Well, if I hurt them then I'm likely going to end up in court regardless of whether it was their own fault. I could hit other cars trying to avoid cyclists. You can't really say that I'm consequence-free because I'm in a car.
Well, if FOSS wipes out some other technology, should I complain that FOSS is destroying my career? Or should I be responsible for keeping my own skills marketable? Me, I figured "Hey I should learn some of this Linux stuff" so I installed Ubuntu on a spare machine and made a personal server. If Linux wiped out Windows tomorrow, I'm confident I'd be able to find a new job.
Off topic again. No problem. I wanted to give you a chance to explain before the trolls came in. I don't see eye-to-eye with you on a lot of things but flaming people doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion.
I wouldn't call a recruiter that recruits programmers for languages they're not experienced in morons. Maybe they're one of the few recruiters who realizes that a good developer can learn new technologies. And thats my point.
No technology lasts forever in its current state. Even the Linux now is different from the Linux 10 years ago. Good developers and admins keep learning and adapt. Bad ones don't. If you cannot work in the IT industry because the technology you learned is no longer used, then you destroyed your own career, not anyone else. You're responsible for making yourself marketable.
Well, thats kind-of my point. Theres no reason for you to believe that the technology you're working on will last forever. Thats why you have to keep up with the latest technologies.
If Linux wiped out Microsoft tomorrow and everyone dropped.Net like a bad habit, would you blame Linus for destroying my career as a.Net developer? Theres lots of people who would. We just had a story on Slashdot about how FOSS was making it hard to market proprietary development tools. Me? I'd just switch to Java, or PHP, or Python, or any of a myriad of technologies. I'm not betting my career on any one technology. Its my responsibility to keep myself marketable, not Microsoft, Sun, or any other company that puts out a development platform.
Now a lot of those companies lost out because of unethical business practices, and that is bad. But its not the same as Microsoft destroying their careers. If they were any good, they're probably still in the software business.
Bad advertising annoys the people targeted. Honestly I can't say I've noticed or cared about Microsoft advertising, so I'd be hard pressed to say its annoying.
I'm not sure how Microsoft is destroying peoples' careers. I mean, I'm a.Net developer and get offers for Java, C++, etc positions, so I can't imagine how Microsoft could kill someones' career unless they do not keep up with the latest technologies.
Advertisements aren't squandering money either. It one way you generate public knowledge and interest in your product, which translates into sales. And I'm not sure that I'd put advertising in the same breath as corruption unless your advertisement strategy is unethical.
You're modded Flaimebait but I kinda have to agree. When driving I have no problem respecting cyclists so long as they follow the rules of the road and act like a vehicle. That means stopping where a car would stop, staying in the middle of your lane, traveling at a reasonable speed (10-15 MPH is not unreasonable for a bicycle), not weaving around traffic, and so on. If I can treat you like a car, then its no problem. I just have to drive slower until I can pass. Most cyclists on the street tend to follow this rule.
Unfortunately, you occasionally run across the guy who wants it both ways. They'll veer to the side of the road and try to pass stopped or slow moving traffic in the same lane. They'll run red lights. They don't stop at stop signs. They get a whole bunch of people riding side-by-side at 5 mph so they can have a leisurely chat while cars pile up behind them (making it dangerous to pass). I hate these cyclists. If they want to do these things they need to ride on the sidewalks and risk getting the ticket. Using the roadways is a responsibility, not a right.
I can understand it being scary riding in the middle of traffic on a bicycle. I live in Chicago and it scares the shit out of me (which is why I don't do it). So I'm a bit lenient on cyclists. But at the same time it can be frustrating if you come across a douchebag who wants you to treat him super special and waive the traffic rules for him because he's riding a bike. Luckily I don't own a car anymore, so I only have to deal with this a couple of times a year.
