That's what happens when you are actually DOING something instead of sitting on your ass behind a desk counting the number of holes in your ceiling (like this professor).
You don't think that's being a bit unfair? This guy's an archaeologist who knows the value of historical sites. They give us a ton of insight into where we've been and thus where we're going. I take the same pragmatic view of the landing site as you - the first footprint has been destroyed already, etc. etc. - but let's not turn this into an ad hominem fight.
Thing is, a lot of slashdotters have the "luxury" of ignoring this fact. I cut my web app teeth working for a public university, so this stuff has been seriously ingrained into our policies. We still have a ton of legacy stuff to bring into the 21st century, but I don't know of a shop on campus that thinks tables are an okay way to do layout. And when you do use them, you use them with properly scoped <th>s, etc.
I wish more people did work for the government or maybe accessibility-related NGOs. It was a good way to go - learn how to do it the "hard" way, and the "easy" way looks awful.
Speaking of axes to grind, until you can produce evidence, the answer to all your questions may as well be "no." Seriously, how is this modded Informative or Insightful? There's not a single link to evidence for these claims. In a quick Google search, I found nothing about Yee being picked up for being a john - though lots to suggest he has fought against prostitution for years - and the only thing about shoplifting was this article referencing a 1992 incident that appears to have been a big, dumb mistake.
Mods, honestly, why did you mod this up? Do you know something I don't?
Thanks for pointing that out. Having family in west Texas, I was wondering why I hadn't heard about this.
Incidentally, if you're ever driving through West, the kolaches at the Czech Stop there are worth stopping for.
I gotta say this - I'm tired of you and people like you putting logout links in your signature. It's not funny. It's not a moron test. It's rude, and you're an ass hole for thinking it's a good idea.
For the record, this isn't personal revenge: I've never been caught by something like this. But you're a dick, and you need to be reprimanded by the community - modded down on every post until you shape up.
Sorry to hear about your problems. Given your comments below, it looks like your MBP is completely effed. I would look into getting a new mobo (I don't think you can replace the GPU on those boxes) and finding a good guide (look around here). Otherwise, sell it to an enthusiast when it dies.
I had something similar happen with an iBook G4 many moons ago, and it taught me a very important lesson: buy the damn warranty, especially with a laptop. I've done it with every laptop I've bought since then, Apple or not, and it's absolutely worth it.
If it seems like it costs too much, there are two things to do:
Consider whether you need the laptop you're buying - would that last $200 be better spent on the warranty?
Remember that much of the time you're able to purchase the warranty up to a year after the purchase of the machine. This means you can distribute the cost of the warranty. Often it makes sense to go ahead and make the purchase and then buy the warranty 6 months later.
The one thing that's really not an option is to just bank on your laptop living through your use of it. You'll stress it, abuse it, maybe drop it one day - and you need some kind of support when that happens.
I actually contracted nVIR on a Centris 610 once, well over a decade ago. I also wanted to point out that the fact that nVIR was viable against System 4.1 machines should have been a big freaking sign that something was amiss when it was cited as an example of the Mac's vulnerability. If the virus is contemporaneous with System 4.1, it's over 20 years old.
nVIR is in the wild like smallpox is in the wild.
People need to understand that no one in the know is saying that OS X is vulnerability-free or that it will stay virus-free. But every time that's brought up we're practically told to start handcoding fixes for non-existent threats. It's absurd.
They are competitive, at the beginning of their life cycle. Because of the way Apple updates its products, though, price competitiveness goes down throughout the cycle until the next refresh.
All this means is that yes, you should wait until the next refresh to buy a shiny new MB/MBP/MP.
Like many others here, it was logic that led me to CS. My degree is in philosophy, but my career is in software development. So maybe I'm a bit biased.
I can't really point to applications in the last 2.5 years, but I think you're overstating the case. I'm quite familiar with work done by people here (Nick Asher, mentioned on that page, was chair of UT's philosophy dept. for some time). Paul and Patricia Churchland have done a great deal to bring the philosophy of mind in line with contemporary scientific thought - which includes CS. Neural networks are now regularly discussed in undergraduate philosophy courses. In no other liberal arts major will you find students so familiar with the work of Kripke, Goedel, Turing, or Frege. Hell, I know CS majors who can't go toe-to-toe with a good philosophy major when it comes to theory.
