Why are auto companies so into robots in Japan? What's up with that?
Japanese corporations look at what they can do effectively to make a profit given their position and advantages, not what they can do in their current industries. Robots and automobiles are very similar from a manufacturing point of view, so it makes sense for the automakers to explore that avenue. The question is why other automakers aren't pursuing these opportunities.
This also means many of the paper-pushers currently drawing down salaries denying people coverage will have to go do productive work instead, further improving the economic situation.
Even though paper-pushers don't contribute to society, they are employed. If we start shutting out the insurance agencies what happens to all of those jobs?
They get government jobs denying or delaying medical procedures they deem unnecessary or low priority.
they will do so without any hesitation, because machines do not hesitate.
Unless they run on Microsoft:)
I don't believe it.How the fuck does Microsoft bashing fit here?
Because it is believed that a Microsoft-based machine will likely have an error/crash, thus causing hesitation, such as happened with the USS Yorktown for a couple of hours.
What a dumb phrase. Do you only want former Air Force pilots who've actually seen combat flying commercial planes? How exactly is that going to keep you up in the air in a civilian airliner experiencing an electronic or mechanical malfunction?
"Battle tested" may have been used in this context to refer to the long history of human pilots compared to the shorter history of using computers to control aircraft. If it refers to actual combat flight, flying military aircraft teaches one to expect something to break and know how to determine what is broke and what needs to be done to land safely. Military aircraft experience a lot more stresses than civilian aircraft, and thus tend to break more.
And if what you really mean is experienced pilots, what about some pilot who's been flying for years and has never had an emergency situation and then makes a mistake and then (s)he makes a judgement error in a critical situation? Are you then going to call for the iron calm of a computer rather than a fallible human pilot?
In a perfect world, the pilot would recognize a computer mis-evaluation if one occurs due to his simulator training, and over-ride the computer to land safely. In practice, this does not always occur - crashes have resulted from both non-overrides and incorrect overrides.
No, the answer is statistics. What's safer and more reliable in the long run? How many crashes have we had due to computer error rather than human error given x hours flown by each?
Although the computer may be statistically safer, if the pilot is able to over-ride obvious computer errors and is trained to recognize those errors, isn't that the best of both worlds?
...The linked to text is much, much better, even though offering people a choice is problematic given how the whole non-refundable ticket system and airline logistics systems currently work, not to mention that making a choice at the gate when you get on the plane will throw off your schedule.
I always check which type of aircraft will be used on my flight prior to committing to purchase the ticket, and do not fly Airbus. I live near an airline hub, though, so it is easy for me to decide which aircraft to avoid. If a person's local airport has limited service, that choice may not be available to them.
Every time I hear someone whine because they aren't understood in Japan, and their "perfect" Japanese could NEVER be the cause, I laugh my ass off.
I occasionally had the opposite problem. I learned how to say "I don't understand Japanese" clearly and with no accent - then folks didn't believe me. (I forget the correct article to use, but it was something like "Nihongo-ga wakarimasen".) I could say a couple of other important phrases accent-free, the most important of which was "Beeru o kudasai", or the more precise variant, "Asahi o kudasai", which I practiced in public a lot, since it was such an important phrase
Looking at someone's Facebook profile is (in the minds of many) equivalent to watching you in your house and listening to your conversations while you are eating dinner. Or following you and your friends to the bar and making a discussion to hire you or not based on that conversation with your friends. It is the opinion of many (including myself) that you are hired to do a certain job for certain hours (such as 9-5), by the time 5:15 rolls around, the company should have no real control or concern for you, save that you return back at 9 the next morning to do your job. Can't do the job? Then fire them. Can do the job well? Hire and keep them.
First, I am not a lawyer. That said, I could see instances where it could hurt a company NOT to check social networking sites. If a prospective employee's profile indicates a tendency toward racial or sexual discrimination, for instance, and the person was hired in a supervisory position, then acted in a discriminatory manner, those discriminated against may be able to argue in court that the company was lax in its hiring practices, which would make it responsible for the discrimination due to its lack of research.
I believe that a company shouldn't be using non-job-related items for its hiring decisions. On the other hand, if information that disqualifies a candidate for that job is public, I believe that it is the company's duty to use that information.
