way that the police/civil authorities should take seriously and fine people for?
Absurd. This is completely absurd. There shouldn't be fines, the government should stay the fuck out of this entirely. Let parents handle it. It's just a bullshit hotbutton issue like gay marriage and flag burning to get the mouth breathers all hot and bothered and distract them from real issues that are going on.
Why force false-positives like this by having quotas?
The Marshall's are supposed to be looking for people who present a danger to others - forcing them to deal with stupid administrative bullshit like a quota for how many suspicious traveller's they report does nothing to make anyone safer.
It's like giving soldiers a quota of people they need to kill or something stupid like that.
If there's nobody suspicious on the flight, then doesn't that mean the system is working (or that the people who would otherwise be suspicious have figured out how to avoid detection)?
These are law enforcement officers, not salesmen. The people responsible for setting up the quota system need to be shitcanned immediately.
I won't use them because they're too sensitive, not because I'm stupid.
I go to one, I open up a grocery bag to put things I'm buying in - "WOOT WOOT RED ALERT INVALID ITEM IN BAGGING AREA!" I now have to wait for the cashier supervising all the machines to clear me.
I scan something, I lean over to put it in the bag, my purse falls off my shoulder - "WOOT WOOT RED ALERT INVALID ITEM IN BAGGING AREA!" I now have to wait for the cashier supervising all the machines to clear me.
I scan something, and a person walks past me to get out of the store - "WOOT WOOT RED ALERT INVALID ITEM IN BAGGING AREA!" Again, I must wait for the cashier supervising all the machines to clear me.
I have vegetables, they do not have a barcode. I look them up on the handy touch screen. Except, of course, there are 90 different variants of the vegetables I picked out. Did I get "organic greenbeans"? Did I get "certified organic greenbeans"? Did I get "greenbeans"? I don't remember - and, despite the fact that I *could* just pick whichever one is cheaper, I'm an honest person...
Now, I suppose if I were to practice a sort of rigid discipline when checking out with my groceries - making sure my purse cannot possibly fall into the scanner, making sure I have several bags pre-placed, making sure to write down which of the umpteen variants of each bit of produce I picked I'm buying, snarling "GET BACK!" at anyone who tries to walk behind me to leave the store - well, at that point, maybe it would be a quick operation. But I'm just not willing to learn "grocery fu" and will just go to the checkout lanes with an actual person there because even with the 90 year-old woman in front of me insisting that her hemmorhoid cream coupon should be good for half-and-half cream, it's still going to be less hassle.
At any place other than my local supermarkets (I've tried several, just to see if the self-checkout is always borked, and it is, universally, at food stores), I've been able to use the self-checkout without problem.
Sit someone with no computer experience down at a prompt with a blinking cursor and they'll stare at it for a bit. Then they might tentatively push a few keys on the keyboard. Eventually they'll maybe figure out that pressing the "Enter" key will get the computer to give them a response. In exceptional cases, a user might even go so far as to type "help" into the prompt - and depending on what the OS is they may or may not get a useful answer.
Next sit someone with no computer experience down in front of a GUI. They may try pressing a few keys on the keyboard and see that it doesn't seem to give them any kind of response. Eventually they might fiddle with the mouse and discover that moving it around makes the pointer on the screen happen. The average person will realize that there are clicky things on the mouse, and may get so bold as to try moving the mouse to make the pointer go over an icon (or, with Windows, the Start button) and click it. Or they might right click somewhere and get a context menu - they may see "Help" as an option and try fiddling with that.
How do I know this? I volunteer at nursing homes teaching the residents how to use a computer to keep in touch with the outside world - email and surfing the web. The description of the first encounter with a GUI is pretty much exactly what happens each and every time I have a class - I tell my students to fiddle around with the stuff in front of them for 10 minutes, and the reason I do that is so that they feel confident that they won't break things. Usually at least one student has accessed the help function and is kind of "getting it" without any help from me.
In the past (DOS days) I volunteered teaching basic computer skills to women at a shelter, and universally the response was to just sit there completely confused until they had certain basics explained.
I won't say that GUI's are super intuitive, but they are surely MUCH more intuitive than a command line to someone who's got no exposure what-so-ever to computers.
Over consumption of ANY sugar can cause health problems. Not just high-fructose corn syrup. Over consumption of ANYTHING can cause health problems. Even things, like water, that are healthy in moderate amounts. MODERATE consumption of HFCS in people paying reasonable attention to personal health has NOT been implicated in causing any sort of health problems. HFCS is not the problem, PEOPLE WHO CONSUME TOO GODDAMN MUCH OF IT and don't otherwise take care of themselves are the problem.
I don't honestly have any idea what the hell you're talking about with the "You need to..." portion of your post. It's like you just decided to criticize me for something, but couldn't be bothered to try making sense. What sort of "distance" do I need to approach the problem of gluttons overconsuming sugar from to see that it's the behavior of the consumer, not the producer, that's the problem? I'm guessing I need to view it from the perspective of someone from an alternate dimension where mercenaries hired by Pepsico hold guns to people's heads and make them drink a 12-pack of Mountain Dew each day or something. Or maybe things are different where you're from - maybe somehow "eating too much and not taking care of yourself" is a lesson that is completely novel to you and yours.