And when you ask us to set aside "logic, predicate calculus and the philosophy of mathematics," you're asking us to ignore the foundation of the philosophy of language, a field of study that's enormously popular today and overlaps into linguistics, semantic modeling, etc.
That's not to mention whole subfields of metaphysics, such as ontology.
I'm not saying there's some "killer app" for philosophy here. But the fields are more closely bound than you make them seem.
My wife is finishing her professional degree at a top 5 architecture school and has worked for various firms for a few years now. Before we met, I didn't know the slightest thing about what you might call our "artificial environment" and the way it gets designed. Now I know more than my fair share.
I say that only to bolster the following claim: the people who do the things you're talking about are largely beholden to ideas of the past. A lot of work these days goes into designing spaces that are comfortable and inviting for their users - not alienating and weird. And even if a lot of professionals are producing weird things, students these days are being moved past that in their actual design work.
There are certainly buildings - see videos of the "fog building" at a festival several years ago - that boggle the mind of people like you and me, but those projects are often just playful efforts. And we do it, too. Have you seen the iPhone beer?
Besides, TFA points out that the designers want the leg technology to be used by other structures and that they'd like to link together several of the structures - an idea that supports what another reply to your post suggested.
Problems created by misinformation are solved by education, not censorship.
Thanks. That's an important philosophical point that is too easy to forget.
OTOH, I can see why TBL might think some kind of rating system is a stab at education, not censorship. Unfortunately, the "gaming the system" a lot of us has mentioned goes both ways. Those in the wrong may well trick the system into dubbing them trustworthy, but those in the right are just as likely to squash the slightest peep from those in the wrong. Neither situation is healthy.
Actually, I agree that that's a good first step. But I worry that it's not enough. It depends a lot on the implementation, I suppose. If it's Us vs. Them and They claim that We're gaming the system, then who is the user to trust? But if it's just users managing who's trustworthy in the system... I don't have a lot of faith that facts/truth will prevail. A lot of systems get gamed today by people who are open about it - see lobbyists, politicians, most of Wall St. - and no one seems to give a shit.
Bah. I've already posted, but if I hadn't I'd mod you up. These are exactly the kind of worries one might have about a system like what Berners-Lee is suggesting.
But there's something else here. Suppose we were to pick one of the first two options you present (users or an uninvolved organization). Then the suggestion isn't terribly original. There are already sites that incorporate user input to rank sites (and some of them *koff*digg*koff* don't work all that well). And the idea of a neutral fact-checking group/site isn't too interesting either. Just thinking of factcheck.org and snopes.com, it isn't too hard to see something like a rating service coming down the line. (And there are probably more obvious relatives than those that I'm just missing.)
TFA is/.ed, and MirrorDot's not behaving, so this is a shot in the dark. But I'm reasonably sure we've heard something like this before, and the idea is just as bad now as it was. Berners-Lee is smart enough to know that all systemic rating scales are subject to being gamed. I fail to see how embedding such a scale in the protocol would help, and it's not unlikely that it would hurt the situation.
Moreover, the WWW as he created it - being a very dumb platform - allows us to implement such a scale at a high level, using user input and so forth.There are already a ton of services that do something very like this. Hell, I can trust the top 10 things on del.icio.us more than I can trust random Google results.
I donno. I just fail to see the point of this. Yeah, people's capacity to care about facts and details appears to be limited, but I don't think this is the solution.
I'm sorry, but how is this +5 Interesting? It's a blatant mis-restatement of GP's post. To wit:
It was also democrats who proposed and extended copyright terms and signed the DMCA into law.
... and...
The DMCA came to being under a Republican Senate and Republican House, and introduced by Republican Rep. Howard Coble. The only major part the Dems played was Clinton signing it into law
These are not equivalent, and you're misrepresenting GP and GGP in claiming they are. Where I come from, "and" means that both constituent clauses are true. GP demonstrates that the first clause is false. Thus it's not the case that "his point remains correct."
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know, but we should come up with one. "Go back to the nursing home?"
That's what happens when you are actually DOING something instead of sitting on your ass behind a desk counting the number of holes in your ceiling (like this professor).
You don't think that's being a bit unfair? This guy's an archaeologist who knows the value of historical sites. They give us a ton of insight into where we've been and thus where we're going. I take the same pragmatic view of the landing site as you - the first footprint has been destroyed already, etc. etc. - but let's not turn this into an ad hominem fight.
