Lord, this article's biased. They need educated people, not just "people". People who know about the products they're hired to make, or are making themselves. I imagine that many people with this knowledge would be, today, foreigners. Add the needs together and I'm sure you'll have quite a number.
This article does not at all put into a proper perspective (and context) the industries 'grunt work' done by the *cough* not-as-priviledged. In fact, it blurs the lines to make things look "not so bad'.
I really don't think this "look at the odd foreigners" article is anything near in-depth enough for Slashdot. There is none of the neon in Akihabara that the authour attributed it with his description of the rest of Tokyo - only around the central station. There is where you'll find, granted, electric stuff, but only "home appliance" wares such as (mostly "last-year's technology") microwaves, televisions, radiators, fans, etc, as well as the stands of those who have "home factories" (really) that make light-bulbs and power cords and other small electric accessories. It's behind the station where the 'geek spot' starts - but it is limited to around ten streets criss-crossing two main 500-metre long arteries. There you can find old computer stuff, granted, but what's different than here is that only "hobbyists" buy it because it's almost as expensive as the off-the-shelf new wares you'd buy, say, at Yodobashi Camera.
In fact Akihabara's fame is for its old electronics, and the people who go there, though they may be reclusive hobbyists, are rarely of the "otaku" ranks of which the article's authour speaks. Most otaku's want the latest computer, the latest manga, the latest hand-held gadget just like most every other electonics-avid consumer.
Lastly, the geeks of which the authour speeks do not live in Akihabara, they only go there. As the author proves himself with his...
"Most people think we're weird," said Yamagata, the college student. "That's why we come here."
*NIX rules Server World, and has since I while. I don't see that changing overnight.
To tell you the truth I'm kind of sad about this switch. I'm just a regular "working-guy" Mac user, but the switch to OS X was a big event for me - not for the new interface, but because of its "back door" opening into its inner workings - the terminal. This became even more important when I began getting into web development, Apache and Perl - the site's atelier (my Mac) and the server it was on suddenly seemed very close together. It was a quite natural way to "go geek", so to speek, and to tell you the truth I felt rather good about it. Perhaps a bit OT but I felt the same about Mac and *Nix joining ranks as I do about Applescript, Actionscript, PHP and javascript all following the same patterns. Unity. Coherence. Stability. Seamlessness.
But now Mac is breaking ranks with *Nix. What do the web-techies have to say on this? It is with them I see the "negative" aspects of this, because, if like me, they have learned to like Linux, what's keeping them from staying there after Mac switches over?
For what I may do about all this, I'm getting an idea, but for the "home user" I'm not sure what effect this will have. If any. What's the name of the chip your computer is using?
"Intellectual Property" - or in other words, an idea - is only the origin (voir: inspiration) for any product. The rest is mechanics and usability. A lacking of one or the other results in a crappy product. Period. The government may call a company's cards instead of "playing bluff" like the rest of us, but the government's actions on the product changes nothing about what the product is itself.
I do think that the European government is off the mark though - they shouldn't be pounding one software shipping with another - they should be pounding practices like shipping computers with already-installed software.
I could see what you're saying if you gave those "micro personalities" a name more precise - perhaps "experiences"? A sum of positive ones would certainly make one kind of character and negative ones another... but no matter our experiences, the main goal of our brains is the "good" of its - our - own self-preservation. The only choices we have to attain that goal is from the menu of experiences have at any moment of decision.
Which makes making a machine that would operate in a "human" way even more complicated. Who says that a "thinking computer's" "self-preservation 'good'" will be the same as ours?
Hey, thanks for the heads-up on the Connection Machine.
