Conversely, your statement "that house costs 550k" has been thoroughly debunked. What exactly was your point again?
Heh. I see. You don't understand what "supporting evidence" means. Fine by me. Nor do you understand how to be convincing, debate a subject, keep track of a topic, cite, read, write and not be a complete idiot. Congrats. BTW, there's some anger management you ought to take. I know puberty is tough, but there is no need in making it harder.
And in so doing admit to everything I said about you.
Wow, you're what, a freshman in highschool?
I don't edit Wikipedia articles unless it's my area of expertise. It's a metric ton of work to do it properly, and I don't care enough about this particular subject. Finally, you seem to be relying on an editable encyclopedia for reference. The problem is not the article, the problem is you relying on it. What are you, a freshman in highschool?
Fuck you. YOU are the one insisting something cannot be accurate while providing NOT ONE OUNCE of evidence.
Incorrect. I've provided plenty of evidence that your evidence is incomplete at best, wrong at worst, shoddy every time, and when read in full, supports my position more than yours.
Since I need to spell it out: I'm accusing you of selectively using incomplete data from a non-authoritative source, as well as implying that a median price is the price of a specific house. I'm calling you an idiot because easily available facts support that notion.
Your quote refers to the median price. I was referring to the price of THAT home. If you actually read the ENTIRE article (I know, it's tough), you'll find out that "an average 1,800 sq ft (170 m) home in the city's desirable north-western district [is] valued at roughly $700k." Which, coincidentally, is approximately where the house in the picture is. Not only that, but the house in question has a specific style (ranch) that generally fetches more than the average cookie-cutter house - primarily because of layout and building materials. In other words, according to your own source, I was actually remarkably close in my eye-ball assessment.
Seriously. If you want to correct me, feel free. I'm always interested in learning something new. But right now, you're coming across like an idiot with confirmation bias. You can't read the full article you're quoting, you're insisting on quoting old data, and you're insisting on references sources that will get you laughed out of any serious discussion about.... well, anything.
Good god. At least check the dates, will ya? You're talking about the 2005 US Census. It's quite possible that I'm wrong, and quite possible that Salinas, located in the middle of nowhere between Monterey and San Jose, is indeed that cheap. But please, for the love of god, quote me some current figures. I can at least claim bad memory for my incorrect data (and I'm quite happy to have someone correct me), but man.... beyond the problem that you're relying on a publicly editable encyclopedia for support, you didn't even read the title of the reference.
You're still not getting it. I'll make this my last post on it, as others have argued the same exact thing: the problem with torture is that you rarely know who you have in custody. When you do know who you have in custody, you generally already have all that information. There is this misconception that you know who has the information - when that is the primary information hole. Especially with the ways that cells are set up these days, you have no idea who has the information you need. There is no such thing as targeted torture.
Unless you want to argue that blanked torture is ok, just in case you stumble upon that one case where it works - in which case, get the fuck out of my country. I won't let you turn it into Egypt.
I'd like to point out that the mass killings conducted by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were never within the law and done in a semi-secret fashion. Concentration Camps existed because no one dared to object (lest you be sent there yourself) and because more than a few people tacitly approved of them. Stalin just exterminated those who were a threat - laws be damned. Pol Pot - idem. Mao - idem. They were killers not because the laws allowed them to be, but because everyone carrying out their orders thought that the laws did not apply to their victims.
I'm not afraid of bad laws. I'm terrified of people who are argue that the laws don't apply to someone based on their ideology, color or clothes.
I see the last two years are missing. I can guarantee you that even if 2006 stays even with 2005 and 2004, 2007 will show a massive drop in home ownership. Estimates are that about 2 million people are at risk of losing their homes, and, barring some not-so-self-less concessions from companies like Countrywide and government bail-outs, the percentage quoted by Wikipedia is going to drop significantly.
Furthermore, I can also tell you that that house depicted in the article is not worth 550K. It's more likely hanging around 750k, if not more. I make good money - about twice the national median - and where I live, I can't afford a house. That should tell you something about the current state of home ownership, middle class and the American Dream.
