> Not qualified - Very few women and minorities graduate with degrees in computer science or engineering.
One thing I would be curious about.... I know a lot of men, including myself, in technical jobs who have no degree at all, or a degree in something unrelated. I wonder if women, on the whole, see that as more of a barrier and don't try to get jobs on the edges of their qualifications or get intimidated by job descriptions.
Like, I have never even applied for a job where I met every single qualification they wanted. "Bachelors degree"? Good luck finding a tech job that doesn't claim to "require" one.
> People can do bad things until they see the light and then they can change >their ways and act like a decent human being from that time on. This is what > happened with my buddy and why we became friends.
This is true, I met a guy at a party who told me how he used to be a cop, and stopped because he realized how wrong it was "When I realized I lost count of the number of times I ruined someone's life for something I personally have done many times over, I couldn't do it anymore" is what he told me.
> You get a shitty scan because when the request comes in, someone gets stuck with scanning an 83 page paper.
A paper which, if you look really close, says on it the words "this sharepoint"..... so they actually had to produce an 83 page paper before scanning it.... rather than using the "print to a file" function which, would produce an easily legible document.
Nope....this excuse doesn't even hold a little bit of water.
There is just NO EXCUSE for this. Someone else pointed out this is no better than the shit lavabit pulled with their font size. However, this is worked, a too small but legible font can be magnified and processed....an illegible document may as well not have been produced.
However, now that I see sharepoint....so sharepoint...they had this in electronic form and could have easily produced a perfectly legible document and chose not to.... nice guys....way to show you give a shit about compliance with the law you claim to uphold.
Agreed, it would be a better use of our money generally if they were working on a way to deliver coffee to individuals via orbital drops than some of the other things they waste it on.
You are missing the point of GPs statement. There is no reason all 29,656 have to be auctioned in a single block. There is no reason they couldn't be auctioned off in blocks small enough to let a person with far less be able to participate in trying to get some of the bitcoins they stole from a legitimate businessman.
Ahh legal Jargon is so fun. The majority of English speakers I have ever interacted with would take "verbal" and "oral" as meaning the exact same thing. In fact, your post may be the first time I have, in my entire life, seen "verbal" used to refer to something written down.
I am sure you have the correct technical definition as used by people in the legal profession, but, its not the definition everyone else is working off of.
IANAL but this was always how I understood contracts and verbal ones. A verbal agreement is still an agreement and the reason they are generally not considered "much good" is that they are, in the general case, notoriously hard to prove exist and to prove the exact terms of.... but that doesn't make them any less real in cases where those issues are not the case.
Here we have public and fairly explicit statements from an officer of the company who is authorized to speak to the public. I think that unless they can prove some bad faith, they are going to have a hard time weaseling out of those statements.
And forget the courts, can you imagine the PR nightmare of suing someone for doing something you publicly issued a permission to do?
Right because they really care about what amounts to pocket change. Never mind that they like to "create jobs". The cost of incarcerating....er I mean "detaining" you the rest of your life will cost them less than buying a single plane that they have no intention to ever fly, and they have fields FULL of those.
Marketing people? I have never been so insulted. Marketing?
Disclaimers are for situations where there could be any confustion. There is no confusion here. You are welcome to hold whatever standards you want though. Enjoy yours I guess.
> b) Trump up some fake charges and detain you indefinitely, or > c) Fuck it, the first two are too hard, just send in a drone strike.
Why is it too hard? If they can detain you indefinitely without trial then it doesn't matter what the actual charges are since the court is where they get evaluated. It is an expression that is never evaluated. Its the if clause after the return statement.
Really? I don't really find it that interesting. What nutrients plants need to grow is well established. This is only really interesting if the meteorite was found to not contain forms of the various nutrients that we would have expected they can use (or can get some bacteria to process for them into a form they can use)
Its not a really unimportant test, just because you expect it to work doesn't mean its unworthy of testing or doesn't need some tests in specific situations but.... the result is exactly what would be expected...it works.