The mind-boggling (if I may) part of all this is going to be orchestrating the computing activity. We know by electroencephalograms that select manual functions or mental calculations generate activity in corresponding select parts of the brain - but is that synaptic activity a retrieval of stored information or is it itself a calculation? And out of all the "experience options" (data, if you will) our neurons store, how is it determined which is a "best answer" for the problem (situation) sent to it? Is it the "most direct connection" synapse that wins the race to the appendage (or calculation centre) in question, or is there a secondary "accept/reject" relay set off somewhere else in the brain? I tend to imagine the former as most plausible. So, in all those millions of simultanious synapses, we can consider that all but a few are wasted? Who's going to wire that one together?
What's more, if it is to resemble the human brain, a computer must be able to aquire knowledge, accept or reject what's "best" for it and re-program itself accordingly, thus it must be able to re-arrange its own... wiring. The human brain could be imitated in this way through perhaps delayed relays. But now I'm just mulling.
I don't think it's the power we've got wrong: It's the architecture. No matter the size of the database or the speed of the transfer, if you pump it all through a limited X number of processors you won't have anything resembling the human brain. Granted we don't know exactly where it happens (or what directs them), but it seems that we have hundreds of thousands (voir millions) of simultanious synapses with every change of task or situation.
In this light, one could almost consider a search engine's racks and racks of linked compters as the closest thing existing to the human brain.
I see what you mean. I neither am an advocate for the "all the right things for all the wrong reasons" (aka: eliminating old cars to "eliminate pollution" with the real goal of selling new cars) but this, even through the most pessimistic of outlooks, still eliminates pollution. But yes, I'm sure that many a politition got a payback over this one.
My wife had told me that her parents (living in Tokyo) "had to" change their car "because it was too old" - though it was of a recent model - with this articl I understand why. My wife confirmed this connection when she forwarded my question about it to her parents. Not only are they "pushing" for people to use newer "low energy" products, they are making it illegal for them to needlessly waste energy.
..make laws that, through our supposedly demcratic system, on our behest and vote, "protect and serve" us by putting into black and white writ all that we deem harmful. With this in mind, my question is this: Who would most want to be protected from incompletely destroyed "sensitive" documents?
The article speaks of the "good it does for the little people" - but who asked for this law? Wouldn't it be better (and more targeted) to fine people who steal identity? Is the government going to spend billions checking every garbage can to enforce this law? This law reeks of one made for unwritten "other" purposes. Most likely this administration's own.
Whenever I think "Windows Server" I imagine one of those aluminum-sided WWII bombers (the B-17G namely) that have been through countless battles - with new riveted squares added after every tumultuous raid. This in itself would be fine, but then I imagine giving the same a fresh coat of paint (in whatever colour was in style last year) and a houndstooth-clad salesman sliding into the foreground with a: "ta-da! It's an all-new Machine!".
And to top all things off, ours is the age of Titanium and Kelvar. Mac's adapted (Linux) - Will Microsoft?
...not only can a generalisedthe cost of the product's disposal (not "tax")be included in the product's off-the-shelf price, it can be tailored to suit the product itself - and would clean/dissuade pollution. Products using mercury would cover their own mercury de-pollution/disposal.
I wouldn't even stop there. Why not include the costs of cleaning up after a factory in the price of the products through whose making it pollutes?
Most importantly, can the bug's authour able to reproduce the exploit? And if so, under what conditions? Shouldn't this be the subject of a report rather than an article?
...if we consider that our technology is ideas built on ideas, we're going to have to learn these ideas before ourselves building anything new opon them. Yes.
This doesn't necessarily mean that we have to re-invent the wheel with every invention we make, but we must at least learn (and prove where possible) the reasoning behind the already-invented we will be using in our ventures - this should take some time, non?
Yet I'm not so sure that this can apply everywhere, though - what about... wood vs. plastic? I somehow think rising to a level of a talented woodcarver would take longer than learning to mold plastic... yet one would have to have a larger financial means to do the second than the first.
Perhaps is is just the "invention market" that is changing?
Slashdot Mirror
Lord, this article's biased. They need educated people, not just "people". People who know about the products they're hired to make, or are making themselves. I imagine that many people with this knowledge would be, today, foreigners. Add the needs together and I'm sure you'll have quite a number.