That's not the issue. The issue is that regardless of the question, torture will at some point provide the answer the torturer wants. Whether that answer is the truth becomes irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is whether the pain will stop. Not only will I tell my torturer my bank account number, my sock puppet fetish and that I kicked a puppy once in 2nd grade, I will also tell them that I am the King of Siam, am preparing the world for a Martian invasion and am the mastermind behind 9/11, Bush's election, the murder of Politkovskaya, the genocide in Darfur and Chernobyl.
Hey, it must be true, because I said it was true, right?
... and the only way to do this right is via an auction system. True. But at the same time, should only the wealthy be able to enjoy popular entertainment? Remember that even in a cynical, free-market, survival of the fittest society, bread and circus has an important function... pacify the masses that have nothing else to look forward too.
You do realize that 95% (number taken out of my ass to keep yours company) of all terrorists who detonated bombs on US soil all were... American? So should we nuke the US?
You have your facts right, but your conclusions are lacking.
Frickin Hannah Montana tickets are being snapped up by professional scalpers within ten minutes of the lines opening. Arbitrage is cool, but in cases like these, I don't know... I mean, it's great if an artist sells out their venues, but I'm pretty sure it sucks if only 10% of the people manage to actually get a real ticket. Can you imagine Wembley stadium half empty for a Rolling Stones Concert? Or MSG 1/10 full for a Police concert? Kinda defeats the purpose of performing.
And this is the shiny new example of why torture doesn't work. It certainly doesn't work in the Jack Bauer style, where you just need to apply a little more pressure to get the evil guy to give up the detonation codes. And it scares me to death that some people (Slick Willy, I'm looking at you) think that this is the right approach.
Here's what 24 doesn't tell you: You don't know who you have. If you did, you wouldn't need to interrogate them, because you'd already pretty much know everything about them. Or at the very least, you'd know the broad strokes and just want to fill in the details. However, as demonstrated during the interrogation of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, even when you know who you have and want to get some more details about past operations, torture is misguided. According to congressional hearings on the matter, it is thought that most of his confessions were nothing but attempts to get through the interrogation and protect his family. This is the second thing that 24 doesn't tell you: torture elicits probably results in more disinformation than regular interrogation techniques. Why? Because the interrogators are being told what they want to hear. Combined with the drive to show success, confirmation bias and a whole host of other human failings, this can send investigators on a far more dangerous goose chase than a detainee just telling random stories.
What really pisses me off is that the US military knew all this and this codified in their interrogation handbook: torture doesn't work, so there's no point in attempting it. But some criminally inept politicians - all without a day of military or covert experience - decided that they knew better and created new rules from scratch. The end result? Nothing but our loss of the moral high ground. Oh, and a whole bunch of information that is most likely wrong.
Congrats, US leaders: you managed to completely hose one of our main advantages in the "war" on terror. Sadly, the next crop (Hillary or Guliani, most likely) will be just as bad. Why? Because the majority of the voters buy into the 24 approach to terror. Which means we get the leaders we deserve.
Neural Nets: require little computational power, but lots of memory. Expert systems (pre-built rule sets): require lots of computational power, but little memory.
Algorithmic requirements for these two classes really haven't changed much since the dark ages of AI (the sixties). What has changed is exactly how they're implemented. They're generally not faster, just different.
And yet, the majority of Congresspeople get reelected again and again and again.... The only explanation I have is that the 89% of those who don't approve how Congress works approve of how THEIR Congress critter funnels pork THEIR way.
As much bitching as there is about Congress, the President and other elected officials, they all keep getting re-elected. I say we, as in the US, have the democracy/republic we deserve. Its suckiness is a reflection of how much we suck in picking our representatives.
Finally, as plenty of others already pointed out, when you just woke up because of some commotion in your house, where things are dark, you're bleary eyed and can't immediately figure out who is exactly sneaking around your house.... things will get ugly without anyone being a paranoid sociopath. You're making the mistake of assuming that all cops have a little "cop" icon floating over their head, and all robbers and murderers have a "bad guy" icon over their head.