Hell even if it was missing several nutrients or had them in uselss forms....plants can still often do pretty well in rather non-ideal conditions. Hell even if the meteorite is just an inert media, that works fine too. In medium nutrients are finite anyway, likely you need to do some sort of fertilizing, either by reclaiming nutrients from waste (composting could be odd that high up in the gravity well) or mining it from somewhere.
If it was strictly an opinion piece or even a simple review, I might agree. If this was aimed at a comparison between products, absolutely. However, looking over this there is quite a bit of content, with code. Its basically a tutorial on setting up the device.
Why does someone who is basically a tutorial author need to disclose his relationship to the company?
Disclosures are to call out the appearance of conflict of interest. I see no clonflict here, in fact, whether the author was paid outright to write the piece or not seems irrelevant for the type of content. I mean lets go one step further and assume its not his wife but him, lets make him an officer of the company even. Where is the conflict in him givning examples of how to use his product on a technical level? If Jeff Bezos wrote an article on how to setup your amazon merchant account, nobody would bat an eyelash.
In short, disclaimers are for professionals who need to maintain a reputation for impartiality, not for people doing demos.
I would be a lot happier....even with this change.... if they made one other change: allow me to override.
Very simple "App X requires A, B, C" Why does that mean I HAVE to grant A,B,C too it? Why can't I say "Give it A,B and run it anyway, yes I, the owner of the device, approve this" I don't see why its all or nothing like some sort of stupid contract
"Well to run our app you must give us access to your SMS messages" "I don't plan to use those features" "Then you can't run our app on your hardware"
I mean don't get me wrong, I understand nobody can stop an app developer from making his app break if it doesn't get every permission it wants....but, as the owner of the device....isn't it well.... my problem if I break an app?
> Also, don't confuse this kind of "boiling" with high temperature - it is more like a very rapid evaporation that cools > the remaining liquid
Nope its actual boiling. Need to remember what the definition of the boiling point is. A liquid can evaporate at any temperature it is a liquid, but the boiling point is the highest temperature it can maintain (lets ignore superheating) without transitioning into gas.
This is the same principle upon which pressure cookers work.... raise the pressure and you raise the maximum temperature of the fluid before gas transition, any more energy you put into it gets converted into phase transition rather than heat....at least until enough water boils off that the concentrating impurities start to raise the BP but I think we can mostly ignore that if we are already calling saliva "water"
Boiling does not "lower the temperature" below its own boiling point. However, if there was no more energy input at this point (ie it wasn't say, in contact with your warm skin) it would begin to cool via evaporation at that point, but that seems unlikely while you are still.....alive....at least in these scenarios.
While that might happen, it would also be the least of your worries, from the same article: "no amount of breathable oxygen delivered by any means will sustain life for more than a few minutes"
and by the least of your worries, I mean....in the short period before you lose consciousnous.
Actually I believe at the time we even talked about locking down the version of the rpm that updated redhat-release as a serious solution to the problem. Sometimes it just isn't clear if the answer is to laugh or to cry.
While I understand that, we ARE talking about data that was subject to a court case.
Shit, when I worked at a University we had a policy about destroying backups....and a policy about.... ready for this.... saving them when they were subject to legal proceedings.
No claim that this was impossible is credible. Certainly no claim that doing so was a "waste of the time, space, and energy to back it up" should be accepted by the courts on this. Destruction of evidence is what this deserves to be called.
> Not even close, because our conclusion about other humans is based on a huge amount of non-verbal > communication and experience, starting from the moment we are born.
All you are really saying is we have a much larger and more diverse data set on people. I don't disagree at all, that is the state of things today and likely for the forseeable future.
I don't see how this is even close to relevant. So nothing without a physical body can ever satisfy your definition of intelligence...yet something with a physical body yet no ability to communicate through an abstract verbal medium can? So a robot that does not speak can be intelligent but not a desktop pc that can?
Why does the method of communication matter?
