In a world with YouTube and video phones there is little guarantee of privacy. In the immediate future only the wealthy and very proactive technorati will have reliable countermeasures to keep their private life private.
Best defense: don't be interesting/rich/important enough for anyone to care.
It's funny that people rarely mention how the code libraries in frameworks like Java and.Net have superseded a lot of earlier scavenging. I can't remember the last time I wrote custom code to send e-mail, display forms, etc. Today's scavenged functionality will be tomorrow's built-in tools.
About in 2025 nobody steering any vehicles anymore, I'm still waiting for my year 2000 flying car, good luck with your self steered 2025 car. Truth is, we are still VERY far from having those type of cars, and will probably never happen. Really?
> Right now, my vote counts for exactly nothing. At least with the money I could help my causes financially.
You've got the right idea. Despite efforts like McCain-Feingold, it seems likely that it will always be the case that money = free speech = votes. The more money you have, the more representation you can purchase. Until strong AI takes over, this doesn't seem likely to change.
>> a world where we're exposed to more information in a day than many people >> experienced in a lifetime thousands of years ago.
> Not really more, just different. For example prehistoric hunters tracking down their wooly mammoth would be
No, really, it's more information. I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, but it's pretty indisputable. A large part of intelligence hinges on dealing with information that's more than just sensation. A shark, like the prehistoric hunters you mention, has a phenomenal sensory system, but you wouldn't say it's as intelligent as a human.
Here's the first definition of intelligence from the American Heritage Dictionary: (a) The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. (See more at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intelligence) Like most skills, practice makes perfect; the more you deal with novel information and situations, the better you get at it. The burgeoning complexity of our lives is arguably a cause for greater _average_ intelligence --and evidence that it must have increased from 10,000 years ago.
We have evolved and continue to evolve. I think we're certainly much smarter than Neanderthals, wouldn't you agree? We've got better cranial hardware. Will future humans be more intelligent on average? Or dumber and more technologically dependent than at present? I'll reserve judgment on that.
>> Arguably, humans have become more intelligent. > No - that just shows that they have become better at doing IQ tests which > I can easily agree with- what would your average caveman do with a > multiple choice question?
Probably eat it. But that's because he wouldn't comprehend the uses of paper or the other several million objects we understand and take for granted. He wouldn't fare well with an iPhone either.
It is true, we are better at I.Q. tests than our ancestors --we're better at a lot of things thanks to superior nutrition, better education, and a world where we're exposed to more information in a day than many people experienced in a lifetime thousands of years ago. If you're a follower of Darwin, you might also hypothesize that intelligence trends up with the complexity of the environment, as things like the Industrial Revolution kill off some of the kids not bright enough to duck heavy machinery. This, of course, might explain the lower end of I.Q. in the gene pool receding a bit since those who couldn't adapt didn't make it through that era.
I.Q. tests don't directly measure intelligence --they measure I.Q., but these tests are highly predictive of our consensus concept of intelligence and tap into a number of general abilities that help us adapt and survive. Regardless of whether it's a matter of nutrition, education, practice solving problems, or genetics, the end result is the same. We're more capable than our ancient ancestors.
> It does even have to be that. Arguably humans have been just as intelligent for the
> past 10,000 years and have failed to design a machine smarter than ourselves. So,
> even if tomorrow we build a smarter machine who is to say how long it will take it
> to design a machine even smarter than it (or even whether it wants to!)?
We also failed to design a machine that could fly for most of the last 10,000 years. Now consider how long after that achievement it took to develop a machine that could land on the moon. Our technological advances aren't linear, but multiplicative.
> Since it seems likely our intent is to keep these machines as subservient slaves the best choice would > probably be not to make them manually capable or to give them mechanical parts. It doesn't matter how > bright or angry an AI program running on my desktop is, the most it can do is screech and flash at me.
Some interesting ideas, but I've got to disagree with the last part. An entity that is powers of intelligence beyond humans would find it trivial to take complete control of our world if it desired. Even on an air-gapped machine, a super-intelligence could eventually find its way to a robotic body or trick someone into creating one to its specifications --or perhaps find a way to control its environment through means we haven't imagined.
