Certainly there is a tendency in Japan toward racism, just like there is in the US and in any other country. It is part of the natural human inclination toward stereotypes. However, saying that and declaring that, in this specific instance, nothing would have happened to a Japanese citizen, are two different things. The former is taking a realistic and objective view of reality. The latter oversteps those bounds without evidence.
But then again your acusation of racism is itself racist because it assumes that Japanese people are racist with no evidence besides that the person was of another race. Look, it's recursion!
Quick note to the parent: "everything they do is money motivated" does not imply that the the things that Google does are not research. In fact, every kind of research is motivated by profit for someone: the NSF supports research where the intended profit is the general good or advancement of science, DARPA supports research where the results of said research might have eventual battle applications, the NSA supports research which will lead to new knowledge about cryptography, and Google supports/performs research where the results of that research might further its scholarly aims.
By your own measure, Bell should have been spending more money on research too. Bell (or what is now what Bell used to be) makes craptons of money, and only a little bit of it, proportionally, goes into research. That doesn't change the fact that it is indeed research.
Also, while listing companies that do research, you might also consider Microsoft Research, which, although perhaps not agreeing with the moral sensibilities of many/.ers, is still a valuable group of guys who are working on new ideas in the computing research field.
Besides being totally tasteless (it was), the following quote does have the redeeming feature that it illustrates why you shouldn't be discouraged.
"My take is that 1127 probably reached Schiavo status when Rob, Presotto, et al. fled west to Google."
Although the unnamed employee goes on to say that it's a nail in the coffin of the "sort of research environment Bell Labs once represented," he neglects to mention that there is still tons of work that is being done in computing science-related research all over the nation and all over the world. Although it's fine to feel sentimental, let's not go over the top with saying that Google is the "last bastion" of anything. We see the demise of Bell Labs' Unix group as a big thing because it has a lot of history; now think how many tens or hundreds of places that someday will have a lot of history are out there right now; as yet unknown, but destined to be giants in the future.
I know that they haven't said much, but I've read between the lines and I can tell you everything you need to know:
"Guys, listen, the XBox 360 that you've all been waiting for . . . well . . . it's really just a PC with a graphics card that will be out of date next week." -- BillG
Evidence: + Unified SDK for PC and XBox game programming + XBox original is also a PC + Say no more, sir, say no more
1) As for personal faults, trying to seem mature with your poorly written BS. People like you who assume that those they are talking to are stupid and try to appear super intelligent a) piss me off and b) manage to sound totally retarded at the same time. You sound like that guy in the Matrix. NEWS FLASH: you are not the Architect, his speech was not even a well thought out piece of philosophy, and THIS IS NOT THE MATRIX.
2) Your writing assumes no advancement in technology that can increase the effective supply of oil. Consider: the supply of oil in 1 AD was effectively zero because the people living at that time had no technology by which to gain access to oil. Following that, we developed the technology to drill 100 feet deep on land. Thus, we increased the effective supply of oil to all the oil that might be attained by drilling 100 feet deep on land. Eventually we developed technology that increased our ability to drill on land and saw subsequent rise in supplies. Both of the articles I link to elaborate on this point. Sure, there is a time when we eventually will run out of oil. There is no evidence to suggest that that time is coming soon. So, don't insult me by trying to sound so wise with your two weeks of intro macroeconomics and poorly thought out conclusions based on the supply and demand curve.
There is no evidence that any of the things that we have now will cease to be in the near or even distant futures. Oil prices are not rising because of the rarity of oil but because of the price controls that OPEC puts on the stuff. Althogh people have been talking about how we're going to run out of oil for a long time, the number of known exploitable reserves in the world today is greater than it ever has been before. Breathable air? The air in the states is cleaner now than it was fifty years ago (on average; I don't know about LA). Drinkable water is in no shorter supply than it was either; in fact, more countries now have access to potable water than ever before.
I'm not saying transhumanism will happen, but I am saying that a lot of the FUD that you and others like you promote about the "collapse of society" are unfounded when you look at the facts.
Actually that would be an even worse choice. The goal is that people should eventually be able to develop programs more quickly; assembly is a step in the opposite direction.
I was referring to the video's representation of the graphical technology, but feel free to read things I didn't say and exercise your moral superiority if you wish.
I don't think it could possibly be useful. Anything that makes me look away from my receticle is something that makes it more likely for me to be killed: the further away I look, the longer it takes me to reacquire my sight and aim.
Google has no legal duty to disclose anything through reporters. It must disclose the financial data relevant to its status as a publicly traded company, and that is all.
Right. In other words, you have to be really good and really smart. This is the requirement if you want to have an interesting job in Computer Science. That's the bad news; the good news is that we are not the only arena like that -- it's true everywhere.
Statistically, that is true, and there is really no debate about it. If you select a random black person here in the US, they are more likely to be living below the poverty line than a random white person. They are also less likely to have attended college or to have finished high school. Is there something offensive about this (in the sense that it's wrong to say it)?
What would be offensive is if someone said that that's because they were predisposed to being stupid or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually Communism is also a political system. *Socialism* is an economic system.
LOLOLOL the irony is too great.
Certainly there is a tendency in Japan toward racism, just like there is in the US and in any other country. It is part of the natural human inclination toward stereotypes. However, saying that and declaring that, in this specific instance, nothing would have happened to a Japanese citizen, are two different things. The former is taking a realistic and objective view of reality. The latter oversteps those bounds without evidence.