> Think about that for a second. Concluding, "If a computer can convince a judge it is the human more than > 50% of the time we can say that it is 'really' intelligent" implies "If a woman can convince a judge she is > male more than 50% of the time we can say she is 'really' a dude." > > The absurdity of the latter conclusion should give us pause in putting too much weight on the former.
Yes it should. I don't see any contradiction there. Gender is actually an interesting one here since its very much not as cut and dry as it seems (and far more than anybody knew in Turing's time); however you could easily change that to height or race and get the absurd results you are looking for.
However is that really a problem with the test? I can draw all the blood I want, it wont help if I need to test your urine. We have more evidence for a persons race or height than simply communicating with them. However, is it not equally absurd to conclude that since I have only ever talked to you in text, that you have neither height nor race?
Evidence of is not necessarily proof of. Yes we should be wary of how much weight we put in such a test but, even a low confidence test is still data.
It is a balancing act. I agree with you completely....if we are talking about my desktop. On my desktop, or often, even my development box, I want something new. I want bleeding edge.
However, when the customer says they need a deployment of product ABC that depends on component XYZ that we have only ever deployed on RHEL5..... right now, in production, with a customer waiting, is NOT the time to try it on RHEL7 or even RHEL6. Now is the time to install RHEL5, give the customer his system.... then go back to development and try something newer.
Add in that XYZ may even be a third party component that is only supported on RHEL5, and going to that adds even more risk, because now we are not only risking that it wont work, but that it might cause an issue down the line where I, or one of my co-workers, will be left in the lurch by the support we pay for....and they will be right to do it!
THAT is why RHEL exists and why you think its old. It is old. You are right, your mistake is only in thinking that what matters to you matters to everyone else or what matters to others should matter to you.It isn't because anyone likes running and supporting systems that old, its because the ecosystem is so large and we have other priorities than staying on top of the bleeding edge.
Yes if I was responsible for even 100 systems, maybe keeping up to date would be a priority. Try an environment with over a few thousand with multiple customers and multiple offerings, with support organizations that need to be kept up to speed.
Hell I have had to fight people about patching. "We need RHEL5.4, and we need it patched to the latest" "SO you want 5.9?" "No we want 5.4" "so don't run updates" "no, it has to be patched to the latest!"
Or even "why are we deploying 5.5?" "because we run updates after install and after updates it becomes 5.5" "but we only ever approved 5.4" "So you don't want us to run updates" "no we have to be patched to the latest!"
Seriously....makes me want to scream (or did, I left that place), and you really think having the latest wiz-bang tools available is anything but the least of my worries? Not in production it isn't.
I always thought of it as more a philosophical question or thought experiment. How do you know that anything has an internal consciousness when you can't actually observe it? I can't even observe your process, I just assume that you and I are similarly in so many other ways (well I assume, you could be a chatbot, whreas I know I am definitely not)....and I have it, so you must too, aferall, we can talk.
So.... if a machine can talk like we can, if it can communicate well enough that we suspect it also has an internal cosciousness, then isn't our evidence for it every bit as strong as the real evidence that anyone else does?
I think you are seriously overthinking this. Its very simple. They CAN save data. Period. How do I know? Its very simple here. Do you really believe that if they found credible data on a top Con Queso leader, that they would need to analyse it within a specific time frame before they lose it forever, or do you think they can flag it to be saved?
Very simple. Being able to do this is a basic requirement for them, so they can do it already, right now.
So any claim that they could not do this is so disingenuous on its face that it is ridiculous. If you claim in court that you can't be the rapist because you cut your penis off as a child, then at the VERY LEAST, you should fully expect to be dropping your pants in front of somebody who can verify this.
They may as well be claiming they don't use computers at all to do their work, the claim would be 100% every bit as credible.
Slashdot Mirror
> Not qualified - Very few women and minorities graduate with degrees in computer science or engineering.