Thing is, a lot of slashdotters have the "luxury" of ignoring this fact. I cut my web app teeth working for a public university, so this stuff has been seriously ingrained into our policies. We still have a ton of legacy stuff to bring into the 21st century, but I don't know of a shop on campus that thinks tables are an okay way to do layout. And when you do use them, you use them with properly scoped <th>s, etc.
I wish more people did work for the government or maybe accessibility-related NGOs. It was a good way to go - learn how to do it the "hard" way, and the "easy" way looks awful.
Speaking of axes to grind, until you can produce evidence, the answer to all your questions may as well be "no." Seriously, how is this modded Informative or Insightful? There's not a single link to evidence for these claims. In a quick Google search, I found nothing about Yee being picked up for being a john - though lots to suggest he has fought against prostitution for years - and the only thing about shoplifting was this article referencing a 1992 incident that appears to have been a big, dumb mistake.
Mods, honestly, why did you mod this up? Do you know something I don't?
FYI, I'm pretty sure you mean a by-your-leave. Although your original makes for an interesting study in customer service.
Yeah, but NYCL, many of us would work under you. You've got a reputation for being of the right mind, even though you're not a geek per se.
Doesn't seem too likely. TFA was written "Yesterday," and it likely references this article, which was written March 30.
Sorry to disappoint.
it's probably time to put some ramen on your Visa and start making stuff up for your LinkedIn page.
Can anyone explain what the hell this means?
Oh, now what the hell? They posted in the same fucking minute.
Thanks for pointing that out. Having family in west Texas, I was wondering why I hadn't heard about this. Incidentally, if you're ever driving through West, the kolaches at the Czech Stop there are worth stopping for.
I gotta say this - I'm tired of you and people like you putting logout links in your signature. It's not funny. It's not a moron test. It's rude, and you're an ass hole for thinking it's a good idea.
For the record, this isn't personal revenge: I've never been caught by something like this. But you're a dick, and you need to be reprimanded by the community - modded down on every post until you shape up.
Sorry to hear about your problems. Given your comments below, it looks like your MBP is completely effed. I would look into getting a new mobo (I don't think you can replace the GPU on those boxes) and finding a good guide (look around here). Otherwise, sell it to an enthusiast when it dies.
I had something similar happen with an iBook G4 many moons ago, and it taught me a very important lesson: buy the damn warranty, especially with a laptop. I've done it with every laptop I've bought since then, Apple or not, and it's absolutely worth it.
If it seems like it costs too much, there are two things to do:
The one thing that's really not an option is to just bank on your laptop living through your use of it. You'll stress it, abuse it, maybe drop it one day - and you need some kind of support when that happens.
I actually contracted nVIR on a Centris 610 once, well over a decade ago. I also wanted to point out that the fact that nVIR was viable against System 4.1 machines should have been a big freaking sign that something was amiss when it was cited as an example of the Mac's vulnerability. If the virus is contemporaneous with System 4.1, it's over 20 years old.
nVIR is in the wild like smallpox is in the wild.
People need to understand that no one in the know is saying that OS X is vulnerability-free or that it will stay virus-free. But every time that's brought up we're practically told to start handcoding fixes for non-existent threats. It's absurd.
And the obligatory xkcd.
They are competitive, at the beginning of their life cycle. Because of the way Apple updates its products, though, price competitiveness goes down throughout the cycle until the next refresh.
All this means is that yes, you should wait until the next refresh to buy a shiny new MB/MBP/MP.
Like many others here, it was logic that led me to CS. My degree is in philosophy, but my career is in software development. So maybe I'm a bit biased.
I can't really point to applications in the last 2.5 years, but I think you're overstating the case. I'm quite familiar with work done by people here (Nick Asher, mentioned on that page, was chair of UT's philosophy dept. for some time). Paul and Patricia Churchland have done a great deal to bring the philosophy of mind in line with contemporary scientific thought - which includes CS. Neural networks are now regularly discussed in undergraduate philosophy courses. In no other liberal arts major will you find students so familiar with the work of Kripke, Goedel, Turing, or Frege. Hell, I know CS majors who can't go toe-to-toe with a good philosophy major when it comes to theory.
And when you ask us to set aside "logic, predicate calculus and the philosophy of mathematics," you're asking us to ignore the foundation of the philosophy of language, a field of study that's enormously popular today and overlaps into linguistics, semantic modeling, etc.
That's not to mention whole subfields of metaphysics, such as ontology.