But then again your acusation of racism is itself racist because it assumes that Japanese people are racist with no evidence besides that the person was of another race. Look, it's recursion!
You've got it right. The value of things is not dependent on their tangibility, but on the value that people agree that they have.
Quick note to the parent: "everything they do is money motivated" does not imply that the the things that Google does are not research. In fact, every kind of research is motivated by profit for someone: the NSF supports research where the intended profit is the general good or advancement of science, DARPA supports research where the results of said research might have eventual battle applications, the NSA supports research which will lead to new knowledge about cryptography, and Google supports/performs research where the results of that research might further its scholarly aims.
/.ers, is still a valuable group of guys who are working on new ideas in the computing research field.
By your own measure, Bell should have been spending more money on research too. Bell (or what is now what Bell used to be) makes craptons of money, and only a little bit of it, proportionally, goes into research. That doesn't change the fact that it is indeed research.
Also, while listing companies that do research, you might also consider Microsoft Research, which, although perhaps not agreeing with the moral sensibilities of many
Besides being totally tasteless (it was), the following quote does have the redeeming feature that it illustrates why you shouldn't be discouraged.
"My take is that 1127 probably reached Schiavo status when Rob, Presotto, et al. fled west to Google."
Although the unnamed employee goes on to say that it's a nail in the coffin of the "sort of research environment Bell Labs once represented," he neglects to mention that there is still tons of work that is being done in computing science-related research all over the nation and all over the world. Although it's fine to feel sentimental, let's not go over the top with saying that Google is the "last bastion" of anything. We see the demise of Bell Labs' Unix group as a big thing because it has a lot of history; now think how many tens or hundreds of places that someday will have a lot of history are out there right now; as yet unknown, but destined to be giants in the future.
Thanks. I'll read it when I get to work.
I know that they haven't said much, but I've read between the lines and I can tell you everything you need to know:
"Guys, listen, the XBox 360 that you've all been waiting for . . . well . . . it's really just a PC with a graphics card that will be out of date next week." -- BillG
Evidence:
+ Unified SDK for PC and XBox game programming
+ XBox original is also a PC
+ Say no more, sir, say no more
1) As for personal faults, trying to seem mature with your poorly written BS. People like you who assume that those they are talking to are stupid and try to appear super intelligent a) piss me off and b) manage to sound totally retarded at the same time. You sound like that guy in the Matrix. NEWS FLASH: you are not the Architect, his speech was not even a well thought out piece of philosophy, and THIS IS NOT THE MATRIX.
2) Your writing assumes no advancement in technology that can increase the effective supply of oil. Consider: the supply of oil in 1 AD was effectively zero because the people living at that time had no technology by which to gain access to oil. Following that, we developed the technology to drill 100 feet deep on land. Thus, we increased the effective supply of oil to all the oil that might be attained by drilling 100 feet deep on land. Eventually we developed technology that increased our ability to drill on land and saw subsequent rise in supplies. Both of the articles I link to elaborate on this point. Sure, there is a time when we eventually will run out of oil. There is no evidence to suggest that that time is coming soon. So, don't insult me by trying to sound so wise with your two weeks of intro macroeconomics and poorly thought out conclusions based on the supply and demand curve.
I agree that supplies are tight, but that is not because there is no oil. See this and this for more information.
There is no evidence that any of the things that we have now will cease to be in the near or even distant futures. Oil prices are not rising because of the rarity of oil but because of the price controls that OPEC puts on the stuff. Althogh people have been talking about how we're going to run out of oil for a long time, the number of known exploitable reserves in the world today is greater than it ever has been before. Breathable air? The air in the states is cleaner now than it was fifty years ago (on average; I don't know about LA). Drinkable water is in no shorter supply than it was either; in fact, more countries now have access to potable water than ever before.
I'm not saying transhumanism will happen, but I am saying that a lot of the FUD that you and others like you promote about the "collapse of society" are unfounded when you look at the facts.
That last bit is called "The Last Three Weeks of Compilers" at my school.
Actually that would be an even worse choice. The goal is that people should eventually be able to develop programs more quickly; assembly is a step in the opposite direction.
Apple will not have a say in it.
I was referring to the video's representation of the graphical technology, but feel free to read things I didn't say and exercise your moral superiority if you wish.
You haven't learned in those four years that pretty videos don't make a good or necessarily interesting game?
Or maybe just a bigger screen? =P
I call BS.
I don't think it could possibly be useful. Anything that makes me look away from my receticle is something that makes it more likely for me to be killed: the further away I look, the longer it takes me to reacquire my sight and aim.
I have a conscience and I think it would be rather nice to work at MS thanks very much.
Google has no legal duty to disclose anything through reporters. It must disclose the financial data relevant to its status as a publicly traded company, and that is all.
Right. In other words, you have to be really good and really smart. This is the requirement if you want to have an interesting job in Computer Science. That's the bad news; the good news is that we are not the only arena like that -- it's true everywhere.
I forget . . . isn't that what we call it as long as it's us and not MS or some other Evil Empire doing it, right?
Basically if you feel like you're hispanic then you are hispanic.
Statistically, that is true, and there is really no debate about it. If you select a random black person here in the US, they are more likely to be living below the poverty line than a random white person. They are also less likely to have attended college or to have finished high school. Is there something offensive about this (in the sense that it's wrong to say it)? What would be offensive is if someone said that that's because they were predisposed to being stupid or something.