One thing I would be curious about.... I know a lot of men, including myself, in technical jobs who have no degree at all, or a degree in something unrelated. I wonder if women, on the whole, see that as more of a barrier and don't try to get jobs on the edges of their qualifications or get intimidated by job descriptions.
Like, I have never even applied for a job where I met every single qualification they wanted. "Bachelors degree"? Good luck finding a tech job that doesn't claim to "require" one.
> People can do bad things until they see the light and then they can change
>their ways and act like a decent human being from that time on. This is what
> happened with my buddy and why we became friends.
This is true, I met a guy at a party who told me how he used to be a cop, and stopped because he realized how wrong it was "When I realized I lost count of the number of times I ruined someone's life for something I personally have done many times over, I couldn't do it anymore" is what he told me.
> You get a shitty scan because when the request comes in, someone gets stuck with scanning an 83 page paper.
A paper which, if you look really close, says on it the words "this sharepoint"..... so they actually had to produce an 83 page paper before scanning it.... rather than using the "print to a file" function which, would produce an easily legible document.
Nope....this excuse doesn't even hold a little bit of water.
There is just NO EXCUSE for this. Someone else pointed out this is no better than the shit lavabit pulled with their font size. However, this is worked, a too small but legible font can be magnified and processed....an illegible document may as well not have been produced.
However, now that I see sharepoint....so sharepoint...they had this in electronic form and could have easily produced a perfectly legible document and chose not to.... nice guys....way to show you give a shit about compliance with the law you claim to uphold.
Might be better to go with........dabs......in......spaaaaaaaace
Seriously though, would be easier on the air filters. Also.... doob and coffee....doob AND coffee. Its like yin and yang man.
Agreed, it would be a better use of our money generally if they were working on a way to deliver coffee to individuals via orbital drops than some of the other things they waste it on.
You are missing the point of GPs statement. There is no reason all 29,656 have to be auctioned in a single block. There is no reason they couldn't be auctioned off in blocks small enough to let a person with far less be able to participate in trying to get some of the bitcoins they stole from a legitimate businessman.
Ahh legal Jargon is so fun. The majority of English speakers I have ever interacted with would take "verbal" and "oral" as meaning the exact same thing. In fact, your post may be the first time I have, in my entire life, seen "verbal" used to refer to something written down.
I am sure you have the correct technical definition as used by people in the legal profession, but, its not the definition everyone else is working off of.
IANAL but this was always how I understood contracts and verbal ones. A verbal agreement is still an agreement and the reason they are generally not considered "much good" is that they are, in the general case, notoriously hard to prove exist and to prove the exact terms of.... but that doesn't make them any less real in cases where those issues are not the case.
Here we have public and fairly explicit statements from an officer of the company who is authorized to speak to the public. I think that unless they can prove some bad faith, they are going to have a hard time weaseling out of those statements.
And forget the courts, can you imagine the PR nightmare of suing someone for doing something you publicly issued a permission to do?
Right because they really care about what amounts to pocket change. Never mind that they like to "create jobs". The cost of incarcerating....er I mean "detaining" you the rest of your life will cost them less than buying a single plane that they have no intention to ever fly, and they have fields FULL of those.
Marketing people? I have never been so insulted. Marketing?
Disclaimers are for situations where there could be any confustion. There is no confusion here. You are welcome to hold whatever standards you want though. Enjoy yours I guess.
> b) Trump up some fake charges and detain you indefinitely, or
> c) Fuck it, the first two are too hard, just send in a drone strike.
Why is it too hard? If they can detain you indefinitely without trial then it doesn't matter what the actual charges are since the court is where they get evaluated. It is an expression that is never evaluated. Its the if clause after the return statement.
Really? I don't really find it that interesting. What nutrients plants need to grow is well established. This is only really interesting if the meteorite was found to not contain forms of the various nutrients that we would have expected they can use (or can get some bacteria to process for them into a form they can use)
Its not a really unimportant test, just because you expect it to work doesn't mean its unworthy of testing or doesn't need some tests in specific situations but.... the result is exactly what would be expected...it works.