You're as ill-informed and moronic as ever.
And in case you're wondering - all freaks get a +1 from me. I have a morbid curiosity for people who put me on their foe list.
Computer Engineering is about as far removed from AI as Civil Engineering is from High Energy Particle Physics. I can see where your expectations are coming from though. For anyone who works in engineering (whether research or actual applications), AI is a befuddling world of mutually-exclusive approaches, fuzzy algorithms, even fuzzier goals and constantly shifting definitions of what AI is. I wouldn't judge the state of AI based on some marketing drone's need to put out pretty brochures.
Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee
on
Blog Action Day
·
· Score: 1
Yup - I was going for the asshole approach here. Congrats on reading comprehension. You know why I went for that? Because I wanted to make crystal clear that if someone is going to fuck with my future, my family's future and my kids' future because they're too short-sighted to understand the long-term costs and impacts of their activities, I can be a far bigger asshole (and more vindictive) than they ever dreamed.
I could have also pointed out the incoherence of arguing the paramount importance of family, yet neglecting to plan for their future (which is what environmentalism is all about). I guess I decided that this kind of dickery didn't warrant a civil response.
.... you subscribe to the notion that when something comes out of AI that works, it's engineering; but when it doesn't work, it's still AI. This is a running joke among AI researchers. To some extent, it's justified. Really, how much AI is in alpha-beta pruning and pattern matching? However, this view point discredits every single bit of work that has been done in the field of AI, and trivializes all achievements after the fact. Your friendly robot factories? Automated airport trains? Data mining? And finally, what is arguably the crown jewel in robotic AI, autonomous cars? All courtesy of work in AI.
The biggest misconception that lay-people have of AI is that it is one giant engineering project, like the moon landing. This is completely wrong. Think of it rather as Physics: an on-going process through which we attempt to understand our own intelligence and recreate it in machines. To expect it to yield a fully-formed android within your lifetime is not only misguided, but displays a lack of understanding of what intelligence means. I can guarantee you that we will not notice when strong AI actually is created. It will probably take us a generation just to realize that computers will have had achieved consciousness a generation ago.
And btw - the two terms you're looking for are false negatives and false positives.
Thank you. I can't believe how many people there are that point to a decrease in the diagnosis of RSI in the wrists as a sign that RSI is not triggered by computer use. This is completely missing the cause and effect relationship here. I can tell you that when many people joined the.com, a lot of them had very little experience about how to properly use keyboards and computers for extended periods of time (me included). End result? Lots of hurting wrists and fingers. I had to go to a doctor, get a wrist-guard (just like for roller-blades, except less sturdy and flesh-colored), and got some information and how to properly sit and type. End-result of that crash course in computer-ergonomics? No more pain. What do I do when I hear someone talk about wrist and finger pain? I tell them what I was told: sit straight, keep your hands straight, move your mouse with your arm, not your wrist, adjust the height of your keyboard and monitor, and take lots of little breaks.
The reason that computer-related RSI is not an issue anymore is because we got smart about how to work at computers. Put differently, I'm sure that the first years after tribes figured out how to chop wood involved lots of hacked-off fingers, leg wounds, splinters in the eyes and other accidents. A couple of thousand years later, it's still a dangerous activity, but no one thinks that "axe in hand" is a medical condition - it's a sign that someone didn't pay attention in wood-chopping class. Same thing with computer-induced RSI: it's a sign that someone didn't pay attention in computer-ergonomics class.
With that in mind, I'm sick and tired of hearing how RSI is a racket because it's not diagnosed as often as it used to be. It's an issue, it's just that we figured out how to deal with it. Not only that, but it's something that everyone needs to know about if they work with computers.
Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee
on
Blog Action Day
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
People aren't sheep, people are autonomous individuals. Their willingness to spend their free time on your pet projects instead of their families is pretty limited. I don't see you offering free babysitting services or transportation for their kids to after school events to free up time for people to do what you want. I don't hear that you're donating money, you just want other people to do so.