I could be legally wrong, and I welcome corrections from those more acquainted with the law.
Hollywood, in general, tends to support the left more than the right. Consequently, my guess would be that the nominee would be someone who tends to favor Hollywood's interest, so Hollywood campaign contributions to the Democratic Party continue at current or higher levels.
Fact: Cold air does not come from the polar regions. Cold air comes from high in the atmosphere where air radiates heat to space. Warm air comes from contact with sun warmed ground and sea. http://www.rcn27.dial.pipex.com/cloudsrus/wind.html
Your reference does not support your alledged Fact, and your alledged Fact ignores the concept of adiabatic warming. The poles are colder than the equator because they receive less energy from the sun, not because descending air is colder. This casts a LOT of doubt to the validity of the rest of your arguments as well.
Ignorance and being lazy is no excuse, especially for an airman.
I was a contractor, not an airman. Even if I was gung-ho and did things properly, the person logging on after me with everything set to slut mode would still allow the "Click Here - You're a Winner" pop-ups and such to be self-installed.
Don't allow slut mode for everything. Figure out what sites they use for the training, and add them to the trusted sites list.
I didn't have administrator access and wasn't employed to do IT, and thus couldn't have done a proper set up for everyone, anyway, so I took the easy way out - just setting slut mode to do training, then turning everything off when finished. As far as I am aware, everyone else in my office (and on that base, for all I knew) had slut mode set full time so they could do training when required,. As the training wasn't base-specific, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the average Windows installation on non-sensitive systems USAF-wide is set with similar lax settings with the base firewalls being the main idea of security.
Hopefully, someone from the USAF will jump on and tell me that things have changed since then and/or that base must have been an exception.
So how does this bill factor into the TCO of Windows? I don't claim that the $100M would go to zero if Windows were eliminated in favor of more secure servers and desktops, but it would be a lot lower.
While working for the USAF, I was required to do some online training. To run the training, ActiveX had to be enabled and IE basicially set to "slut mode", that is, accept and run everything. That really didn't give me a good feeling about their security.
Is the thought of God that annoying to the/. crowd?
The annoying part (to me) is the precedent set by mixing God with science in schools. Teach evolution, show its strengths, weaknesses, faults, and failures, and students are still learning good science. Teaching (in a science class ) that a valid alternate explanation to evolution is that God created everything invites the God explanation for everything else taught in that science class.
If one day it is shown that the actions of some yet-to-be-discovered sub-sub-sub-atomic particle can only be explained by the dice roll of a Deity, or some similar discovery occurs, then it will be time to bring God into science classes, in my opinion. Until then, I believe bringing God in on evolution sets a bad precedent.
It wouldn't be legal. It'd be outright criminal. If you want to demonstrate that you can fake information on a screenshot, go ahead and do it, but do not implicate anybody else for anything, particularly a heinous crime.
I figure that if the idea is to prove that you can fake a screenshot, a screenshot that implicates those that are trying to disprove that fact with a heinous crime will bring them around to the realization that a screenshot can be faked, provided that the evidence is entered as proof that you can fake screenshots rather than proof of felony activity. If I could figure a way to implicate the RIAA in the planning of the 9/11 attacks via a screenshot to show that screenshots could be faked, I would think that would be fair evidence of the ability of screenshots to be useless evidence. I don't have the time or ability to do so, though, or Ray would have an interesting email.
At this point, with limited law education, I believe the legality of the situation rests on evidence rules - if faked screenshots can be introduced as evidence that screenshots can be faked, and no other laws are broken in obtaining the screenshots, I think this would be a valid tactic, and discredit the other screenshots. I am not a lawyer, though, and hopefully someone who is can clarify.
What would be interesting, and possibly helpful, would be a screenshot showing that someone with the IP address of a SafeNet office (or an RIAA lawyer's law office) has a lot of files on their computer with filenames suggesting kiddy porn or something to that effect. Introducing that faked screenshot as evidence would be interesting, since any testimony supporting the validity of the Safenet screenshots may support a felony case against Safenet (or the RIAA lawyer).
I don't have the skills/time to find the appropriate IP addresses, ascertain operating systems and such, and then fake the believable screen shot. I don't know that it would be legal, either, so please don't take this as a suggestion. It would be interesting in court, though.