There are problems at AMD/ATI in addition to falling behind the competition. I have a recurring problem ticket I re-opened recently at ATI Support where I got a little bitchy and suggested I'd be going back to NVIDIA if they couldn't get their act together. (I must admit my ticket was mostly a complaint about sloppy work, since I already hacked my system registry and fixed their issue.) Judging from their response to the ticket, I'd say there might be an attitude problem developing there as well.
We respect your decision to follow your prerogatives regarding future product selection preferences. Thank you.
AMD Customer Care
Gallows humor from people who don't see a long future for their jobs perhaps?
O.K. Honesty time... I'm pretty much locked in to MS development technologies and I'd describe it as a love-hate relationship. I think.NET, VS2005, and some other tools are the greatest. They've made me look good with minimal effort on many an occasion. But then... MS has created a lot of crap over the years to satisfy marketing schedules too. It's a long list. And then there's the fact that their business practices are blatantly evil. (This is what keeps many of us from being MS fanboys.) I have to segment off the part of my brain that has a problem with that. I consider myself very principled otherwise, but baby's got to eat.
I've searched others' comments and it seems they missed some obvious lateral moves (ones I've considered anyway --when I'm too old to keep up with the latest paradigm shift). Have you considered becoming a technical recruiter? Or doing IT-related sales? Or, if you're really not a people person, perhaps you could move into management? IT really needs more managers that have a fundamental clue about technology.
But... you say that "it's not that doing IT related tasks aren't fun anymore..." which leaves me wondering if you don't just need a change of venue or an IT project that fires your imagination. Maybe you could delve into something that dovetails with another interest? Even if it doesn't pay as well.
I'm anxiously awaiting the outcome when this goes to trial. With the help of my virtual lawyer, I'm initiating wrongful death charges, hoping to right a horrible injustice. The case of The Freeman Family v. Combine Soldier #651273 must be heard!
As a developer I think change is a good thing. Adaptation one of the things that distinguishes humans from the rest of the animal kingdom; it's the basis of human progress. The thing I have a problem with is that a lot of UI redesign is being made increasingly mouse-centric. This is great for Mom and Dad, so they can fumble their way through an application that will forever be a mystery to them, but for me it's an aggravation so heinous, I'd rather do everything from command line. After a half-hour of exploring the menu items, the mouse only slows me down. When you redesign your software, throwing out the hotkeys and keyboard shortcuts, you've lost me.
... a really good hoax... just like Alan Moore's The Watchmen?
Exactly. That's a brilliant, brilliant graphic novel, on par with great literature. I need to give it another read soon, before they ruin it by making it into a movie. Casting would make an interesting non seq. thread... Christopher Walken or Nicolas Cage as Rorschach perhaps?
Nothing brings people together like a common enemy, so for us to have no more wars here on Earth, the most likely catalyst would be war with an alien species.
True, but it would have to be a really good hoax. Otherwise it's not likely we'd have a prayer against aggressive aliens. As Sagan and many others would point out, a space-faring civilization is going to be much older and more technologically advanced than us. Reminds me of that old saying, "don't bring a knife to an phaser fight."
This, I think, is the crux of the disagreement. On one hand, you have people -- usually but not always social liberals -- claiming that the source of the world's problems are mostly economic, and that terrorists are produced by folks envious of our plasma TVs, SUVs, and 40-hour-workweeks.
Dude! You have 40-hour work weeks?!! Is your company hiring?
Seriously though, you're right about terrorists not being poor dregs with nothing better to do than blow themselves up. The more common profile of a suicide bomber is actually someone college educated and idealistic to the extreme. However, perceived economic (including land, etc.) injustice to their fellow Muslims is certainly a huge motivator. Poverty creates an atmosphere of unrest and suffering that fuels their righteous rage.
I agree. At this point you might as well take your speculation and make an entertaining sci-fi movie while you wait for the Singularity. After that the future will be predicted with 99.627815% accuracy.
> Its sad to see people take of the mantle of a luddite, dismiss > logic (cell phones are safe on planes), and applaud these > decisions because they dont like overhearing a conversation or two.
I agree; if there was even the remote possibility that a cell phone was dangerous to flight operations they would force you to check them at the gate. I suspect the real problem is that it makes billing difficult for AirPhone(c) and for your cellular provider when you're moving from tower to tower so quickly.