If you're going to respond, please do try to make some sense. Address the issues that are at discussion. Here, I'll even help you out:
1) Were you aware that eating too much could make you fat? 2) Were you aware that being too fat can cause health problems, including diabetes? 3) Do you know the meaning of the words "high" and "fructose"? 4) Who's responsibility is it to look at the ingredients list on food and make a choice as to whether or not to consume it, and in what quantity?
I really don't know how to respond to this. Your comparison is just ridiculous.
You're comparing a "hidden" ingredient that might cause problems with one that is clearly labeled. At least, I assume that's the case.
You're also still talking about "guzzling" when I said MODERATION is key. Are you seriously suggesting that consuming moderate amounts of HFCS will cause type 2 diabetes in a person who takes reasonable care of themselves? That's just absurd.
Further, ignorance when information is available easily (and information is VERY available about how overconsumption of sugary foods is not good for a person) is, in fact, the fault of the ignorant party. Sorry - I just can't buy that anyone on the planet who has ready access to sugary soft-drinks in the quantities necessary to cause a problem can possibly be unaware that overconsumption of sugary foods and a lack of self-maintenance can lead to negative consequences.
Let's now take your example:
So, if I ate these berries - WHICH EVERYONE ON THE PLANET WHO HAD ACCESS TO THEM IN ABUNDANT QUANTITIES KNEW OVEREATING THEM COULD CAUSE PROBLEMS - and then my kidneys died because I was MASSIVELY OVERCONSUMING THEM AND NOT OTHERWISE WATCHING OUT FOR MY HEALTH - and I spent the rest of my life in misery, then yes, it would in fact be fair for people to say that it was my own damn fault. As to your "insidious kidney poison" - enh, I've heard nothing to tell me that in moderate (a can or 2 a day of soda) amounts HFCS is a toxin.
You show me peer reviewed studies that indicate MODERATE consumption of HFCS products in a person who otherwise eats a balanced diet and gets adequate exercise causes problems and I might change my mind. But right now you've given me no reason to think that people who get sick from this stuff have anyone but themselves to blame for over consuming.
Re:This isnt a breakthrough, it's genetic engineer
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
At the same time, I understand the wisdom in creating hybrids, but lets please not mix plants and animals, it's obviously not right.
It isn't obvious to me. I'm no geneticist, so please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know that there's any stark dividing line between what is a "plant" gene and what is an "animal" gene. From my understanding, bunches of my genetic code is actually viral in origin - neither plant NOR animal, nor, strictly speaking, even alive.
If you're saying it's obviously wrong from a moral perspective, I'll likewise have to admit that it isn't obvious. I'm not a religious person, but I'm certainly not some sort of amoral monster, but I just don't see anything wrong with the notion of mixing (if they even exist) "plant" genes and "animal" genes, especially if something very useful comes out of the mix and harms no one. Actually, it seems like it would be wrong to _not_ do it if it helps some and harms none.
No, you're right that it isn't a flaw in your experiment as an experiment, but it is a flaw (not yours) in the sense that any negative results would still not be persuasive to the people who'd need persuading. So I'm speaking about a flaw in what the experiment would be meant to achieve on a larger picture. Or a flaw in goofy people:)
Personally, I think such an experiment would be fascinating - not just for the outcome, but for what it would mean to even be able to come up with the definition of a positive result. I don't know that it would necessarily lead to the creationists running rampant, however: recall that recent study demonstrating that praying for someone might actually harm them, and note the resounding silence from the fundamentalist camp. Science took them seriously and tested their claims and it came out all bad for them - so they pretend like it never happened.
The U.S. government financed development of 'remote viewing' for over 20 years. It's said that the spooks hated the program, but because they got results, right from the start, they allowed it to continue until the soviet union broke apart.
Said by whom? What evidence do those saying it have?
I can say that trillions and trillions of gnomes disassemble me atom by atom, clean the atoms, and then put me back together again a billion times a second, but that doesn't make it true.
The fact that the U.S. government financed something doesn't mean a thing. The government funds a LOT of things that don't pan out - so I've never been persuaded by the argument that they wouldn't fund it if there weren't something there. Sorry, but they flush money down the toilet all the time.
I read the stuff at the end of your post. I've read a lot of similar things in the past, too. People make claims, but they haven't backed it up with any evidence. "It has been circulated" is not "here are empirical results that can be duplicated by anyone else under the same conditions." It's just fluff. You can shake your little fist and insist that scientists are suppressing ideas they disagree with, but until you can back it up with *any* actual evidence - not just some crank calling a talk-show - science will ignore you.
For the record, it has been well circulated that the Trilateral Commision and the Illuminatus and the Stonecutters rule EVERYTHING. I mean, lots of people believe that, so it MUST be true. Also, one time, on the radio, a guy called in and he said he was scared for his life to say things, but he said that he was a high degree Mason and THEY ruled the world TOO! He said it was the only way to explain that Steve Gutenberg had a career, which makes so much sense! So it must be true.
Really? Randi's made claims for which he has absolutely no evidence what-so-ever? People have demonstrated categorically that what he claims is false? Wow, there must be a WEALTH of information to support that assertion - I mean, he's THE public skeptic, so surely if he's been discredited you'll be able to provide a link or 3?
My favorite part of your post is:
He's a very smart man. "I only work with scientists" (he's now retired). He'd prepared some notes, and held up his copies of Scientific American and other mainstream sources...