So tip-of-the-hat to you responsible cyclists. I have no problem sharing the road with you. Wag-of-the-finger to the douchebags who think that their bicycles give them the right to ignore traffic rules (and make things dangerous for the rest of us. Learn to ride.
I bought an iPhone at the $400 price, and I don't feel like a sucker. I bought it because I wanted the features that the iPhone had. I wanted a portable media player with a large screen for video that integrated with the software I was already using for my music (iTunes). I wanted to be able to use my gmail account with it. I wanted to do IM (Meebo.com). I wanted a good UI (I hate the Windows Mobile UI). $400 was pretty steep, but in the end I felt it was worth it.
I don't feel bitter at all about this. I knew when I bought the first iPhone that there would be another version a year or so down the line. It was just common sense. But I didn't want to wait, so I paid a premium. Thats not a big deal for me.
If I can get one for $200 with my current plan, though, I'd be really tempted to get the 3G.
I was more referring to the ones I know in person. Though I do have Chinese American friends who are pretty critical of the government. I was also more referring to vehement opposition to anything remotely critical of the Chinese government. I can understand being hesitant to criticize the Chinese government within China, but at the same time arguing with critics is more pro-government than I'm-afraid-of-my-government (which would probably entail not saying anything).
China has a lot to be proud about. They're doing an admirable job building an economy and improving the average life of their citizens. But at the same time, human rights abuses should not be overlooked. Having pride in ones' own country is fine. But being proud of ones' country means that you also have high expectations of it. I'm disappointed in my country's behavior because I am proud of it, as strange and illogical as that seems.
I don't see why we should hold back on criticizing a country that is not our own. No-one says that Europeans do not have a right to criticize America. Likewise, Americans will criticize Europe. Plenty of people criticize Russia. Western nations are not exempt from criticism, and the "Its not your country" excuse has been, time and time again, put down as a poor excuse to silence criticism. I will not extend favoritism to China in this regard.
Lets not forget that a lot of the "rah rah China" guys tend to be pretty damn critical of America. Turn-about is fair play. We will not improve each other by pretending everything is right with our countries. I certainly hope that Europe and Asia continue to criticize my government. Its important for our growth.
Because the posts in question where I noticed this claimed that they were Chinese. The people I met in person were, in fact Chinese. It is not a huge logical gap to think that people defending the Chinese government are, at least in part, Chinese. Whats your point?
I've noticed that theres a small contingent of very nationalistic Chinese Slashdot users who get butthurt whenever anyone says anything remotely negative about the Chinese government. Usually its with a "OMG Why do you hate us so much!?" sort of mentality that I previously thought was exclusive to blindly patriotic Americans (yes I'm American). Thats probably who's doing the down-modding.
I'm a bit amazed at how hesitant a lot of Chinese guys I know are to say anything remotely negative about the Chinese government and get really upset if you insinuate that its not all fluffy bunnies and flowers with the government. But then again I'm used to pretty much everyone complaining about my government.
I guess my point is that I didn't see how it was obviously that he isn't tech-savvy apart from his policies. His sucky policies is what shows him as not being tech-savvy, not his age. Don't mind me, I'm just feeling especially pedantic today.;)
Just the fact that he expects the "free market" to take care of the broadband companies makes his understanding of tech issues laughable.
The problem is that people take what Bush said too literally. When he said that God told him to go to war with Iraq, he meant it in the way that way too many so-called Christians use it. That is, he had an idea, wanted to do that idea, and decided that since he wants to do it, obviously God wanted him to do it too.
Bush used religion as an excuse to beat the war drum. Most of the Christians I know felt he was full of shit back then, and they sure as hell know he's full of shit now. But then, I don't believe Bush is really religious at all.
Do you really think that John McCain even reads email on a screen? Or isn't he just one of thousands of decrepit old guys who have their emails printed out for someone to read to them.
I don't know and I'd rather not speculate.
Which of McCain or Obama is more likely to say "newfangled"?