I'm not saying there's some "killer app" for philosophy here. But the fields are more closely bound than you make them seem.
My wife is finishing her professional degree at a top 5 architecture school and has worked for various firms for a few years now. Before we met, I didn't know the slightest thing about what you might call our "artificial environment" and the way it gets designed. Now I know more than my fair share.
I say that only to bolster the following claim: the people who do the things you're talking about are largely beholden to ideas of the past. A lot of work these days goes into designing spaces that are comfortable and inviting for their users - not alienating and weird. And even if a lot of professionals are producing weird things, students these days are being moved past that in their actual design work.
There are certainly buildings - see videos of the "fog building" at a festival several years ago - that boggle the mind of people like you and me, but those projects are often just playful efforts. And we do it, too. Have you seen the iPhone beer?
Besides, TFA points out that the designers want the leg technology to be used by other structures and that they'd like to link together several of the structures - an idea that supports what another reply to your post suggested.
Maybe he meant the alternate spelling "amuck" (citation) and misspelled that. You know, the way "a lot" somehow becomes "alot" here on teh intarwebz.
Or maybe he's just confused. Perhaps this is a new eggcorn?
Here's another one: Can anyone find any reference to the "Peeters report" besides in the submitter's review?
As far as the review's writing itself, I was worried I wasn't the only one. Jesus Christ. Surprising, given that Rothke's written pretty extensively.
I'd complain that we need better editors around here, but ... ah, fuck it.
Problems created by misinformation are solved by education, not censorship.
Thanks. That's an important philosophical point that is too easy to forget.
OTOH, I can see why TBL might think some kind of rating system is a stab at education, not censorship. Unfortunately, the "gaming the system" a lot of us has mentioned goes both ways. Those in the wrong may well trick the system into dubbing them trustworthy, but those in the right are just as likely to squash the slightest peep from those in the wrong. Neither situation is healthy.
Actually, I agree that that's a good first step. But I worry that it's not enough. It depends a lot on the implementation, I suppose. If it's Us vs. Them and They claim that We're gaming the system, then who is the user to trust? But if it's just users managing who's trustworthy in the system ... I don't have a lot of faith that facts/truth will prevail. A lot of systems get gamed today by people who are open about it - see lobbyists, politicians, most of Wall St. - and no one seems to give a shit.
Well, great, but I don't see how the idea is a) original, or b) supposed to counteract the groupthink that's already in place.
I can check out the (R|D)NC's most recently cited sources and get their TruthRank. Doesn't mean they're right.
Bah. I've already posted, but if I hadn't I'd mod you up. These are exactly the kind of worries one might have about a system like what Berners-Lee is suggesting.
But there's something else here. Suppose we were to pick one of the first two options you present (users or an uninvolved organization). Then the suggestion isn't terribly original. There are already sites that incorporate user input to rank sites (and some of them *koff*digg*koff* don't work all that well). And the idea of a neutral fact-checking group/site isn't too interesting either. Just thinking of factcheck.org and snopes.com, it isn't too hard to see something like a rating service coming down the line. (And there are probably more obvious relatives than those that I'm just missing.)
Just doesn't seem like a very good idea...
TFA is /.ed, and MirrorDot's not behaving, so this is a shot in the dark. But I'm reasonably sure we've heard something like this before, and the idea is just as bad now as it was. Berners-Lee is smart enough to know that all systemic rating scales are subject to being gamed. I fail to see how embedding such a scale in the protocol would help, and it's not unlikely that it would hurt the situation.
Moreover, the WWW as he created it - being a very dumb platform - allows us to implement such a scale at a high level, using user input and so forth.There are already a ton of services that do something very like this. Hell, I can trust the top 10 things on del.icio.us more than I can trust random Google results.
I donno. I just fail to see the point of this. Yeah, people's capacity to care about facts and details appears to be limited, but I don't think this is the solution.
I'm sorry, but how is this +5 Interesting? It's a blatant mis-restatement of GP's post. To wit:
It was also democrats who proposed and extended copyright terms and signed the DMCA into law.
... and ...
The DMCA came to being under a Republican Senate and Republican House, and introduced by Republican Rep. Howard Coble. The only major part the Dems played was Clinton signing it into law
These are not equivalent, and you're misrepresenting GP and GGP in claiming they are. Where I come from, "and" means that both constituent clauses are true. GP demonstrates that the first clause is false. Thus it's not the case that "his point remains correct."