Nothing like a little rented credibility! I can hold up a copy of a magazine and read from notes, too. It doesn't say a thing about my intelligence, nor about the veracity of what I'm saying. If my audience, however, is easily fooled by simple props, it might say something about their intelligence, however...
And here's the flaw with your suggested experiment:
"Nuh uh, the designer made it so that the background radiation doesn't seem like it was made by intelligence. He's so smart!"
The problem with the watch argument is that people aren't finding watches, but they're insisting that the not-watches are evidence that there must be a watchmaker. "Look, a coconut tree! Watchmakers like coconuts, so therefore the tree must be here so he can eat!"
Even a negative result is still taken as proof to these people. We can't prove that there ISN'T an intelligent designer, so they insist that there *must* be one.
That's not a very good answer - it reveals a bunch of negatives that are likely deal-breakers:
1) You're a perfectionist, which means you may find it difficult to handle mistakes made by co-workers. 2) You're a perfectionist, which means you may find it difficult working on a team with people who are not perfectionists. 3) You're an admitted perfectionist, which makes it likely that you will attempt to cover up any mistakes you do make, rather than admit them. 4) You're a perfectionist and you take extra time to try to accomplish a task, rather than doing it as well as it needs to be done and having it in on time. Most employers don't expect or actually want perfection - they know it isn't attainable. 5) You're full of shit and just told the interviewer what you thought they'd want to hear, meaning that you're much less likely to be candid in other areas as well.
The best answer, of course, would have been "FUCK YOU YOU CUNT I have Tourette's Syndrome ASSLICKER!" It would allow you to scream anything you like with impunity, and they'd be worried about getting sued if they didn't hire you.
This is not people saying "We will clean the movies and then force them on to other people."
This is people saying "I would like to have the sex/swearing/violence removed from movies that I watch."
Nobody was forcing anything on to anyone else. In fact, I'd say that making it illegal for people to do this to their own media is the exact opposite of freedom.
It's because he's got that same kind of cognitive dissonance that allows people to point at SOME pages of the bible and insist that they're literal truth and yet point at other pages of their holy book and say "Oh, no, that's just not important."
What's also funny is that he aparrently thinks people need to be slaves to biology, rather than masters of themselves. Just because our biology urges us to do something doesn't mean we should. In fact, isn't that what religion is all about? Getting beyond our physicality - denying the flesh - and living a more spiritual existence? At least, that's what I've been told by some Mormons, though not quite in those words.
So, I guess a summary of why he can be on slashdot is because he's unable or unwilling to think through his views and check them for inconsistencies and hypocracy.
That's because there are at least 501 people who are willing to pay full (or double) price for a Cabbage Patch kid (well, in the 1980's...)
If you have items that are NOT in absurd demand - items that don't fly off the shelves - this makes sense. But for an item that is hugely understocked, no, you won't get people negotiating a discount, you'd get people outbidding each other.
That, coupled with the pre-sorting technique of checking to see if an individual's pants are, in fact, on fire, is a very efficient method of finding both terrorists and liars.
You seem to be talking about games or other non-productivity software. I didn't mention them, the article didn't mention them, and at no point during this particular thread did anyone mention them. I was speaking strictly about "business" or "production" applications. You're the only one to bring up that particular type of software, and it's kind of disingenuous of you to try to inject that particular type of software into the discussion and then apply my views on productivity software to something else, without allowing for modification.
I don't consider entertainment software to be similar to productivity software - I mean, other than them being "things you can do on a computer" there's not a lot of similarity between Quake and Quark, is there? So why would you assume that my opinions on one thing would be identical, without modification, to my opinions on another, different, thing? Both human beings and french fries are "things that are mostly made of carbon" - should I assume that you're a cannibal because you like to eat the odd potato based product?
I can understand that I used a general term - software - without qualifying it, but I honestly thought that the context of the discussion was qualification enough. Surely you don't really need me to specifically list everything that I am not referring to in every single case?
But, in case you do, when I use the term "pirated" here, I mean copied and procured illegally, in violation of the copyright law of many nations. I do not mean obtained by a man in a silk shirt and crimson pants, wearing an eyepatch, wielding a saber (or epee or rapier or cudgel) with/without a parrot or other exotic animal, who may or may not have a peg-leg or hook for a hand, who may have a penchant for saying "Arrrgh!" and "Matey!" I'd go on, but really, it's a lot of work spelling out the obvious - and it'd be much easier if you'd just learn to take things in their proper context.
Well, obviously you need to brush up on your mind-reading capabilities:)
I admit that it was somewhat unclear - I thought the context of the comments I made (I mean, those are snippets from longer thoughts) would fill in the blanks.
To be honest, it would never really occur to me to have such a narrow definition of "personal use" as simply "not business" (though I can see how it could be seen that way from a hasty post) - heck, the definition you cite as being the usual seems to me to be a joke of a term that would allow almost anything to be considered a "personal" use. I could see how one would be bothered by that, and I, too, would say that it's a skeevy way to approach things.
My problem with your argument is simple practicality. While you, personally, may be very ethical about how you infringe copyrights, most people aren't. (I don't like stating generalisations like that without supporting evidence, but in this case, I consider it so obvious that I'll ask you to humour me.)