Hell even if it was missing several nutrients or had them in uselss forms....plants can still often do pretty well in rather non-ideal conditions. Hell even if the meteorite is just an inert media, that works fine too. In medium nutrients are finite anyway, likely you need to do some sort of fertilizing, either by reclaiming nutrients from waste (composting could be odd that high up in the gravity well) or mining it from somewhere.
If it was strictly an opinion piece or even a simple review, I might agree. If this was aimed at a comparison between products, absolutely. However, looking over this there is quite a bit of content, with code. Its basically a tutorial on setting up the device.
Why does someone who is basically a tutorial author need to disclose his relationship to the company?
Disclosures are to call out the appearance of conflict of interest. I see no clonflict here, in fact, whether the author was paid outright to write the piece or not seems irrelevant for the type of content. I mean lets go one step further and assume its not his wife but him, lets make him an officer of the company even. Where is the conflict in him givning examples of how to use his product on a technical level? If Jeff Bezos wrote an article on how to setup your amazon merchant account, nobody would bat an eyelash.
In short, disclaimers are for professionals who need to maintain a reputation for impartiality, not for people doing demos.
I would be a lot happier....even with this change.... if they made one other change: allow me to override.
Very simple "App X requires A, B, C" Why does that mean I HAVE to grant A,B,C too it? Why can't I say "Give it A,B and run it anyway, yes I, the owner of the device, approve this" I don't see why its all or nothing like some sort of stupid contract
"Well to run our app you must give us access to your SMS messages"
"I don't plan to use those features"
"Then you can't run our app on your hardware"
I mean don't get me wrong, I understand nobody can stop an app developer from making his app break if it doesn't get every permission it wants....but, as the owner of the device....isn't it well.... my problem if I break an app?
> Also, don't confuse this kind of "boiling" with high temperature - it is more like a very rapid evaporation that cools
> the remaining liquid
Nope its actual boiling. Need to remember what the definition of the boiling point is. A liquid can evaporate at any temperature it is a liquid, but the boiling point is the highest temperature it can maintain (lets ignore superheating) without transitioning into gas.
This is the same principle upon which pressure cookers work.... raise the pressure and you raise the maximum temperature of the fluid before gas transition, any more energy you put into it gets converted into phase transition rather than heat....at least until enough water boils off that the concentrating impurities start to raise the BP but I think we can mostly ignore that if we are already calling saliva "water"
Boiling does not "lower the temperature" below its own boiling point. However, if there was no more energy input at this point (ie it wasn't say, in contact with your warm skin) it would begin to cool via evaporation at that point, but that seems unlikely while you are still.....alive....at least in these scenarios.
While that might happen, it would also be the least of your worries, from the same article:
"no amount of breathable oxygen delivered by any means will sustain life for more than a few minutes"
and by the least of your worries, I mean....in the short period before you lose consciousnous.
oh and one more thing.... no need to pester the cat
sed -i 's/5.5/5.4/' /etc/redhat-release
Actually I believe at the time we even talked about locking down the version of the rpm that updated redhat-release as a serious solution to the problem. Sometimes it just isn't clear if the answer is to laugh or to cry.
While I understand that, we ARE talking about data that was subject to a court case.
Shit, when I worked at a University we had a policy about destroying backups....and a policy about.... ready for this.... saving them when they were subject to legal proceedings.
No claim that this was impossible is credible. Certainly no claim that doing so was a "waste of the time, space, and energy to back it up" should be accepted by the courts on this. Destruction of evidence is what this deserves to be called.
> Not even close, because our conclusion about other humans is based on a huge amount of non-verbal
> communication and experience, starting from the moment we are born.
All you are really saying is we have a much larger and more diverse data set on people. I don't disagree at all, that is the state of things today and likely for the forseeable future.
I don't see how this is even close to relevant. So nothing without a physical body can ever satisfy your definition of intelligence...yet something with a physical body yet no ability to communicate through an abstract verbal medium can? So a robot that does not speak can be intelligent but not a desktop pc that can?