My pet projects? I see. So you're the kind of person who leeches clean air and water off of the ones who actually care about the long-term future, not just next week or next quarter. Environmentalism isn't about what I want, it isn't even about you want - it's about what you might want in 20 years or what your kids might want after you're done composting. Everything else is just you complaining that you don't want to be bothered to make a sacrifice where the payoff isn't immediately visible.
Here's some other parts that crack me about your post. You want tax incentives to install solar panels, then claim that this will let the free market come up with a solution. You do realize that tax incentives are free market distortions, and that you pay for them, even if indirectly? You want free babysitting service for things that you ought to be doing (like, uh, participating in town hall meetings, for example), but can't be arsed to do. You claim that I'm not donating money (hey, that's what you get when you address readers directly), but want to make you donate - which is just you rationalizing your complete lack of engagement in anything that goes beyond your "family". It's so much easier to do when you think that no one else is doing it.
In short, as someone else pointed out, you're the worst of the NIMBY crowd - you want all the good stuff that comes with sacrifices (clean air, clean water, safe energy, safe roads, safe country, but you're absolutely unwilling to lift a little finger to help with that. Though I do find it amusing that you are happy to pay for these things with tax breaks - which ultimately come out of your pocket anyway. Your - very shortsifted - claim that family comes before idealism simply tells me that you value your comfort and your life over anyone else's comfort and life.
Riccitiello just handed his old pals at Elevation Partners and VG Holdings (and probably himself in some circuitous fashion) a big, fat 840 million dollar gift. Think about it: - Elevation Partners bought both Pandemic and Bioware in 2005 for 300 million dollars. - just 2 years later, the two companies are bought for 2.7 times that amount. - Riccitiello was part-founder of Elevation Partners. - Riccitiello was CEO of VG Holdings. - Riccitiello left the position of CEO of VG Holdings and partner at Elevation Partners in 02/2007 to be CEO of EA. - of the $840 million, mgmt retention bonus is $155 million. - the total revenue of all Pandemic and Bioware games EVER COMBINED was about $950 million. - total headcount of both companies is about 800 people.
So let me get this straight - the guy who was responsible in 2005 for the merger of Pandemic and Bioware and shelled out 300 million bucks for that task, is now handing out nearly three times that amount to his old buddies for the pleasure to outright buy them? Not to mention the fat retention bonus to certain VGH managers? Not to mention that the buyout price is ridiculously close to the total revenue that both Pandemic and Bioware grossed together in their entire lifetimes?
This is the definition of a gravy train, and somebody just got ridiculously rich because some CEO is buddies with somebody. The more I look into the deal, the more ridiculous it is. This can't possibly have been about economics, because the economics aren't there. This had to be a back-room, back-slapping, palm-greased deal.
Goodbye Bioware. You'll bear the consequences of this atrocity. I hope the people who made Bioware awesome get out while they can and start something new.
Sadly, it's a lesson I learned the hard way. As a result, I don't believe a single word any executive (especially at the CxO level) utters in any public forum.
Here's why: the CEOs main duty is to his/her stockholders. Anything they say that depresses stock value is a reason for the board to can them. Not only that, but anything that depresses stock value results in a massive hit to their wallet. As a result, CEOs are at best circumspect when they talk. At worst, they outright lie. They're especially prone to lying when no comment is as telling as an explicit comment, or when there is no way to sugarcoat, obfuscate or otherwise mitigate the issue.
John Ricotello might talk a good game, but that is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is track record and current actions. And on that.... I'll just go with the Zombie theme of the first poster: BRRAAAIIIINNNNNNNS
Why? Content posted by joe random user will AT BEST be nothing more than speculation and random opinion
At best, content posted by joe random will be well-sourced, informative and enlightening. At worst, it will be Ann Coulter posting. Personally, I enjoy the mess that is public discourse. There's plenty of nuggets there, if you know how to filter properly. Though filtering at -1 can be interesting as well.
As for what will happen.... well, your exact concerns where the concerns voiced about Wikipedia in the beginning. I'll be ecstatic if this turns into 1/10th of what Wikipedia is now.
Slashdot Mirror
Conversely, your statement "that house costs 550k" has been thoroughly debunked. What exactly was your point again?