Ah, but the post you were initially agreeing with - the very section you quoted from it, in fact, pointed out that people like *me* specifically were the problem. You then bitched *me* out, despite the fact that in my original post I had clearly stated how I deal with the software I pirate is, in your words, "very ethical". And then you ended with the fact that you find it a tragedy that my viewpoint - which you now say is ethical - was considered "insightful." You specifically targeted *me*. Now you're saying "most people" (and you specifically exclude me) aren't ethical. Well, I can't control THEIR behavior - I can only control mine. So, why take *me* to task (when my behavior is "very ethical" for a copyright infringer) when your actual problem is other people who don't behave like I do? That makes no sense. It would be like me bitching you (a software developer) out for the shitty products that some other company's software developers put out.
From what I gather from your post, you're really bothered by the people who pirate software and use it for personal gain (profit?) but don't want to pay for it. I, too, am bothered by those people (another point I made abundantly clear in my original post).
And, just to address the personal gain thing: learning to use something is a form of personal gain - and if I ever translate that personal gain into something that leads to financial gain, I buy the software. End result being the software company gets exactly the same amount of money from me, just at a different point in our relationship. If I don't translate the learning into something that will make money for me, well, then I'd never have bought the software in the first place - and, at least now I know what the software can do and how to use it, so I might be able to recommend it to someone else who would buy. In either case, in no way does *my* particular kind of behavior negatively impact the company.
So, if it's OK for someone to rip a bit of software to try it out, where do you draw the line? Is it fair to use it for a week without paying? A month? Is it fair to rip some pro-grade DTP software and fonts, "try" them for a couple of days by producing the one document you really want, and then not buy them because you find they don't meet your needs (since you no longer need them once you've got the "trial" document)?
I made my line VERY clear. It ceases being "ok" (in my view) the instant one tries to make a profit off of it (whatever that means). Again, you would have known that if you'd read what I actually wrote, rather than just responded by bitching me out for the actions of others - actions that I *specifically* said were not acceptable.
Addressing "profit": I include things like making something using pirated software to turn in an assignment at school. So, if I were, say, a graphic design student and used pirated software to complete a project that I turned in - that is, in my opinion, not acceptable. When I talk about "learning to use" the software, I mean exactly that - learning to use the software and producing documents that are solely for my personal use, not for any other purpose.
From what you've said, I'd say we actually have fairly similar views on this subject. Both of us agree that businesses should offer non-crippled demos of software (especially that with a non-trivial cost). Both of us agree that people who pirate software and use that software to make money or gain are unethical jerks. By all means, those people should be called on the carpet for their practices - but call *them* on the carpet rather than bitching *me* out.
Because I'd absolutely never have bought the software otherwise. The "personal use"/"learning" installs of pirated softwares allowed me to assess a tool, learn how to use it and then make an informed choice as to whether or not I would buy it.
When possible, I have obtained legitimate demo versions of software - unfortunately, the demo versions are frequently crippleware, and most usually the features they cripple are ones that it is absolutely essential to test. So, when the demo is not simply time limited, I tend to pirate to test and then make a decision.
So, what it comes down to is:
I pirate, evaluate and then some companies make money from my purchases.
vs.
I don't pirate, I don't get to evaluate, and then nobody makes money from my purchases.
But, you know, you want to get righteously indignant - I suppose that's perfectly fair.
Now, to speak directly to you:
You said:
And speaking as someone who currently works on code that ultimately goes into those ludicrously expensive 3D applications the GP poster mentioned, I'd like to thank that poster personally for ripping me off. After all, like all software developers, I am ludicrously wealthy as a result of the software I make. My employer being ripped off doesn't in any way impact the profit-sharing scheme that pays my rent and that of my equally ludicrously overpaid colleagues.
Given my argument above, do yo see that you aren't getting ripped off? And, in fact, how in my particular case, the piracy may have lead to a sale that your company otherwise would not have made? Or would you rather continue with your angsty sarcasm and ignore the realities of the situation?
You also said:
I find it tragic that the GP's position is so acceptable around here that it actually gets modded insightful.
Yes, yes - it's a real tragedy. The sad violin music is making it really hard to concentrate. I find it tragic that so many businesses that produce otherwise great software don't have any kind of useful evaluation/demo version available for people to test-drive before plonking down their money, and yet their developers want to bitch people out who often eventually become paying customers, rather than bitch to their own management who makes piracy a viable option in the first place.
I have no problem what-so-ever paying whatever the going rate is for a good and useful tool, but you can bet your ass that I have a BIG problem with buying a pig in a poke.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many decaffinated brands that taste just as good as the real thing.
(And this is probably off-topic, but what the hell)
:)
Anyone know of software that can take 2 (or more) digital pics of, say, a person's face from slightly different angles and then try to make a 3d model of it? I assume it exists, I just have no idea what it would be called.
Tried googling, and am getting a bajillion results for stuff that just isn't related.
Anyway, it would be really quite interesting to see the tiling software like this coupled with the perspective/parallax type of 3d modelling and ultra high-res photos. Obviously the hardware to do this would be... uh, intense, but it would be very cool to just snap a few shots around my place (or put a camera on a tripod, set it to automatically rotate and snap, then raise up, do it again, etc, all the way from floor to ceiling) and poof, instant 3d model of the entire place. Then let me edit the model to seperate objects - coffee cup from desk, desk from floor and wall, etc. Or hell, build a library of shapes for the software and have the computer do it automatically, calling in a human only when the shapes are too complex/confusing. Heck, could even then apply textures and reflection etc. options based on the photos, create and position light sources etc. The geeklet in me is drooling at this
Is it staffed by people who are accountable to the electorate, even if only indirectly?
