The engineers, being highly trained professionals, obviously know that leaving the doors unlocked prevents any crim from actually entering, as it goes against thieves honor to take advantage of an easy target.
20 posts • joined 15 Feb 2018
I feel like that 'doing business' rule or method of governance is too broad a brush to be used effectively. It seems like if a website which is listed on google can be accessed from anywhere in the world, anyone who runs a website has to keep track of more than a hundred different codes for operating their website. For something like GDPR, which has generally overwhelming support, and makes sense on paper, it seems silly to worry about such a thing. After all, any company that doesn't comply with the rules is probably shady anyhow, and you don't lose much by losing its business. Lets say, for arguments sake that a certain country finds pictures of women's bare hands to be pornographic in nature, and the country has a blanket ban on pornography of any kind. Also, your companies website uses female models using the product in its promotional material. It seems unfair to me that such a company should have to pay a fine if anyone in that country stumbles across the website, and it seems not in the spirit of the modern age, almost isolationist, to block people from that country from accessing the website at all. What about human rights? If china dislikes mentions of the tiananmen square, under this system do websites making mention do the blocking for them? Any answer other than yes is hypocritical.
I don't think you actually live in the US, because if you said anything even slightly unkind towards any minority group in the public sphere here, you would be crucified. Yeah, you can say mean things about others to your personal relatives and friends, but I would hate to live in a country that attempts to legislate that.
Ah, see, here in America we don't have peerless paragons of virtue who do not suffer from the lapses in moral integrity us mere mortals contend with to act as arbiters on controversial subjects. Must be nice to have people so exemplary that they can be relied on to rule fairly on their judgments of "knowing when they see it", while the proles can safely sit in their basements deliberately misrepresenting and misunderstanding another countries laws.
Well, we're doomed then.
About a week ago a coworker asked me if I had heard about some new shift changes taking place. I responded that I had not, and as it turned out that was because my fellow workers only discussed such changes over facebook messenger, which I did not have. After this coworker extolled the virtues of facebook messenger for communicating with other employees, I downloaded the app, but the prospect of having to log into my facebook account has kept me from opening it all this time.
Growing up the peer-pressure psas they showed in school always had the same format; Muffled house music played in a dilapidated bedroom with a circle of kids in the center and smoke overhead (probably maryjane). As the commercial continued, one of the kids, the obvious leader of the pack, would pull out a beer and push it on a cowering underclassman, generally with the reassurance that "One sip won't hurt". Cue police sirens flashing red and blue, the sound of a cell door slamming, and a gruff voice over detailing the penalties of underage drinking.
Now, how many people have facebook accounts to connect with people who do not have phones, or refuse to use them? How many people only have such accounts so that they don't miss out on stuff that is inevitably only posted on the one platform? How about twitter or instagram accounts? And for any of the younger crowd, do any of you have snapchat accounts just so that you remain included in conversations? Finally, has anyone outright been told by friends or family to download an app, just so that they can send you something?
The psas were correct, peer pressure IS dangerous, but I am not sure in the way they intended to convey.
Its going this way in every tech related field, not just IT. As a current uni student, its amazing how eager most engi students are to go work for big name companies when it is almost assured those companies will screw them over in ten years. The situation in technology will not change until tomorrows employees change. Companies CANNOT block unionization, say what you will about US capitalism, but there are numerous employee rights rulings that allow unions, which all come to nothing if people choose not to unionize.
To be absolutely honest I would rather have windows be on top of the market rather than apple, as the companies stand right now. If only for the simple reason that mac users tend to 'drink the coolaid' so to speak. I am sure that exceptions exist, but I have never seen a microsoft user who did not have anything disparaging to say about windows. Apple as a company reminds me of google; a company which in the public eye has an undeservedly inflated reputation, which like google, it abuses.
We already have realworld examples of devices that change their layout when you change control schemes; what happens when you turn your mobe 90 degrees? And I have a playstation 3 controller plugged into my win10 box, and the computer will accept inputs from it when I open a game with controller support (some games even display keyboard button prompts, but switch to proper controller button prompts when I press a button on the controller).
It seems like we have everything needed to make a proper OS that can switch between UI's for different input setups, we just need someone to do it.
funny, but folks seem to have no moral problem with paying people pennies in inhuman conditions to produce our tech. Most of the outcries I have heard here have revolved around "What'll the US do!? Pay workers actual living wages to produce products themselves?". Not that I am implying US companies actually care to pay their employees living wages in the first place, as they are the ones who outsourced manufacturing to China in the first place, but I still wouldn't be so happy about being first in the race to the bottom.
Where's the end of this system anyways? So China attains a first world economy, do you think the manufacturing will stay there? It will go to India, or Africa, and stay there until its too expensive, and in 20 years the Chinese will be where the US is now.
One (small) issue that I have never heard brought up about driverless cars is the actual method by which they get around. So far, I have heard the method as being entering a destination into the computer, and then letting the car take over. Whilst this might be fine for the daily commute to and from work, it seems overall restrictive to the actual control an individual will have over the vehicle. Say I want to actually make a right at the next light instead of continue on the course I set, will I be able to do that? Another thing, if I can put my tinfoil hat on for a second, the very nature of a police officers job requires a human controllable car, which seems vaguely unsettling in light of the fact very few others will have them. Additionally, by creating a society formed around autonomous cars, you also create a black market for non-autonomous, as there are certain more illicit professions which require a certain level of control over the vehicle.
To backtrack a bit, say the gov sets up a police checkpoint in the city, whats to stop them from setting every cars route so that the cars have to go through the checkpoint? Whats to stop the pols from remotely disabling any car they want to? On the other side of things, whats to stop some enterprising young spark from redirecting cars to his uncles warehouse in back-of-the-yards for some unscheduled maintenance. Or manufacturers from disabling cars that haven't undergone "necessary preventive maintenance" such as changing the tires after 10,000 miles. I don't really care to see how the myriad crims, corps and govs will variously set up the new system to benefit themselves.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019