Heh. I see. You don't understand what "supporting evidence" means. Fine by me. Nor do you understand how to be convincing, debate a subject, keep track of a topic, cite, read, write and not be a complete idiot. Congrats. BTW, there's some anger management you ought to take. I know puberty is tough, but there is no need in making it harder.
Wow, you're what, a freshman in highschool?
I don't edit Wikipedia articles unless it's my area of expertise. It's a metric ton of work to do it properly, and I don't care enough about this particular subject. Finally, you seem to be relying on an editable encyclopedia for reference. The problem is not the article, the problem is you relying on it. What are you, a freshman in highschool?
Incorrect. I've provided plenty of evidence that your evidence is incomplete at best, wrong at worst, shoddy every time, and when read in full, supports my position more than yours.
Since I need to spell it out: I'm accusing you of selectively using incomplete data from a non-authoritative source, as well as implying that a median price is the price of a specific house. I'm calling you an idiot because easily available facts support that notion.
And since you asked so nicely for facts:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/12/crl_foreclosures.html
http://househunt.org/cgibin/househunt/supermls/mls_prop_detail.cgi?mls_agent_id=hbustos&agent_id=ncalreil&property_id=752244
Note that the house is the closest thing I could find in style and apparent size without actually tracking down what the actual house in the picture is. You'll also note that that price is far above what you claim, and even what I claimed.
Now sit down, boy.
Your quote refers to the median price. I was referring to the price of THAT home. If you actually read the ENTIRE article (I know, it's tough), you'll find out that "an average 1,800 sq ft (170 m) home in the city's desirable north-western district [is] valued at roughly $700k." Which, coincidentally, is approximately where the house in the picture is. Not only that, but the house in question has a specific style (ranch) that generally fetches more than the average cookie-cutter house - primarily because of layout and building materials. In other words, according to your own source, I was actually remarkably close in my eye-ball assessment.
Seriously. If you want to correct me, feel free. I'm always interested in learning something new. But right now, you're coming across like an idiot with confirmation bias. You can't read the full article you're quoting, you're insisting on quoting old data, and you're insisting on references sources that will get you laughed out of any serious discussion about.... well, anything.
As opposed to making a fool of yourself by quoting old data from a publicly editable encyclopedia in a discussion about current events? Nice going.
Good god. At least check the dates, will ya? You're talking about the 2005 US Census. It's quite possible that I'm wrong, and quite possible that Salinas, located in the middle of nowhere between Monterey and San Jose, is indeed that cheap. But please, for the love of god, quote me some current figures. I can at least claim bad memory for my incorrect data (and I'm quite happy to have someone correct me), but man.... beyond the problem that you're relying on a publicly editable encyclopedia for support, you didn't even read the title of the reference.
You're still not getting it. I'll make this my last post on it, as others have argued the same exact thing: the problem with torture is that you rarely know who you have in custody. When you do know who you have in custody, you generally already have all that information. There is this misconception that you know who has the information - when that is the primary information hole. Especially with the ways that cells are set up these days, you have no idea who has the information you need. There is no such thing as targeted torture.
Unless you want to argue that blanked torture is ok, just in case you stumble upon that one case where it works - in which case, get the fuck out of my country. I won't let you turn it into Egypt.
I'd like to point out that the mass killings conducted by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were never within the law and done in a semi-secret fashion. Concentration Camps existed because no one dared to object (lest you be sent there yourself) and because more than a few people tacitly approved of them. Stalin just exterminated those who were a threat - laws be damned. Pol Pot - idem. Mao - idem. They were killers not because the laws allowed them to be, but because everyone carrying out their orders thought that the laws did not apply to their victims.
I'm not afraid of bad laws. I'm terrified of people who are argue that the laws don't apply to someone based on their ideology, color or clothes.
I see the last two years are missing. I can guarantee you that even if 2006 stays even with 2005 and 2004, 2007 will show a massive drop in home ownership. Estimates are that about 2 million people are at risk of losing their homes, and, barring some not-so-self-less concessions from companies like Countrywide and government bail-outs, the percentage quoted by Wikipedia is going to drop significantly.