If not, why the fuck should they be allowed to have control over ratings and thus possible fines? Why should a non-governmental body have -any- ability to essentially make stuff illegal?
Say I set myself up as some kind of standards body for comic books - I give them ratings based on content. Would that suddenly give me the authority to rate things in such a way that the police/civil authorities should take seriously and fine people for?
Absurd. This is completely absurd. There shouldn't be fines, the government should stay the fuck out of this entirely. Let parents handle it. It's just a bullshit hotbutton issue like gay marriage and flag burning to get the mouth breathers all hot and bothered and distract them from real issues that are going on.
Why force false-positives like this by having quotas?
The Marshall's are supposed to be looking for people who present a danger to others - forcing them to deal with stupid administrative bullshit like a quota for how many suspicious traveller's they report does nothing to make anyone safer.
It's like giving soldiers a quota of people they need to kill or something stupid like that.
If there's nobody suspicious on the flight, then doesn't that mean the system is working (or that the people who would otherwise be suspicious have figured out how to avoid detection)?
These are law enforcement officers, not salesmen. The people responsible for setting up the quota system need to be shitcanned immediately.
I won't use them because they're too sensitive, not because I'm stupid.
I go to one, I open up a grocery bag to put things I'm buying in - "WOOT WOOT RED ALERT INVALID ITEM IN BAGGING AREA!" I now have to wait for the cashier supervising all the machines to clear me.
I scan something, I lean over to put it in the bag, my purse falls off my shoulder - "WOOT WOOT RED ALERT INVALID ITEM IN BAGGING AREA!" I now have to wait for the cashier supervising all the machines to clear me.
I scan something, and a person walks past me to get out of the store - "WOOT WOOT RED ALERT INVALID ITEM IN BAGGING AREA!" Again, I must wait for the cashier supervising all the machines to clear me.
I have vegetables, they do not have a barcode. I look them up on the handy touch screen. Except, of course, there are 90 different variants of the vegetables I picked out. Did I get "organic greenbeans"? Did I get "certified organic greenbeans"? Did I get "greenbeans"? I don't remember - and, despite the fact that I *could* just pick whichever one is cheaper, I'm an honest person...
Now, I suppose if I were to practice a sort of rigid discipline when checking out with my groceries - making sure my purse cannot possibly fall into the scanner, making sure I have several bags pre-placed, making sure to write down which of the umpteen variants of each bit of produce I picked I'm buying, snarling "GET BACK!" at anyone who tries to walk behind me to leave the store - well, at that point, maybe it would be a quick operation. But I'm just not willing to learn "grocery fu" and will just go to the checkout lanes with an actual person there because even with the 90 year-old woman in front of me insisting that her hemmorhoid cream coupon should be good for half-and-half cream, it's still going to be less hassle.
At any place other than my local supermarkets (I've tried several, just to see if the self-checkout is always borked, and it is, universally, at food stores), I've been able to use the self-checkout without problem.
Just saying - it isn't always user stupidity.
I disagree.
Sit someone with no computer experience down at a prompt with a blinking cursor and they'll stare at it for a bit. Then they might tentatively push a few keys on the keyboard. Eventually they'll maybe figure out that pressing the "Enter" key will get the computer to give them a response. In exceptional cases, a user might even go so far as to type "help" into the prompt - and depending on what the OS is they may or may not get a useful answer.
Next sit someone with no computer experience down in front of a GUI. They may try pressing a few keys on the keyboard and see that it doesn't seem to give them any kind of response. Eventually they might fiddle with the mouse and discover that moving it around makes the pointer on the screen happen. The average person will realize that there are clicky things on the mouse, and may get so bold as to try moving the mouse to make the pointer go over an icon (or, with Windows, the Start button) and click it. Or they might right click somewhere and get a context menu - they may see "Help" as an option and try fiddling with that.
How do I know this? I volunteer at nursing homes teaching the residents how to use a computer to keep in touch with the outside world - email and surfing the web. The description of the first encounter with a GUI is pretty much exactly what happens each and every time I have a class - I tell my students to fiddle around with the stuff in front of them for 10 minutes, and the reason I do that is so that they feel confident that they won't break things. Usually at least one student has accessed the help function and is kind of "getting it" without any help from me.
In the past (DOS days) I volunteered teaching basic computer skills to women at a shelter, and universally the response was to just sit there completely confused until they had certain basics explained.
I won't say that GUI's are super intuitive, but they are surely MUCH more intuitive than a command line to someone who's got no exposure what-so-ever to computers.
Over consumption of ANY sugar can cause health problems. Not just high-fructose corn syrup. Over consumption of ANYTHING can cause health problems. Even things, like water, that are healthy in moderate amounts. MODERATE consumption of HFCS in people paying reasonable attention to personal health has NOT been implicated in causing any sort of health problems. HFCS is not the problem, PEOPLE WHO CONSUME TOO GODDAMN MUCH OF IT and don't otherwise take care of themselves are the problem.