To which of these two people, the guy who remembers silent movies in theaters firsthand, or the guy who went to Columbia University while the kermit terminal app was being developed there, is going to recognize technology opportunities and pitfalls?
People who are old do not necessarily stop learning. People who are young, or go to University, are not necessarily technically adept. There were plenty of luddites at my University, at least.
And which is the guy who's letting an AT&T lobbyist run his campaign, because he doesn't know (or care, really) the first thing about technology?
This is the only argument of real substance. Based on the article, his tech policies are bad because they're bad. I'd rather not assume that because he is old he must be out of touch. I'd rather look at his policies. And from what I can see, his policies suck.
Er no, each candidate had one sentence and then a large, several-paragraph essay analyzing them, usually indicating the source and circumstances that supported that sentence. Those huge paragraphs had information on all three. Looks like you just took a causal glance at it.
Anti-american church? I researched the context of the anti-american quotes of Wright, and in-context they seemed critical of American policies, which is pretty damn American in my book. I don't know about you, but we criticize our government and our country here. Thats because we love it and want it to get better. Now, the AIDs quotes were pretty nutty, so theres that, but a handfull of quotes (most taken out of context) over the span of 20 years doesn't indicate a church thats particularly nutty. I'm pretty sure I could find some pretty stupid stuff my former pastors have said too.
Then again I'm not a giant pussy who thinks that someone who isn't all "rah rah America rah rah!" all the time while waving the flag to the stars and stripes is somehow anti-American. I value honest criticism, and being open to honest criticism.
My analysis was based on whether the technology had advanced to an end-product or production ready system, not whether the concept exists on Wikipedia or if it was being researched. Plenty of things have been in research despite technology not being available for a practical implementation. Lets go over this.
Translating telephones allow people to speak to each other in different languages. [No.]
Agree. [No]
Machines designed to transcribe speech into computer text allow deaf people to understand spoken words. [Yes.]
Agree. [Yes]
Exoskeletal, robotic leg prostheses allow the paraplegic to walk. [Y e s.]
All still in research, not production models. Not available through insurance to handicapped. I've never seen one outside of a lab. Disagree. [No]
Telephone calls are routinely screened by intelligent answering machines that ask questions to determine the call's nature and priority. [Y e s.]
Predictive dialers are not what are being talked about. They are used to automate calling out for telemarketers. Computer telephony integration is also not what is being talked about. Its used to manage and automate telephone systems.
Skills based routing is the only one that is on-topic (due to actually being a technology to route callers to agents), and I did mention it in my post. The caveat is that in modern routing systems, this is not done intelligently. When I dial in to one of these systems, I am given a menu (For xxx press 1, For xxx press 2,...) and I am making the decisions about the nature of my call and its priority through my input.
When Kurzweil said that telephone calls are "screened and intelligently routed", I took that to mean that the burden of determining the nature of the call was on the computer. As in, it would ask me what my problem is, I would say so, and it would analyze what I said and route me. I've only seen one system that tried to do this (Comcast) and it simply didn't work. So, I disagree with this on the grounds that telephone routing systems are not intelligent. Disagree [No]
"Cybernetic chauffeurs" can drive cars for humans and can be retrofitted into existing cars. They work by communicating with other vehicles and with sensors embedded along the roads. [Yes.]
Darpa challenge is research, not production ready. Prometheus was research and not production ready. I can't tell if 2getthere is anything more than a research prototype. ARGO is marked as research. None of these communicate with other vehicles. I cannot go out and buy any of these driverless cars, and I can't find whether any have been road certified. So, for now, disagree. There's still 2 years for them to get out on the road for his prediction to be true. Disagree. [No]
The classroom is dominated by computers. Intelligent courseware that can tailor itself to each student by recognizing their strengths and weaknesses exists. Media technology allows students to manipulate and interact with virtual depictions of the systems and personalities they are studying. [No.]