This article does not at all put into a proper perspective (and context) the industries 'grunt work' done by the *cough* not-as-priviledged. In fact, it blurs the lines to make things look "not so bad'.
Humph.
...goes to show that I'm not as geek as I would like to be. It was to my understanding that linux wouldn't be compatible with the intel architecture.
Thanks for the clarification. Whew.
In fact Akihabara's fame is for its old electronics, and the people who go there, though they may be reclusive hobbyists, are rarely of the "otaku" ranks of which the article's authour speaks. Most otaku's want the latest computer, the latest manga, the latest hand-held gadget just like most every other electonics-avid consumer.
Lastly, the geeks of which the authour speeks do not live in Akihabara, they only go there. As the author proves himself with his... ...closing quote.
Oh. That would be Terribly Wiggly Canadian Agro Wig-Cutter Invigorator.
*NIX rules Server World, and has since I while. I don't see that changing overnight.
To tell you the truth I'm kind of sad about this switch. I'm just a regular "working-guy" Mac user, but the switch to OS X was a big event for me - not for the new interface, but because of its "back door" opening into its inner workings - the terminal. This became even more important when I began getting into web development, Apache and Perl - the site's atelier (my Mac) and the server it was on suddenly seemed very close together. It was a quite natural way to "go geek", so to speek, and to tell you the truth I felt rather good about it. Perhaps a bit OT but I felt the same about Mac and *Nix joining ranks as I do about Applescript, Actionscript, PHP and javascript all following the same patterns. Unity. Coherence. Stability. Seamlessness.
But now Mac is breaking ranks with *Nix. What do the web-techies have to say on this? It is with them I see the "negative" aspects of this, because, if like me, they have learned to like Linux, what's keeping them from staying there after Mac switches over?
For what I may do about all this, I'm getting an idea, but for the "home user" I'm not sure what effect this will have. If any. What's the name of the chip your computer is using?
"Intellectual Property" - or in other words, an idea - is only the origin (voir: inspiration) for any product. The rest is mechanics and usability. A lacking of one or the other results in a crappy product. Period. The government may call a company's cards instead of "playing bluff" like the rest of us, but the government's actions on the product changes nothing about what the product is itself.
I do think that the European government is off the mark though - they shouldn't be pounding one software shipping with another - they should be pounding practices like shipping computers with already-installed software.
Funny? Whoo boy, did I miss something? Perhaps I overlooked some irony there... (scratching head)
I could see what you're saying if you gave those "micro personalities" a name more precise - perhaps "experiences"? A sum of positive ones would certainly make one kind of character and negative ones another... but no matter our experiences, the main goal of our brains is the "good" of its - our - own self-preservation. The only choices we have to attain that goal is from the menu of experiences have at any moment of decision.
Which makes making a machine that would operate in a "human" way even more complicated. Who says that a "thinking computer's" "self-preservation 'good'" will be the same as ours?
Hey, thanks for the heads-up on the Connection Machine.
The mind-boggling (if I may) part of all this is going to be orchestrating the computing activity. We know by electroencephalograms that select manual functions or mental calculations generate activity in corresponding select parts of the brain - but is that synaptic activity a retrieval of stored information or is it itself a calculation? And out of all the "experience options" (data, if you will) our neurons store, how is it determined which is a "best answer" for the problem (situation) sent to it? Is it the "most direct connection" synapse that wins the race to the appendage (or calculation centre) in question, or is there a secondary "accept/reject" relay set off somewhere else in the brain? I tend to imagine the former as most plausible. So, in all those millions of simultanious synapses, we can consider that all but a few are wasted? Who's going to wire that one together?
What's more, if it is to resemble the human brain, a computer must be able to aquire knowledge, accept or reject what's "best" for it and re-program itself accordingly, thus it must be able to re-arrange its own... wiring. The human brain could be imitated in this way through perhaps delayed relays. But now I'm just mulling.
In short, they've got a chore.