Furthermore, I can also tell you that that house depicted in the article is not worth 550K. It's more likely hanging around 750k, if not more. I make good money - about twice the national median - and where I live, I can't afford a house. That should tell you something about the current state of home ownership, middle class and the American Dream.
That's not the issue. The issue is that regardless of the question, torture will at some point provide the answer the torturer wants. Whether that answer is the truth becomes irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is whether the pain will stop. Not only will I tell my torturer my bank account number, my sock puppet fetish and that I kicked a puppy once in 2nd grade, I will also tell them that I am the King of Siam, am preparing the world for a Martian invasion and am the mastermind behind 9/11, Bush's election, the murder of Politkovskaya, the genocide in Darfur and Chernobyl.
Hey, it must be true, because I said it was true, right?
... and the only way to do this right is via an auction system. True. But at the same time, should only the wealthy be able to enjoy popular entertainment? Remember that even in a cynical, free-market, survival of the fittest society, bread and circus has an important function... pacify the masses that have nothing else to look forward too.
You do realize that 95% (number taken out of my ass to keep yours company) of all terrorists who detonated bombs on US soil all were... American? So should we nuke the US?
You have your facts right, but your conclusions are lacking.
Frickin Hannah Montana tickets are being snapped up by professional scalpers within ten minutes of the lines opening. Arbitrage is cool, but in cases like these, I don't know... I mean, it's great if an artist sells out their venues, but I'm pretty sure it sucks if only 10% of the people manage to actually get a real ticket. Can you imagine Wembley stadium half empty for a Rolling Stones Concert? Or MSG 1/10 full for a Police concert? Kinda defeats the purpose of performing.
And this is the shiny new example of why torture doesn't work. It certainly doesn't work in the Jack Bauer style, where you just need to apply a little more pressure to get the evil guy to give up the detonation codes. And it scares me to death that some people (Slick Willy, I'm looking at you) think that this is the right approach.
Here's what 24 doesn't tell you: You don't know who you have. If you did, you wouldn't need to interrogate them, because you'd already pretty much know everything about them. Or at the very least, you'd know the broad strokes and just want to fill in the details. However, as demonstrated during the interrogation of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, even when you know who you have and want to get some more details about past operations, torture is misguided. According to congressional hearings on the matter, it is thought that most of his confessions were nothing but attempts to get through the interrogation and protect his family. This is the second thing that 24 doesn't tell you: torture elicits probably results in more disinformation than regular interrogation techniques. Why? Because the interrogators are being told what they want to hear. Combined with the drive to show success, confirmation bias and a whole host of other human failings, this can send investigators on a far more dangerous goose chase than a detainee just telling random stories.
What really pisses me off is that the US military knew all this and this codified in their interrogation handbook: torture doesn't work, so there's no point in attempting it. But some criminally inept politicians - all without a day of military or covert experience - decided that they knew better and created new rules from scratch. The end result? Nothing but our loss of the moral high ground. Oh, and a whole bunch of information that is most likely wrong.
Congrats, US leaders: you managed to completely hose one of our main advantages in the "war" on terror. Sadly, the next crop (Hillary or Guliani, most likely) will be just as bad. Why? Because the majority of the voters buy into the 24 approach to terror. Which means we get the leaders we deserve.
Neural Nets: require little computational power, but lots of memory. Expert systems (pre-built rule sets): require lots of computational power, but little memory.
Algorithmic requirements for these two classes really haven't changed much since the dark ages of AI (the sixties). What has changed is exactly how they're implemented. They're generally not faster, just different.
And yet, the majority of Congresspeople get reelected again and again and again.... The only explanation I have is that the 89% of those who don't approve how Congress works approve of how THEIR Congress critter funnels pork THEIR way.
As much bitching as there is about Congress, the President and other elected officials, they all keep getting re-elected. I say we, as in the US, have the democracy/republic we deserve. Its suckiness is a reflection of how much we suck in picking our representatives.