Agree. [No]
A small number of highly skilled people dominates the entire production sector. Tailoring of products for individuals is common. [No.]
Agreed. [No]
Drugs are designed and tested in simulations that mimic the human body. [Yes.]
Your link is a generic Wikipedia article on computer simulations. I believe I've mentioned things like protein folding, but the quote does not say "Computer simulations become viable." It says "Drugs are designed and tested in simulations that mimic the human body." Computer simulations are used to help design drugs I believe, but animal and human testings are still
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if I hurt them then I'm likely going to end up in court regardless of whether it was their own fault. I could hit other cars trying to avoid cyclists. You can't really say that I'm consequence-free because I'm in a car.
I don't think a foreign country would risk putting a former president in front of a war crime tribunal, even if its as unpopular a president as Bush.
Thats a good idea. We should call it the War Powers Resolution.
Well, if FOSS wipes out some other technology, should I complain that FOSS is destroying my career? Or should I be responsible for keeping my own skills marketable? Me, I figured "Hey I should learn some of this Linux stuff" so I installed Ubuntu on a spare machine and made a personal server. If Linux wiped out Windows tomorrow, I'm confident I'd be able to find a new job.
Off topic again. No problem. I wanted to give you a chance to explain before the trolls came in. I don't see eye-to-eye with you on a lot of things but flaming people doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion.
I wouldn't call a recruiter that recruits programmers for languages they're not experienced in morons. Maybe they're one of the few recruiters who realizes that a good developer can learn new technologies. And thats my point.
No technology lasts forever in its current state. Even the Linux now is different from the Linux 10 years ago. Good developers and admins keep learning and adapt. Bad ones don't. If you cannot work in the IT industry because the technology you learned is no longer used, then you destroyed your own career, not anyone else. You're responsible for making yourself marketable.
Well, thats kind-of my point. Theres no reason for you to believe that the technology you're working on will last forever. Thats why you have to keep up with the latest technologies.
.Net like a bad habit, would you blame Linus for destroying my career as a .Net developer? Theres lots of people who would. We just had a story on Slashdot about how FOSS was making it hard to market proprietary development tools. Me? I'd just switch to Java, or PHP, or Python, or any of a myriad of technologies. I'm not betting my career on any one technology. Its my responsibility to keep myself marketable, not Microsoft, Sun, or any other company that puts out a development platform.
If Linux wiped out Microsoft tomorrow and everyone dropped
Now a lot of those companies lost out because of unethical business practices, and that is bad. But its not the same as Microsoft destroying their careers. If they were any good, they're probably still in the software business.
Bad advertising annoys the people targeted. Honestly I can't say I've noticed or cared about Microsoft advertising, so I'd be hard pressed to say its annoying.
I'm not sure how Microsoft is destroying peoples' careers. I mean, I'm a .Net developer and get offers for Java, C++, etc positions, so I can't imagine how Microsoft could kill someones' career unless they do not keep up with the latest technologies.
Advertisements aren't squandering money either. It one way you generate public knowledge and interest in your product, which translates into sales. And I'm not sure that I'd put advertising in the same breath as corruption unless your advertisement strategy is unethical.
Off-topic and no offense, but why did you repost one of the links in the summary?
You're modded Flaimebait but I kinda have to agree. When driving I have no problem respecting cyclists so long as they follow the rules of the road and act like a vehicle. That means stopping where a car would stop, staying in the middle of your lane, traveling at a reasonable speed (10-15 MPH is not unreasonable for a bicycle), not weaving around traffic, and so on. If I can treat you like a car, then its no problem. I just have to drive slower until I can pass. Most cyclists on the street tend to follow this rule.
Unfortunately, you occasionally run across the guy who wants it both ways. They'll veer to the side of the road and try to pass stopped or slow moving traffic in the same lane. They'll run red lights. They don't stop at stop signs. They get a whole bunch of people riding side-by-side at 5 mph so they can have a leisurely chat while cars pile up behind them (making it dangerous to pass). I hate these cyclists. If they want to do these things they need to ride on the sidewalks and risk getting the ticket. Using the roadways is a responsibility, not a right.