I don't think it's the power we've got wrong: It's the architecture. No matter the size of the database or the speed of the transfer, if you pump it all through a limited X number of processors you won't have anything resembling the human brain. Granted we don't know exactly where it happens (or what directs them), but it seems that we have hundreds of thousands (voir millions) of simultanious synapses with every change of task or situation.
In this light, one could almost consider a search engine's racks and racks of linked compters as the closest thing existing to the human brain.
...or invite him to mod /. ^_^
I see what you mean. I neither am an advocate for the "all the right things for all the wrong reasons" (aka: eliminating old cars to "eliminate pollution" with the real goal of selling new cars) but this, even through the most pessimistic of outlooks, still eliminates pollution. But yes, I'm sure that many a politition got a payback over this one.
My wife had told me that her parents (living in Tokyo) "had to" change their car "because it was too old" - though it was of a recent model - with this articl I understand why. My wife confirmed this connection when she forwarded my question about it to her parents. Not only are they "pushing" for people to use newer "low energy" products, they are making it illegal for them to needlessly waste energy.
Bravo, Japan. Brilliant.
Point taken.
..make laws that, through our supposedly demcratic system, on our behest and vote, "protect and serve" us by putting into black and white writ all that we deem harmful. With this in mind, my question is this: Who would most want to be protected from incompletely destroyed "sensitive" documents?
The article speaks of the "good it does for the little people" - but who asked for this law? Wouldn't it be better (and more targeted) to fine people who steal identity? Is the government going to spend billions checking every garbage can to enforce this law? This law reeks of one made for unwritten "other" purposes. Most likely this administration's own.
I smell something burning. Something shredded.
...Harder? "More patched" maybe.
Whenever I think "Windows Server" I imagine one of those aluminum-sided WWII bombers (the B-17G namely) that have been through countless battles - with new riveted squares added after every tumultuous raid. This in itself would be fine, but then I imagine giving the same a fresh coat of paint (in whatever colour was in style last year) and a houndstooth-clad salesman sliding into the foreground with a: "ta-da! It's an all-new Machine!".
And to top all things off, ours is the age of Titanium and Kelvar. Mac's adapted (Linux) - Will Microsoft?
...not only can a generalisedthe cost of the product's disposal (not "tax")be included in the product's off-the-shelf price, it can be tailored to suit the product itself - and would clean/dissuade pollution. Products using mercury would cover their own mercury de-pollution/disposal.
I wouldn't even stop there. Why not include the costs of cleaning up after a factory in the price of the products through whose making it pollutes?
...The leek is Wale's national emblem. It grows in the dark.
Sorry, was perhaps a bit... er. Factual.
Q: Why did the Welsh scientist sneak into the dark laser-calibration chamber? A: He wanted to take a leek.
What, you mean they're not changing it to "Our" computer?
No, that would be "Secret Liar"
Hah, at least I beat you to "Pope on a Rope".
Most importantly, can the bug's authour able to reproduce the exploit? And if so, under what conditions? Shouldn't this be the subject of a report rather than an article?
...if we consider that our technology is ideas built on ideas, we're going to have to learn these ideas before ourselves building anything new opon them. Yes.
This doesn't necessarily mean that we have to re-invent the wheel with every invention we make, but we must at least learn (and prove where possible) the reasoning behind the already-invented we will be using in our ventures - this should take some time, non?
Yet I'm not so sure that this can apply everywhere, though - what about... wood vs. plastic? I somehow think rising to a level of a talented woodcarver would take longer than learning to mold plastic... yet one would have to have a larger financial means to do the second than the first.
Perhaps is is just the "invention market" that is changing?
Yeah, I'm part of the "just use it" crowd, and it's basically for that that I'm on Mac.
Still, I like this article for its "on the ball"-ness and for the reason that it is completely without the bias most seen in most "MS hater" articles.
There is a real reason why we shouldn't like MS: thank you to this article's authour for stating why so clearly.
Bravo.