On the other hand, silence is golden. I love gadgets as much as the next guy but please, other people are morons, for the most part. Why wouldn't I applaud an arbitrary rule to prevent them from blathering while I try to watch movies, urinate, and sit confined in a really uncomfortable chair for five hours? You'd think societal probations alone would prevent this tacky behavior, but I hear it all the time. If they need the freedom to talk all the time, everywhere, perhaps we should have the freedom to use jamming devices?:) Nothing Luddite about that --just a modern method of cutting off a dullard.
Parent makes an important point. I think the MS automatic updates are a great help to Joe Average User, but if they wanted to do things right, MS would lock down almost all networking other than HTTP connections to update.microsoft.com until the fresh install was fully patched.
I think I speak for most of us when I say "fuck 'em." These shitheads have proven again and again that they're hopeless Luddites who don't understand that the old rules don't apply. Even in the post-Napster age I've felt that it's only right to buy CDs of music I've really enjoyed on MP3, but bullshit like this just disgusts me. Where do these morons think I hear the new music I need to buy? Not on bland commercial radio.
I'll be supporting musicians by buying their music at concerts. All these money-grubbing, no-talent shits and their lawyers can find a new line of work because I'm cutting them out of the revenue stream.
I bristle at the thought of censorship as much as the next person, but being the father of a 2-year old, I'm starting to give a lot of thought to what I allow into the little guy's head. There is a strong body of research on social learning that suggests exposing young children to violence is not a good idea. The seminal study was Albert Bandura's Bobo doll experiment (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment) ; it clearly demonstrated (IMHO) that children imitate the violence they see on T.V.
When my boy is old enough to have a mature discussion about violence, we'll watch the shows I love together. Until then I'm using the V-chip and keeping my FPS games locked in the gun safe.
It covers the language as quickly as anything I've seen. I felt fairly up-to-speed after a long weekend with this book. It won't waste your time telling you how to code "hello world" or giving you architectual guidance (there's plenty of that online). It's cheap too.
Your biggest hurdle will be learning the.Net framework libraries and getting proficient will other aspects/pitfalls of.Net development. The language itself will be easy for you.
You gotta love the Orwellian genius of our darling public servants. Think I'll pen a new law for Congress and the Senate to consider: the Love America And Freedom act. The text of the bill demands immediate impeachment and war crimes trials for the Bush administration. If you disagree with the bill, obviously you hate America and Freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
In a world with YouTube and video phones there is little guarantee of privacy. In the immediate future only the wealthy and very proactive technorati will have reliable countermeasures to keep their private life private.
Best defense: don't be interesting/rich/important enough for anyone to care.
It's funny that people rarely mention how the code libraries in frameworks like Java and .Net have superseded a lot of earlier scavenging. I can't remember the last time I wrote custom code to send e-mail, display forms, etc. Today's scavenged functionality will be tomorrow's built-in tools.
> Sure. We can all see how the legalization of tobacco and alcohol has
> eradicated demand for those products.
True. But when was the last time you heard about somebody getting shot for a cigarette?
Some problems are worse than others.
Really?
> Right now, my vote counts for exactly nothing. At least with the money I could help my causes financially.
You've got the right idea. Despite efforts like McCain-Feingold, it seems likely that it will always be the case that money = free speech = votes. The more money you have, the more representation you can purchase. Until strong AI takes over, this doesn't seem likely to change.
>> a world where we're exposed to more information in a day than many people
>> experienced in a lifetime thousands of years ago.
> Not really more, just different. For example prehistoric hunters tracking down their wooly mammoth would be
No, really, it's more information. I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, but it's pretty indisputable. A large part of intelligence hinges on dealing with information that's more than just sensation. A shark, like the prehistoric hunters you mention, has a phenomenal sensory system, but you wouldn't say it's as intelligent as a human.
Here's the first definition of intelligence from the American Heritage Dictionary: (a) The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. (See more at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intelligence) Like most skills, practice makes perfect; the more you deal with novel information and situations, the better you get at it. The burgeoning complexity of our lives is arguably a cause for greater _average_ intelligence --and evidence that it must have increased from 10,000 years ago.
Here's some interesting reading on the subject of how much information we swim in:
http://www.netlibrary.com/ebook_info.asp?product_id=20851
We have evolved and continue to evolve. I think we're certainly much smarter than Neanderthals, wouldn't you agree? We've got better cranial hardware. Will future humans be more intelligent on average? Or dumber and more technologically dependent than at present? I'll reserve judgment on that.