Heh. You're still cracking me up. Here's the first link from a quick google search: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0224/p02s01-usju.html. There's plenty more with actual self-defense laws.
Finally, as plenty of others already pointed out, when you just woke up because of some commotion in your house, where things are dark, you're bleary eyed and can't immediately figure out who is exactly sneaking around your house.... things will get ugly without anyone being a paranoid sociopath. You're making the mistake of assuming that all cops have a little "cop" icon floating over their head, and all robbers and murderers have a "bad guy" icon over their head.
You're as ill-informed and moronic as ever.
And in case you're wondering - all freaks get a +1 from me. I have a morbid curiosity for people who put me on their foe list.
Computer Engineering is about as far removed from AI as Civil Engineering is from High Energy Particle Physics. I can see where your expectations are coming from though. For anyone who works in engineering (whether research or actual applications), AI is a befuddling world of mutually-exclusive approaches, fuzzy algorithms, even fuzzier goals and constantly shifting definitions of what AI is. I wouldn't judge the state of AI based on some marketing drone's need to put out pretty brochures.
Yup - I was going for the asshole approach here. Congrats on reading comprehension. You know why I went for that? Because I wanted to make crystal clear that if someone is going to fuck with my future, my family's future and my kids' future because they're too short-sighted to understand the long-term costs and impacts of their activities, I can be a far bigger asshole (and more vindictive) than they ever dreamed.
I could have also pointed out the incoherence of arguing the paramount importance of family, yet neglecting to plan for their future (which is what environmentalism is all about). I guess I decided that this kind of dickery didn't warrant a civil response.
.... you subscribe to the notion that when something comes out of AI that works, it's engineering; but when it doesn't work, it's still AI. This is a running joke among AI researchers. To some extent, it's justified. Really, how much AI is in alpha-beta pruning and pattern matching? However, this view point discredits every single bit of work that has been done in the field of AI, and trivializes all achievements after the fact. Your friendly robot factories? Automated airport trains? Data mining? And finally, what is arguably the crown jewel in robotic AI, autonomous cars? All courtesy of work in AI.
The biggest misconception that lay-people have of AI is that it is one giant engineering project, like the moon landing. This is completely wrong. Think of it rather as Physics: an on-going process through which we attempt to understand our own intelligence and recreate it in machines. To expect it to yield a fully-formed android within your lifetime is not only misguided, but displays a lack of understanding of what intelligence means. I can guarantee you that we will not notice when strong AI actually is created. It will probably take us a generation just to realize that computers will have had achieved consciousness a generation ago.
And btw - the two terms you're looking for are false negatives and false positives.
Thank you. I can't believe how many people there are that point to a decrease in the diagnosis of RSI in the wrists as a sign that RSI is not triggered by computer use. This is completely missing the cause and effect relationship here. I can tell you that when many people joined the .com, a lot of them had very little experience about how to properly use keyboards and computers for extended periods of time (me included). End result? Lots of hurting wrists and fingers. I had to go to a doctor, get a wrist-guard (just like for roller-blades, except less sturdy and flesh-colored), and got some information and how to properly sit and type. End-result of that crash course in computer-ergonomics? No more pain. What do I do when I hear someone talk about wrist and finger pain? I tell them what I was told: sit straight, keep your hands straight, move your mouse with your arm, not your wrist, adjust the height of your keyboard and monitor, and take lots of little breaks.
The reason that computer-related RSI is not an issue anymore is because we got smart about how to work at computers. Put differently, I'm sure that the first years after tribes figured out how to chop wood involved lots of hacked-off fingers, leg wounds, splinters in the eyes and other accidents. A couple of thousand years later, it's still a dangerous activity, but no one thinks that "axe in hand" is a medical condition - it's a sign that someone didn't pay attention in wood-chopping class. Same thing with computer-induced RSI: it's a sign that someone didn't pay attention in computer-ergonomics class.
With that in mind, I'm sick and tired of hearing how RSI is a racket because it's not diagnosed as often as it used to be. It's an issue, it's just that we figured out how to deal with it. Not only that, but it's something that everyone needs to know about if they work with computers.