Gertner's effectively saying "You can stream it yourselves too,..."
The RIAA's problem is that they don't want to stream it. They want to record it to digital media with DRM and lots of audio effects to make it sound more like they want it to sound, release it on a geographically-based schedule to maximize marketing, and charge a disproportionate price.
...Seriously, with 8 gig usb keys going for $30, and the ease of installing linux on one, 500 gig hard drives going for $70, or booting off a dvd if you're REALLY cheap, there's no excuse to surf the web using Windows. It's like having sex with a million strangers - you KNOW no amount of protection is going to be enough - you're gonna catch SOMETHING.
But think of the fun you'd have, especially compared with using Vista
Wait --- those strangers are all attractive females, right? Otherwise, it would be very similar to using Vista.
And be subject to unreasonable and unwarranted search and seizure, I wouldn't have served in the Army.
Were you DNA tagged for identification? It always made me nervous - a DNA record possibly subject to a Freedom of Information Act request (albeit somewhat far-fetched). Good intentions with lots of abuse potential.
If I recall correctly, the law requiring DNA samples from servicemembers for remains identification forbade the use of that data set use for other purposes.
It sounds like you're assuming that Halliburton will indiscriminately go after anyone who violates their patent, thus making patent trolls everywhere tremble in fear. I don't think it will work out that way. What seems more likely is that they'll hold onto it, using it only against their competitors when it's to their advantage and having little effect on the world of patent trolling as a whole -- and meanwhile, setting yet another precedent for the granting of truly horrible patents. The best thing is for this and every other business method patent (and software patent, and patent on a naturally occurring gene, etc.) to be denied until people get the message that patents are intended to cover physical inventions, and nothing else.
From what I can guess, Halliburton's sole motivation is profit. My guess is if they are granted this patent, and they see a violator they can sue for a profit, they will go after them, regardless of the industry. As a result, some of those wishing to reverse engineer will seek licenses from them to keep from being sued by them.
If I have this right, this would be bad for a lot of Open Source products, and good for Microsoft.
People mod that up funny, but it's actually insightful as to how the school system doesn't work for everyone, and how thinking outside of the box is so frowned upon when everyone should do their utmost to encourage it.
It's not just the school systems that frown upon non-standard answers, it's the majority of society. In many situations, propose an idea even slightly outside of the predominant group-think, and watch how many folks start to get offended/shoot it down without thought.
For example - I had a boss write a simple VB app that cut the time needed for his subordinates to do a specific task by at least 50% every time, sometimes as much as 80%, while improving the quality of the output. His boss shot it down and prohibited its use because my boss wasn't assigned to write software, and they had paid someone else to write less-effective software that used more bandwidth and provided a lower quality output.
In another case, we had a door clearance problem in a customer area due to carpet installation. Funding for a new door wasn't forthcoming, so a couple of us on the late shift lowered the false floor just enough to regain clearance. We didn't think much of it, since it solved the problem without needing any funding. However, that solution got a lot more attention (both negative and positive) than we expected. All of the regular visitors noticed. Some folks thought it was a great idea. Those responsible for the building bristled at the idea of a non-standard solution when we suggested it (after the fact, and played it off as a joke when we saw their response), so we had to tell them we bought a new door out of our own funds. (I guess spending hundreds of dollars on a new door is more acceptable than a few radians of rotation of a few large bolts in their eyes.)
Despite all of the feel-good seminars, I believe people in general still aren't accepting of ideas outside of their limited fields-of-view. If I recall correctly, in Japan, there is a saying that roughly translates to "The nail that sticks up is hammered down." Although U.S, citizens like to say that the saying does not apply to them, and individuality is encouraged, I think that the saying is applicable in many U.S. situations as well.
I hope that most reading this work for those without such a limited field of view. It is so much more enjoyable to go to work with bosses that encourage thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
Japanese corporations look at what they can do effectively to make a profit given their position and advantages, not what they can do in their current industries. Robots and automobiles are very similar from a manufacturing point of view, so it makes sense for the automakers to explore that avenue. The question is why other automakers aren't pursuing these opportunities.
To preserve funds, just like insurance companies.