>> Arguably, humans have become more intelligent.
> No - that just shows that they have become better at doing IQ tests which
> I can easily agree with- what would your average caveman do with a
> multiple choice question?
Probably eat it. But that's because he wouldn't comprehend the uses of paper or the other several million objects we understand and take for granted. He wouldn't fare well with an iPhone either.
It is true, we are better at I.Q. tests than our ancestors --we're better at a lot of things thanks to superior nutrition, better education, and a world where we're exposed to more information in a day than many people experienced in a lifetime thousands of years ago. If you're a follower of Darwin, you might also hypothesize that intelligence trends up with the complexity of the environment, as things like the Industrial Revolution kill off some of the kids not bright enough to duck heavy machinery. This, of course, might explain the lower end of I.Q. in the gene pool receding a bit since those who couldn't adapt didn't make it through that era.
I.Q. tests don't directly measure intelligence --they measure I.Q., but these tests are highly predictive of our consensus concept of intelligence and tap into a number of general abilities that help us adapt and survive. Regardless of whether it's a matter of nutrition, education, practice solving problems, or genetics, the end result is the same. We're more capable than our ancient ancestors.
> It does even have to be that. Arguably humans have been just as intelligent for the > past 10,000 years and have failed to design a machine smarter than ourselves. So,
Arguably, humans have become more intelligent.
> even if tomorrow we build a smarter machine who is to say how long it will take it
> to design a machine even smarter than it (or even whether it wants to!)?
We also failed to design a machine that could fly for most of the last 10,000 years. Now consider how long after that achievement it took to develop a machine that could land on the moon. Our technological advances aren't linear, but multiplicative.
> Since it seems likely our intent is to keep these machines as subservient slaves the best choice would
> probably be not to make them manually capable or to give them mechanical parts. It doesn't matter how
> bright or angry an AI program running on my desktop is, the most it can do is screech and flash at me.
Some interesting ideas, but I've got to disagree with the last part. An entity that is powers of intelligence beyond humans would find it trivial to take complete control of our world if it desired. Even on an air-gapped machine, a super-intelligence could eventually find its way to a robotic body or trick someone into creating one to its specifications --or perhaps find a way to control its environment through means we haven't imagined.
Gallows humor from people who don't see a long future for their jobs perhaps?
O.K. Honesty time... I'm pretty much locked in to MS development technologies and I'd describe it as a love-hate relationship. I think .NET, VS2005, and some other tools are the greatest. They've made me look good with minimal effort on many an occasion. But then... MS has created a lot of crap over the years to satisfy marketing schedules too. It's a long list. And then there's the fact that their business practices are blatantly evil. (This is what keeps many of us from being MS fanboys.) I have to segment off the part of my brain that has a problem with that. I consider myself very principled otherwise, but baby's got to eat.
I've searched others' comments and it seems they missed some obvious lateral moves (ones I've considered anyway --when I'm too old to keep up with the latest paradigm shift). Have you considered becoming a technical recruiter? Or doing IT-related sales? Or, if you're really not a people person, perhaps you could move into management? IT really needs more managers that have a fundamental clue about technology.
But... you say that "it's not that doing IT related tasks aren't fun anymore..." which leaves me wondering if you don't just need a change of venue or an IT project that fires your imagination. Maybe you could delve into something that dovetails with another interest? Even if it doesn't pay as well.
I'm anxiously awaiting the outcome when this goes to trial. With the help of my virtual lawyer, I'm initiating wrongful death charges, hoping to right a horrible injustice. The case of The Freeman Family v. Combine Soldier #651273 must be heard!
As a developer I think change is a good thing. Adaptation one of the things that distinguishes humans from the rest of the animal kingdom; it's the basis of human progress. The thing I have a problem with is that a lot of UI redesign is being made increasingly mouse-centric. This is great for Mom and Dad, so they can fumble their way through an application that will forever be a mystery to them, but for me it's an aggravation so heinous, I'd rather do everything from command line. After a half-hour of exploring the menu items, the mouse only slows me down. When you redesign your software, throwing out the hotkeys and keyboard shortcuts, you've lost me.
Exactly. That's a brilliant, brilliant graphic novel, on par with great literature. I need to give it another read soon, before they ruin it by making it into a movie. Casting would make an interesting non seq. thread... Christopher Walken or Nicolas Cage as Rorschach perhaps?