My pet projects? I see. So you're the kind of person who leeches clean air and water off of the ones who actually care about the long-term future, not just next week or next quarter. Environmentalism isn't about what I want, it isn't even about you want - it's about what you might want in 20 years or what your kids might want after you're done composting. Everything else is just you complaining that you don't want to be bothered to make a sacrifice where the payoff isn't immediately visible.
Here's some other parts that crack me about your post. You want tax incentives to install solar panels, then claim that this will let the free market come up with a solution. You do realize that tax incentives are free market distortions, and that you pay for them, even if indirectly? You want free babysitting service for things that you ought to be doing (like, uh, participating in town hall meetings, for example), but can't be arsed to do. You claim that I'm not donating money (hey, that's what you get when you address readers directly), but want to make you donate - which is just you rationalizing your complete lack of engagement in anything that goes beyond your "family". It's so much easier to do when you think that no one else is doing it.
In short, as someone else pointed out, you're the worst of the NIMBY crowd - you want all the good stuff that comes with sacrifices (clean air, clean water, safe energy, safe roads, safe country, but you're absolutely unwilling to lift a little finger to help with that. Though I do find it amusing that you are happy to pay for these things with tax breaks - which ultimately come out of your pocket anyway. Your - very shortsifted - claim that family comes before idealism simply tells me that you value your comfort and your life over anyone else's comfort and life.
Asshole.
Riccitiello just handed his old pals at Elevation Partners and VG Holdings (and probably himself in some circuitous fashion) a big, fat 840 million dollar gift. Think about it:
- Elevation Partners bought both Pandemic and Bioware in 2005 for 300 million dollars.
- just 2 years later, the two companies are bought for 2.7 times that amount.
- Riccitiello was part-founder of Elevation Partners.
- Riccitiello was CEO of VG Holdings.
- Riccitiello left the position of CEO of VG Holdings and partner at Elevation Partners in 02/2007 to be CEO of EA.
- of the $840 million, mgmt retention bonus is $155 million.
- the total revenue of all Pandemic and Bioware games EVER COMBINED was about $950 million.
- total headcount of both companies is about 800 people.
So let me get this straight - the guy who was responsible in 2005 for the merger of Pandemic and Bioware and shelled out 300 million bucks for that task, is now handing out nearly three times that amount to his old buddies for the pleasure to outright buy them? Not to mention the fat retention bonus to certain VGH managers? Not to mention that the buyout price is ridiculously close to the total revenue that both Pandemic and Bioware grossed together in their entire lifetimes?
This is the definition of a gravy train, and somebody just got ridiculously rich because some CEO is buddies with somebody. The more I look into the deal, the more ridiculous it is. This can't possibly have been about economics, because the economics aren't there. This had to be a back-room, back-slapping, palm-greased deal.
Goodbye Bioware. You'll bear the consequences of this atrocity. I hope the people who made Bioware awesome get out while they can and start something new.
Sadly, it's a lesson I learned the hard way. As a result, I don't believe a single word any executive (especially at the CxO level) utters in any public forum.
Here's why: the CEOs main duty is to his/her stockholders. Anything they say that depresses stock value is a reason for the board to can them. Not only that, but anything that depresses stock value results in a massive hit to their wallet. As a result, CEOs are at best circumspect when they talk. At worst, they outright lie. They're especially prone to lying when no comment is as telling as an explicit comment, or when there is no way to sugarcoat, obfuscate or otherwise mitigate the issue.
John Ricotello might talk a good game, but that is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is track record and current actions. And on that.... I'll just go with the Zombie theme of the first poster: BRRAAAIIIINNNNNNNS
At best, content posted by joe random will be well-sourced, informative and enlightening. At worst, it will be Ann Coulter posting. Personally, I enjoy the mess that is public discourse. There's plenty of nuggets there, if you know how to filter properly. Though filtering at -1 can be interesting as well.
As for what will happen.... well, your exact concerns where the concerns voiced about Wikipedia in the beginning. I'll be ecstatic if this turns into 1/10th of what Wikipedia is now.