I can understand it being scary riding in the middle of traffic on a bicycle. I live in Chicago and it scares the shit out of me (which is why I don't do it). So I'm a bit lenient on cyclists. But at the same time it can be frustrating if you come across a douchebag who wants you to treat him super special and waive the traffic rules for him because he's riding a bike. Luckily I don't own a car anymore, so I only have to deal with this a couple of times a year.
So tip-of-the-hat to you responsible cyclists. I have no problem sharing the road with you. Wag-of-the-finger to the douchebags who think that their bicycles give them the right to ignore traffic rules (and make things dangerous for the rest of us. Learn to ride.
I bought an iPhone at the $400 price, and I don't feel like a sucker. I bought it because I wanted the features that the iPhone had. I wanted a portable media player with a large screen for video that integrated with the software I was already using for my music (iTunes). I wanted to be able to use my gmail account with it. I wanted to do IM (Meebo.com). I wanted a good UI (I hate the Windows Mobile UI). $400 was pretty steep, but in the end I felt it was worth it.
I don't feel bitter at all about this. I knew when I bought the first iPhone that there would be another version a year or so down the line. It was just common sense. But I didn't want to wait, so I paid a premium. Thats not a big deal for me.
If I can get one for $200 with my current plan, though, I'd be really tempted to get the 3G.
So its a lot better working environment there now, then?
Sounds kinda like my current job. Maybe I'll just pass if they decide to give me a second interview... Thanks for the info.
Any reason why? I had an interview with them so I'm curious.
I was more referring to the ones I know in person. Though I do have Chinese American friends who are pretty critical of the government. I was also more referring to vehement opposition to anything remotely critical of the Chinese government. I can understand being hesitant to criticize the Chinese government within China, but at the same time arguing with critics is more pro-government than I'm-afraid-of-my-government (which would probably entail not saying anything).
China has a lot to be proud about. They're doing an admirable job building an economy and improving the average life of their citizens. But at the same time, human rights abuses should not be overlooked. Having pride in ones' own country is fine. But being proud of ones' country means that you also have high expectations of it. I'm disappointed in my country's behavior because I am proud of it, as strange and illogical as that seems.
I don't see why we should hold back on criticizing a country that is not our own. No-one says that Europeans do not have a right to criticize America. Likewise, Americans will criticize Europe. Plenty of people criticize Russia. Western nations are not exempt from criticism, and the "Its not your country" excuse has been, time and time again, put down as a poor excuse to silence criticism. I will not extend favoritism to China in this regard.
Lets not forget that a lot of the "rah rah China" guys tend to be pretty damn critical of America. Turn-about is fair play. We will not improve each other by pretending everything is right with our countries. I certainly hope that Europe and Asia continue to criticize my government. Its important for our growth.
Because the posts in question where I noticed this claimed that they were Chinese. The people I met in person were, in fact Chinese. It is not a huge logical gap to think that people defending the Chinese government are, at least in part, Chinese. Whats your point?
I've noticed that theres a small contingent of very nationalistic Chinese Slashdot users who get butthurt whenever anyone says anything remotely negative about the Chinese government. Usually its with a "OMG Why do you hate us so much!?" sort of mentality that I previously thought was exclusive to blindly patriotic Americans (yes I'm American). Thats probably who's doing the down-modding.
I'm a bit amazed at how hesitant a lot of Chinese guys I know are to say anything remotely negative about the Chinese government and get really upset if you insinuate that its not all fluffy bunnies and flowers with the government. But then again I'm used to pretty much everyone complaining about my government.