..." portion of your post. It's like you just decided to criticize me for something, but couldn't be bothered to try making sense. What sort of "distance" do I need to approach the problem of gluttons overconsuming sugar from to see that it's the behavior of the consumer, not the producer, that's the problem? I'm guessing I need to view it from the perspective of someone from an alternate dimension where mercenaries hired by Pepsico hold guns to people's heads and make them drink a 12-pack of Mountain Dew each day or something. Or maybe things are different where you're from - maybe somehow "eating too much and not taking care of yourself" is a lesson that is completely novel to you and yours.
I don't honestly have any idea what the hell you're talking about with the "You need to
If you're going to respond, please do try to make some sense. Address the issues that are at discussion. Here, I'll even help you out:
1) Were you aware that eating too much could make you fat?
2) Were you aware that being too fat can cause health problems, including diabetes?
3) Do you know the meaning of the words "high" and "fructose"?
4) Who's responsibility is it to look at the ingredients list on food and make a choice as to whether or not to consume it, and in what quantity?
I really don't know how to respond to this. Your comparison is just ridiculous.
You're comparing a "hidden" ingredient that might cause problems with one that is clearly labeled. At least, I assume that's the case.
You're also still talking about "guzzling" when I said MODERATION is key. Are you seriously suggesting that consuming moderate amounts of HFCS will cause type 2 diabetes in a person who takes reasonable care of themselves? That's just absurd.
Further, ignorance when information is available easily (and information is VERY available about how overconsumption of sugary foods is not good for a person) is, in fact, the fault of the ignorant party. Sorry - I just can't buy that anyone on the planet who has ready access to sugary soft-drinks in the quantities necessary to cause a problem can possibly be unaware that overconsumption of sugary foods and a lack of self-maintenance can lead to negative consequences.
Let's now take your example:
So, if I ate these berries - WHICH EVERYONE ON THE PLANET WHO HAD ACCESS TO THEM IN ABUNDANT QUANTITIES KNEW OVEREATING THEM COULD CAUSE PROBLEMS - and then my kidneys died because I was MASSIVELY OVERCONSUMING THEM AND NOT OTHERWISE WATCHING OUT FOR MY HEALTH - and I spent the rest of my life in misery, then yes, it would in fact be fair for people to say that it was my own damn fault. As to your "insidious kidney poison" - enh, I've heard nothing to tell me that in moderate (a can or 2 a day of soda) amounts HFCS is a toxin.
You show me peer reviewed studies that indicate MODERATE consumption of HFCS products in a person who otherwise eats a balanced diet and gets adequate exercise causes problems and I might change my mind. But right now you've given me no reason to think that people who get sick from this stuff have anyone but themselves to blame for over consuming.
At the same time, I understand the wisdom in creating hybrids, but lets please not mix plants and animals, it's obviously not right.
It isn't obvious to me. I'm no geneticist, so please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know that there's any stark dividing line between what is a "plant" gene and what is an "animal" gene. From my understanding, bunches of my genetic code is actually viral in origin - neither plant NOR animal, nor, strictly speaking, even alive.
If you're saying it's obviously wrong from a moral perspective, I'll likewise have to admit that it isn't obvious. I'm not a religious person, but I'm certainly not some sort of amoral monster, but I just don't see anything wrong with the notion of mixing (if they even exist) "plant" genes and "animal" genes, especially if something very useful comes out of the mix and harms no one. Actually, it seems like it would be wrong to _not_ do it if it helps some and harms none.
No one will blame the soft drink makers.
Why should they? People need to take responsibility for themselves and their choices.
If you guzzle sugar-laden crap - whether through lack of self-restraint or ignorance, that's on you, not on the people that make the stuff.
I should have been more precise -
:)
No, you're right that it isn't a flaw in your experiment as an experiment, but it is a flaw (not yours) in the sense that any negative results would still not be persuasive to the people who'd need persuading. So I'm speaking about a flaw in what the experiment would be meant to achieve on a larger picture. Or a flaw in goofy people
Personally, I think such an experiment would be fascinating - not just for the outcome, but for what it would mean to even be able to come up with the definition of a positive result. I don't know that it would necessarily lead to the creationists running rampant, however: recall that recent study demonstrating that praying for someone might actually harm them, and note the resounding silence from the fundamentalist camp. Science took them seriously and tested their claims and it came out all bad for them - so they pretend like it never happened.
The U.S. government financed development of 'remote viewing' for over 20 years. It's said that the spooks hated the program, but because they got results, right from the start, they allowed it to continue until the soviet union broke apart.
Said by whom? What evidence do those saying it have?
I can say that trillions and trillions of gnomes disassemble me atom by atom, clean the atoms, and then put me back together again a billion times a second, but that doesn't make it true.
The fact that the U.S. government financed something doesn't mean a thing. The government funds a LOT of things that don't pan out - so I've never been persuaded by the argument that they wouldn't fund it if there weren't something there. Sorry, but they flush money down the toilet all the time.
I read the stuff at the end of your post. I've read a lot of similar things in the past, too. People make claims, but they haven't backed it up with any evidence. "It has been circulated" is not "here are empirical results that can be duplicated by anyone else under the same conditions." It's just fluff. You can shake your little fist and insist that scientists are suppressing ideas they disagree with, but until you can back it up with *any* actual evidence - not just some crank calling a talk-show - science will ignore you.
For the record, it has been well circulated that the Trilateral Commision and the Illuminatus and the Stonecutters rule EVERYTHING. I mean, lots of people believe that, so it MUST be true. Also, one time, on the radio, a guy called in and he said he was scared for his life to say things, but he said that he was a high degree Mason and THEY ruled the world TOO! He said it was the only way to explain that Steve Gutenberg had a career, which makes so much sense! So it must be true.