Why does the method of communication matter?
> Think about that for a second. Concluding, "If a computer can convince a judge it is the human more than
> 50% of the time we can say that it is 'really' intelligent" implies "If a woman can convince a judge she is
> male more than 50% of the time we can say she is 'really' a dude."
>
> The absurdity of the latter conclusion should give us pause in putting too much weight on the former.
Yes it should. I don't see any contradiction there. Gender is actually an interesting one here since its very much not as cut and dry as it seems (and far more than anybody knew in Turing's time); however you could easily change that to height or race and get the absurd results you are looking for.
However is that really a problem with the test? I can draw all the blood I want, it wont help if I need to test your urine. We have more evidence for a persons race or height than simply communicating with them. However, is it not equally absurd to conclude that since I have only ever talked to you in text, that you have neither height nor race?
Evidence of is not necessarily proof of. Yes we should be wary of how much weight we put in such a test but, even a low confidence test is still data.
It is a balancing act. I agree with you completely....if we are talking about my desktop. On my desktop, or often, even my development box, I want something new. I want bleeding edge.
However, when the customer says they need a deployment of product ABC that depends on component XYZ that we have only ever deployed on RHEL5..... right now, in production, with a customer waiting, is NOT the time to try it on RHEL7 or even RHEL6. Now is the time to install RHEL5, give the customer his system.... then go back to development and try something newer.
Add in that XYZ may even be a third party component that is only supported on RHEL5, and going to that adds even more risk, because now we are not only risking that it wont work, but that it might cause an issue down the line where I, or one of my co-workers, will be left in the lurch by the support we pay for....and they will be right to do it!
THAT is why RHEL exists and why you think its old. It is old. You are right, your mistake is only in thinking that what matters to you matters to everyone else or what matters to others should matter to you.It isn't because anyone likes running and supporting systems that old, its because the ecosystem is so large and we have other priorities than staying on top of the bleeding edge.
Yes if I was responsible for even 100 systems, maybe keeping up to date would be a priority. Try an environment with over a few thousand with multiple customers and multiple offerings, with support organizations that need to be kept up to speed.
Hell I have had to fight people about patching. "We need RHEL5.4, and we need it patched to the latest" "SO you want 5.9?" "No we want 5.4" "so don't run updates" "no, it has to be patched to the latest!"
Or even "why are we deploying 5.5?" "because we run updates after install and after updates it becomes 5.5" "but we only ever approved 5.4" "So you don't want us to run updates" "no we have to be patched to the latest!"
Seriously....makes me want to scream (or did, I left that place), and you really think having the latest wiz-bang tools available is anything but the least of my worries? Not in production it isn't.
Please tell me more about like something a chatbot would say.
I always thought of it as more a philosophical question or thought experiment. How do you know that anything has an internal consciousness when you can't actually observe it? I can't even observe your process, I just assume that you and I are similarly in so many other ways (well I assume, you could be a chatbot, whreas I know I am definitely not)....and I have it, so you must too, aferall, we can talk.
So.... if a machine can talk like we can, if it can communicate well enough that we suspect it also has an internal cosciousness, then isn't our evidence for it every bit as strong as the real evidence that anyone else does?
I think you are seriously overthinking this. Its very simple. They CAN save data. Period. How do I know? Its very simple here. Do you really believe that if they found credible data on a top Con Queso leader, that they would need to analyse it within a specific time frame before they lose it forever, or do you think they can flag it to be saved?
Very simple. Being able to do this is a basic requirement for them, so they can do it already, right now.
So any claim that they could not do this is so disingenuous on its face that it is ridiculous. If you claim in court that you can't be the rapist because you cut your penis off as a child, then at the VERY LEAST, you should fully expect to be dropping your pants in front of somebody who can verify this.
They may as well be claiming they don't use computers at all to do their work, the claim would be 100% every bit as credible.