I guess my point is that I didn't see how it was obviously that he isn't tech-savvy apart from his policies. His sucky policies is what shows him as not being tech-savvy, not his age. Don't mind me, I'm just feeling especially pedantic today. ;)
Just the fact that he expects the "free market" to take care of the broadband companies makes his understanding of tech issues laughable.
The problem is that people take what Bush said too literally. When he said that God told him to go to war with Iraq, he meant it in the way that way too many so-called Christians use it. That is, he had an idea, wanted to do that idea, and decided that since he wants to do it, obviously God wanted him to do it too.
Bush used religion as an excuse to beat the war drum. Most of the Christians I know felt he was full of shit back then, and they sure as hell know he's full of shit now. But then, I don't believe Bush is really religious at all.
I don't know and I'd rather not speculate.
People who are old do not necessarily stop learning. People who are young, or go to University, are not necessarily technically adept. There were plenty of luddites at my University, at least.
This is the only argument of real substance. Based on the article, his tech policies are bad because they're bad. I'd rather not assume that because he is old he must be out of touch. I'd rather look at his policies. And from what I can see, his policies suck.
Er no, each candidate had one sentence and then a large, several-paragraph essay analyzing them, usually indicating the source and circumstances that supported that sentence. Those huge paragraphs had information on all three. Looks like you just took a causal glance at it.
Anti-american church? I researched the context of the anti-american quotes of Wright, and in-context they seemed critical of American policies, which is pretty damn American in my book. I don't know about you, but we criticize our government and our country here. Thats because we love it and want it to get better. Now, the AIDs quotes were pretty nutty, so theres that, but a handfull of quotes (most taken out of context) over the span of 20 years doesn't indicate a church thats particularly nutty. I'm pretty sure I could find some pretty stupid stuff my former pastors have said too.
Then again I'm not a giant pussy who thinks that someone who isn't all "rah rah America rah rah!" all the time while waving the flag to the stars and stripes is somehow anti-American. I value honest criticism, and being open to honest criticism.
What is a good intro book for Kurzweil's ideas?
My mistake. Too bad I can't edit the posts. I even Googled it before posting too.
My analysis was based on whether the technology had advanced to an end-product or production ready system, not whether the concept exists on Wikipedia or if it was being researched. Plenty of things have been in research despite technology not being available for a practical implementation. Lets go over this.
Agree. [No]
Agree. [Yes]
All still in research, not production models. Not available through insurance to handicapped. I've never seen one outside of a lab. Disagree. [No]
Predictive dialers are not what are being talked about. They are used to automate calling out for telemarketers. Computer telephony integration is also not what is being talked about. Its used to manage and automate telephone systems.
Skills based routing is the only one that is on-topic (due to actually being a technology to route callers to agents), and I did mention it in my post. The caveat is that in modern routing systems, this is not done intelligently. When I dial in to one of these systems, I am given a menu (For xxx press 1, For xxx press 2, ...) and I am making the decisions about the nature of my call and its priority through my input.
When Kurzweil said that telephone calls are "screened and intelligently routed", I took that to mean that the burden of determining the nature of the call was on the computer. As in, it would ask me what my problem is, I would say so, and it would analyze what I said and route me. I've only seen one system that tried to do this (Comcast) and it simply didn't work. So, I disagree with this on the grounds that telephone routing systems are not intelligent. Disagree [No]
Darpa challenge is research, not production ready. Prometheus was research and not production ready. I can't tell if 2getthere is anything more than a research prototype. ARGO is marked as research. None of these communicate with other vehicles. I cannot go out and buy any of these driverless cars, and I can't find whether any have been road certified. So, for now, disagree. There's still 2 years for them to get out on the road for his prediction to be true. Disagree. [No]
Agree. [No]
Agreed. [No]
Your link is a generic Wikipedia article on computer simulations. I believe I've mentioned things like protein folding, but the quote does not say "Computer simulations become viable." It says "Drugs are designed and tested in simulations that mimic the human body." Computer simulations are used to help design drugs I believe, but animal and human testings are still