... a fraud
Really? Randi's made claims for which he has absolutely no evidence what-so-ever? People have demonstrated categorically that what he claims is false? Wow, there must be a WEALTH of information to support that assertion - I mean, he's THE public skeptic, so surely if he's been discredited you'll be able to provide a link or 3?
My favorite part of your post is:
He's a very smart man. "I only work with scientists" (he's now retired). He'd prepared some notes, and held up his copies of Scientific American and other mainstream sources...
Nothing like a little rented credibility! I can hold up a copy of a magazine and read from notes, too. It doesn't say a thing about my intelligence, nor about the veracity of what I'm saying. If my audience, however, is easily fooled by simple props, it might say something about their intelligence, however...
And here's the flaw with your suggested experiment:
"Nuh uh, the designer made it so that the background radiation doesn't seem like it was made by intelligence. He's so smart!"
The problem with the watch argument is that people aren't finding watches, but they're insisting that the not-watches are evidence that there must be a watchmaker. "Look, a coconut tree! Watchmakers like coconuts, so therefore the tree must be here so he can eat!"
Even a negative result is still taken as proof to these people. We can't prove that there ISN'T an intelligent designer, so they insist that there *must* be one.
Thank MOTHERFUCK you for DOOGIE HOWSWER MD the info! SHITSKID
That's not a very good answer - it reveals a bunch of negatives that are likely deal-breakers:
1) You're a perfectionist, which means you may find it difficult to handle mistakes made by co-workers.
2) You're a perfectionist, which means you may find it difficult working on a team with people who are not perfectionists.
3) You're an admitted perfectionist, which makes it likely that you will attempt to cover up any mistakes you do make, rather than admit them.
4) You're a perfectionist and you take extra time to try to accomplish a task, rather than doing it as well as it needs to be done and having it in on time. Most employers don't expect or actually want perfection - they know it isn't attainable.
5) You're full of shit and just told the interviewer what you thought they'd want to hear, meaning that you're much less likely to be candid in other areas as well.
The best answer, of course, would have been "FUCK YOU YOU CUNT I have Tourette's Syndrome ASSLICKER!" It would allow you to scream anything you like with impunity, and they'd be worried about getting sued if they didn't hire you.
The pen sitting on your desk has energy, but I don't see you jumping to extract energy from it.
Of course you don't - my webcam is off.
Your basis is so wrong it isn't even funny.
This is not people saying "We will clean the movies and then force them on to other people."
This is people saying "I would like to have the sex/swearing/violence removed from movies that I watch."
Nobody was forcing anything on to anyone else. In fact, I'd say that making it illegal for people to do this to their own media is the exact opposite of freedom.
It's because he's got that same kind of cognitive dissonance that allows people to point at SOME pages of the bible and insist that they're literal truth and yet point at other pages of their holy book and say "Oh, no, that's just not important."
What's also funny is that he aparrently thinks people need to be slaves to biology, rather than masters of themselves. Just because our biology urges us to do something doesn't mean we should. In fact, isn't that what religion is all about? Getting beyond our physicality - denying the flesh - and living a more spiritual existence? At least, that's what I've been told by some Mormons, though not quite in those words.
So, I guess a summary of why he can be on slashdot is because he's unable or unwilling to think through his views and check them for inconsistencies and hypocracy.
That's because there are at least 501 people who are willing to pay full (or double) price for a Cabbage Patch kid (well, in the 1980's...)
If you have items that are NOT in absurd demand - items that don't fly off the shelves - this makes sense. But for an item that is hugely understocked, no, you won't get people negotiating a discount, you'd get people outbidding each other.
Supply and demand.
That, coupled with the pre-sorting technique of checking to see if an individual's pants are, in fact, on fire, is a very efficient method of finding both terrorists and liars.
You seem to be talking about games or other non-productivity software. I didn't mention them, the article didn't mention them, and at no point during this particular thread did anyone mention them. I was speaking strictly about "business" or "production" applications. You're the only one to bring up that particular type of software, and it's kind of disingenuous of you to try to inject that particular type of software into the discussion and then apply my views on productivity software to something else, without allowing for modification.
I don't consider entertainment software to be similar to productivity software - I mean, other than them being "things you can do on a computer" there's not a lot of similarity between Quake and Quark, is there? So why would you assume that my opinions on one thing would be identical, without modification, to my opinions on another, different, thing? Both human beings and french fries are "things that are mostly made of carbon" - should I assume that you're a cannibal because you like to eat the odd potato based product?
I can understand that I used a general term - software - without qualifying it, but I honestly thought that the context of the discussion was qualification enough. Surely you don't really need me to specifically list everything that I am not referring to in every single case?
But, in case you do, when I use the term "pirated" here, I mean copied and procured illegally, in violation of the copyright law of many nations. I do not mean obtained by a man in a silk shirt and crimson pants, wearing an eyepatch, wielding a saber (or epee or rapier or cudgel) with/without a parrot or other exotic animal, who may or may not have a peg-leg or hook for a hand, who may have a penchant for saying "Arrrgh!" and "Matey!" I'd go on, but really, it's a lot of work spelling out the obvious - and it'd be much easier if you'd just learn to take things in their proper context.