They get government jobs denying or delaying medical procedures they deem unnecessary or low priority.
Because it is believed that a Microsoft-based machine will likely have an error/crash, thus causing hesitation, such as happened with the USS Yorktown for a couple of hours.
"Battle tested" may have been used in this context to refer to the long history of human pilots compared to the shorter history of using computers to control aircraft. If it refers to actual combat flight, flying military aircraft teaches one to expect something to break and know how to determine what is broke and what needs to be done to land safely. Military aircraft experience a lot more stresses than civilian aircraft, and thus tend to break more.
In a perfect world, the pilot would recognize a computer mis-evaluation if one occurs due to his simulator training, and over-ride the computer to land safely. In practice, this does not always occur - crashes have resulted from both non-overrides and incorrect overrides.
Although the computer may be statistically safer, if the pilot is able to over-ride obvious computer errors and is trained to recognize those errors, isn't that the best of both worlds?
I always check which type of aircraft will be used on my flight prior to committing to purchase the ticket, and do not fly Airbus. I live near an airline hub, though, so it is easy for me to decide which aircraft to avoid. If a person's local airport has limited service, that choice may not be available to them.
Although I don't condone it, hitting them in the head with this law may get their attention.
I occasionally had the opposite problem. I learned how to say "I don't understand Japanese" clearly and with no accent - then folks didn't believe me. (I forget the correct article to use, but it was something like "Nihongo-ga wakarimasen".) I could say a couple of other important phrases accent-free, the most important of which was "Beeru o kudasai", or the more precise variant, "Asahi o kudasai", which I practiced in public a lot, since it was such an important phrase
First, I am not a lawyer. That said, I could see instances where it could hurt a company NOT to check social networking sites. If a prospective employee's profile indicates a tendency toward racial or sexual discrimination, for instance, and the person was hired in a supervisory position, then acted in a discriminatory manner, those discriminated against may be able to argue in court that the company was lax in its hiring practices, which would make it responsible for the discrimination due to its lack of research.
I believe that a company shouldn't be using non-job-related items for its hiring decisions. On the other hand, if information that disqualifies a candidate for that job is public, I believe that it is the company's duty to use that information.
I could be legally wrong, and I welcome corrections from those more acquainted with the law.
Hollywood, in general, tends to support the left more than the right. Consequently, my guess would be that the nominee would be someone who tends to favor Hollywood's interest, so Hollywood campaign contributions to the Democratic Party continue at current or higher levels.
I could be wrong about my guess, though.
The above would be good pre-marital counseling.
Your reference does not support your alledged Fact, and your alledged Fact ignores the concept of adiabatic warming. The poles are colder than the equator because they receive less energy from the sun, not because descending air is colder. This casts a LOT of doubt to the validity of the rest of your arguments as well.
*Note that the adiabatic warming reference is from an education institution site, not a property development site.
I was a contractor, not an airman. Even if I was gung-ho and did things properly, the person logging on after me with everything set to slut mode would still allow the "Click Here - You're a Winner" pop-ups and such to be self-installed.
I didn't have administrator access and wasn't employed to do IT, and thus couldn't have done a proper set up for everyone, anyway, so I took the easy way out - just setting slut mode to do training, then turning everything off when finished. As far as I am aware, everyone else in my office (and on that base, for all I knew) had slut mode set full time so they could do training when required,. As the training wasn't base-specific, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the average Windows installation on non-sensitive systems USAF-wide is set with similar lax settings with the base firewalls being the main idea of security.
Hopefully, someone from the USAF will jump on and tell me that things have changed since then and/or that base must have been an exception.
While working for the USAF, I was required to do some online training. To run the training, ActiveX had to be enabled and IE basicially set to "slut mode", that is, accept and run everything. That really didn't give me a good feeling about their security.
The annoying part (to me) is the precedent set by mixing God with science in schools. Teach evolution, show its strengths, weaknesses, faults, and failures, and students are still learning good science. Teaching (in a science class ) that a valid alternate explanation to evolution is that God created everything invites the God explanation for everything else taught in that science class.