True, but it would have to be a really good hoax. Otherwise it's not likely we'd have a prayer against aggressive aliens. As Sagan and many others would point out, a space-faring civilization is going to be much older and more technologically advanced than us. Reminds me of that old saying, "don't bring a knife to an phaser fight."
This, I think, is the crux of the disagreement. On one hand, you have people -- usually but not always social liberals -- claiming that the source of the world's problems are mostly economic, and that terrorists are produced by folks envious of our plasma TVs, SUVs, and 40-hour-workweeks.
Dude! You have 40-hour work weeks?!! Is your company hiring?
Seriously though, you're right about terrorists not being poor dregs with nothing better to do than blow themselves up. The more common profile of a suicide bomber is actually someone college educated and idealistic to the extreme. However, perceived economic (including land, etc.) injustice to their fellow Muslims is certainly a huge motivator. Poverty creates an atmosphere of unrest and suffering that fuels their righteous rage.
I agree. At this point you might as well take your speculation and make an entertaining sci-fi movie while you wait for the Singularity. After that the future will be predicted with 99.627815% accuracy.
> Its sad to see people take of the mantle of a luddite, dismiss
:)
> logic (cell phones are safe on planes), and applaud these
> decisions because they dont like overhearing a conversation or two.
I agree; if there was even the remote possibility that a cell phone was dangerous to flight operations they would force you to check them at the gate. I suspect the real problem is that it makes billing difficult for AirPhone(c) and for your cellular provider when you're moving from tower to tower so quickly.
On the other hand, silence is golden. I love gadgets as much as the next guy but please, other people are morons, for the most part. Why wouldn't I applaud an arbitrary rule to prevent them from blathering while I try to watch movies, urinate, and sit confined in a really uncomfortable chair for five hours? You'd think societal probations alone would prevent this tacky behavior, but I hear it all the time. If they need the freedom to talk all the time, everywhere, perhaps we should have the freedom to use jamming devices?
Nothing Luddite about that --just a modern method of cutting off a dullard.
Parent makes an important point. I think the MS automatic updates are a great help to Joe Average User, but if they wanted to do things right, MS would lock down almost all networking other than HTTP connections to update.microsoft.com until the fresh install was fully patched.
I think I speak for most of us when I say "fuck 'em." These shitheads have proven again and again that they're hopeless Luddites who don't understand that the old rules don't apply. Even in the post-Napster age I've felt that it's only right to buy CDs of music I've really enjoyed on MP3, but bullshit like this just disgusts me. Where do these morons think I hear the new music I need to buy? Not on bland commercial radio.
I'll be supporting musicians by buying their music at concerts. All these money-grubbing, no-talent shits and their lawyers can find a new line of work because I'm cutting them out of the revenue stream.
I bristle at the thought of censorship as much as the next person, but being the father of a 2-year old, I'm starting to give a lot of thought to what I allow into the little guy's head. There is a strong body of research on social learning that suggests exposing young children to violence is not a good idea. The seminal study was Albert Bandura's Bobo doll experiment (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment) ; it clearly demonstrated (IMHO) that children imitate the violence they see on T.V.
When my boy is old enough to have a mature discussion about violence, we'll watch the shows I love together. Until then I'm using the V-chip and keeping my FPS games locked in the gun safe.
You're already very familiar with OOP. If you're like me and just want the facts in hurry, I'd recommend something like C# Essentials: http://www.amazon.com/C-Essentials-2nd-Ben-Albahar i/dp/0596003153/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5749589-837266 3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174093734&sr=8-1
.Net framework libraries and getting proficient will other aspects/pitfalls of .Net development. The language itself will be easy for you.
It covers the language as quickly as anything I've seen. I felt fairly up-to-speed after a long weekend with this book. It won't waste your time telling you how to code "hello world" or giving you architectual guidance (there's plenty of that online). It's cheap too.
Your biggest hurdle will be learning the
> They may have a capital but they don't deserve one.
Actually, I thought the GP meant they should be given lots of money (5) or taken advantage of (7).
You gotta love the Orwellian genius of our darling public servants. Think I'll pen a new law for Congress and the Senate to consider: the Love America And Freedom act. The text of the bill demands immediate impeachment and war crimes trials for the Bush administration. If you disagree with the bill, obviously you hate America and Freedom.