Well, obviously you need to brush up on your mind-reading capabilities :)
I admit that it was somewhat unclear - I thought the context of the comments I made (I mean, those are snippets from longer thoughts) would fill in the blanks.
To be honest, it would never really occur to me to have such a narrow definition of "personal use" as simply "not business" (though I can see how it could be seen that way from a hasty post) - heck, the definition you cite as being the usual seems to me to be a joke of a term that would allow almost anything to be considered a "personal" use. I could see how one would be bothered by that, and I, too, would say that it's a skeevy way to approach things.
My problem with your argument is simple practicality. While you, personally, may be very ethical about how you infringe copyrights, most people aren't. (I don't like stating generalisations like that without supporting evidence, but in this case, I consider it so obvious that I'll ask you to humour me.)
Ah, but the post you were initially agreeing with - the very section you quoted from it, in fact, pointed out that people like *me* specifically were the problem. You then bitched *me* out, despite the fact that in my original post I had clearly stated how I deal with the software I pirate is, in your words, "very ethical". And then you ended with the fact that you find it a tragedy that my viewpoint - which you now say is ethical - was considered "insightful." You specifically targeted *me*. Now you're saying "most people" (and you specifically exclude me) aren't ethical. Well, I can't control THEIR behavior - I can only control mine. So, why take *me* to task (when my behavior is "very ethical" for a copyright infringer) when your actual problem is other people who don't behave like I do? That makes no sense. It would be like me bitching you (a software developer) out for the shitty products that some other company's software developers put out.
From what I gather from your post, you're really bothered by the people who pirate software and use it for personal gain (profit?) but don't want to pay for it. I, too, am bothered by those people (another point I made abundantly clear in my original post).
And, just to address the personal gain thing: learning to use something is a form of personal gain - and if I ever translate that personal gain into something that leads to financial gain, I buy the software. End result being the software company gets exactly the same amount of money from me, just at a different point in our relationship. If I don't translate the learning into something that will make money for me, well, then I'd never have bought the software in the first place - and, at least now I know what the software can do and how to use it, so I might be able to recommend it to someone else who would buy. In either case, in no way does *my* particular kind of behavior negatively impact the company.
So, if it's OK for someone to rip a bit of software to try it out, where do you draw the line? Is it fair to use it for a week without paying? A month? Is it fair to rip some pro-grade DTP software and fonts, "try" them for a couple of days by producing the one document you really want, and then not buy them because you find they don't meet your needs (since you no longer need them once you've got the "trial" document)?
I made my line VERY clear. It ceases being "ok" (in my view) the instant one tries to make a profit off of it (whatever that means). Again, you would have known that if you'd read what I actually wrote, rather than just responded by bitching me out for the actions of others - actions that I *specifically* said were not acceptable.
Addressing "profit": I include things like making something using pirated software to turn in an assignment at school. So, if I were, say, a graphic design student and used pirated software to complete a project that I turned in - that is, in my opinion, not acceptable. When I talk about "learning to use" the software, I mean exactly that - learning to use the software and producing documents that are solely for my personal use, not for any other purpose.
From what you've said, I'd say we actually have fairly similar views on this subject. Both of us agree that businesses should offer non-crippled demos of software (especially that with a non-trivial cost). Both of us agree that people who pirate software and use that software to make money or gain are unethical jerks. By all means, those people should be called on the carpet for their practices - but call *them* on the carpet rather than bitching *me* out.
I'll tell you why I feel it is OK:
Because I'd absolutely never have bought the software otherwise. The "personal use"/"learning" installs of pirated softwares allowed me to assess a tool, learn how to use it and then make an informed choice as to whether or not I would buy it.
When possible, I have obtained legitimate demo versions of software - unfortunately, the demo versions are frequently crippleware, and most usually the features they cripple are ones that it is absolutely essential to test. So, when the demo is not simply time limited, I tend to pirate to test and then make a decision.
So, what it comes down to is:
I pirate, evaluate and then some companies make money from my purchases.
vs.
I don't pirate, I don't get to evaluate, and then nobody makes money from my purchases.
But, you know, you want to get righteously indignant - I suppose that's perfectly fair.
Now, to speak directly to you:
You said:
And speaking as someone who currently works on code that ultimately goes into those ludicrously expensive 3D applications the GP poster mentioned, I'd like to thank that poster personally for ripping me off. After all, like all software developers, I am ludicrously wealthy as a result of the software I make. My employer being ripped off doesn't in any way impact the profit-sharing scheme that pays my rent and that of my equally ludicrously overpaid colleagues.
Given my argument above, do yo see that you aren't getting ripped off? And, in fact, how in my particular case, the piracy may have lead to a sale that your company otherwise would not have made? Or would you rather continue with your angsty sarcasm and ignore the realities of the situation?
You also said:
I find it tragic that the GP's position is so acceptable around here that it actually gets modded insightful.
Yes, yes - it's a real tragedy. The sad violin music is making it really hard to concentrate. I find it tragic that so many businesses that produce otherwise great software don't have any kind of useful evaluation/demo version available for people to test-drive before plonking down their money, and yet their developers want to bitch people out who often eventually become paying customers, rather than bitch to their own management who makes piracy a viable option in the first place.
I have no problem what-so-ever paying whatever the going rate is for a good and useful tool, but you can bet your ass that I have a BIG problem with buying a pig in a poke.