If one day it is shown that the actions of some yet-to-be-discovered sub-sub-sub-atomic particle can only be explained by the dice roll of a Deity, or some similar discovery occurs, then it will be time to bring God into science classes, in my opinion. Until then, I believe bringing God in on evolution sets a bad precedent.
I figure that if the idea is to prove that you can fake a screenshot, a screenshot that implicates those that are trying to disprove that fact with a heinous crime will bring them around to the realization that a screenshot can be faked, provided that the evidence is entered as proof that you can fake screenshots rather than proof of felony activity. If I could figure a way to implicate the RIAA in the planning of the 9/11 attacks via a screenshot to show that screenshots could be faked, I would think that would be fair evidence of the ability of screenshots to be useless evidence. I don't have the time or ability to do so, though, or Ray would have an interesting email.
At this point, with limited law education, I believe the legality of the situation rests on evidence rules - if faked screenshots can be introduced as evidence that screenshots can be faked, and no other laws are broken in obtaining the screenshots, I think this would be a valid tactic, and discredit the other screenshots. I am not a lawyer, though, and hopefully someone who is can clarify.
What would be interesting, and possibly helpful, would be a screenshot showing that someone with the IP address of a SafeNet office (or an RIAA lawyer's law office) has a lot of files on their computer with filenames suggesting kiddy porn or something to that effect. Introducing that faked screenshot as evidence would be interesting, since any testimony supporting the validity of the Safenet screenshots may support a felony case against Safenet (or the RIAA lawyer).
I don't have the skills/time to find the appropriate IP addresses, ascertain operating systems and such, and then fake the believable screen shot. I don't know that it would be legal, either, so please don't take this as a suggestion. It would be interesting in court, though.
I meant "Is their legal team even slightly qualified for honest work?"
Is there legal team even slightly qualified for honest work?
The RIAA's problem is that they don't want to stream it. They want to record it to digital media with DRM and lots of audio effects to make it sound more like they want it to sound, release it on a geographically-based schedule to maximize marketing, and charge a disproportionate price.
But think of the fun you'd have, especially compared with using Vista
Wait --- those strangers are all attractive females, right? Otherwise, it would be very similar to using Vista.
If I recall correctly, the law requiring DNA samples from servicemembers for remains identification forbade the use of that data set use for other purposes.
Keeping your custom wheels off of the pavement?
From what I can guess, Halliburton's sole motivation is profit. My guess is if they are granted this patent, and they see a violator they can sue for a profit, they will go after them, regardless of the industry. As a result, some of those wishing to reverse engineer will seek licenses from them to keep from being sued by them.
If I have this right, this would be bad for a lot of Open Source products, and good for Microsoft.
It's not just the school systems that frown upon non-standard answers, it's the majority of society. In many situations, propose an idea even slightly outside of the predominant group-think, and watch how many folks start to get offended/shoot it down without thought.
For example - I had a boss write a simple VB app that cut the time needed for his subordinates to do a specific task by at least 50% every time, sometimes as much as 80%, while improving the quality of the output. His boss shot it down and prohibited its use because my boss wasn't assigned to write software, and they had paid someone else to write less-effective software that used more bandwidth and provided a lower quality output.
In another case, we had a door clearance problem in a customer area due to carpet installation. Funding for a new door wasn't forthcoming, so a couple of us on the late shift lowered the false floor just enough to regain clearance. We didn't think much of it, since it solved the problem without needing any funding. However, that solution got a lot more attention (both negative and positive) than we expected. All of the regular visitors noticed. Some folks thought it was a great idea. Those responsible for the building bristled at the idea of a non-standard solution when we suggested it (after the fact, and played it off as a joke when we saw their response), so we had to tell them we bought a new door out of our own funds. (I guess spending hundreds of dollars on a new door is more acceptable than a few radians of rotation of a few large bolts in their eyes.)
Despite all of the feel-good seminars, I believe people in general still aren't accepting of ideas outside of their limited fields-of-view. If I recall correctly, in Japan, there is a saying that roughly translates to "The nail that sticks up is hammered down." Although U.S, citizens like to say that the saying does not apply to them, and individuality is encouraged, I think that the saying is applicable in many U.S. situations as well.
I hope that most reading this work for those without such a limited field of view. It is so much more enjoyable to go to work with bosses that encourage thinking.