I find it terribly confusing. It does not explain what instances are, do I need an instance to access some of the services?
I just want to access some services via API from my own servers. I think the documentation is not that good, there should be curl examples at least. For instance, for the STT or TTS include some curl examples.
Does the STT have speaker identification or does it output text in one stream?
Yes, the API credentials for the service are different from the Bluemix login. To get the API credentials, you have to create a service through Bluemix, bind it to a Bluemix application and get the credentials from the VCAP_SERVICES of that Bluemix app. There's a getting started page describing these steps at http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/ibmwatson/developercl... (We hope to make this process simpler in the future!)
"when I look back I will clearly view the code I've written here to be way more important for humanity's progress than the code I've written for entrepreneurs' selfish attempts at billion dollar exits"
I wish google was less opaque about procuring a google glass. I did their begging/twitter spam but was not one of the chosen few. They do not even release projections on when they will release more. They never email me even though I signed up for their list. Oh well....
I don't think it happens any more. ICANN added a nonrefundable registration fee and "domain tasting" stopped being such a pervasive problem. This either solved what Net Sol was trying to protect users from, or removed the justification they were using (depending on how cynical you are).
Not sure I would ever recommend testing domain names on NetSol's WHOIS server though.
"The existence of privilege is not a scarlet letter on young white dudes who code. But the forceful, repeated, insidious denial of the existence of that privilege is a problem: it reinforces the privilege and allows it to feed on itself."
Seriously what the fuck does this mean? These words try so hard to appear to be insightful but are utterly meaningless.
He's talking about the reflexive defensiveness many young dudes in the technology industry have when the topic of privilege is brought up. Often it's associated with a feeling of shame, as if the person using the word were trying to put a scarlet letter on the young dude's chest.
They fall prey to bad logic: "If privilege exists then I am a bad person. I am not a bad person. Therefore privilege does not exist." The problem is the first implication, that acknowledging one's privilege somehow makes one a bad person or that it is "bad" to be privileged.
The conclusion is worse than unsound, though, because it denies something which has a material impact on many people's lives.
If you think his quote is clear and concise, can you unpack it a bit? I find it opaque and confusing. Maybe focus on the part after the colon.
Suppose you accuse me of being a witch. I deny it. In response, you claim that my repeated, insidious denial of being a witch just reinforces my witchiness and allows it to feed on itself. do you see how you've just (a) changed the nature of the accusation in a way that makes it weird and meta, (b) unfairly rendered the attack unanswerable?
Or consider: "Only a witch denies being a witch - denying it just makes it worse! You have to first ADMIT you are a witch and come to terms with it. I admit I'm one and I struggle with it daily - so should you!"
You know your analogy is loaded and constructed in a way to make any rebuttal logically impossible. That's doesn't seem particularly sincere, especially given that the core element of what tptacek said was that one shouldn't feel ashamed to be privileged. It would be hard for me to think of a worse analogy, honestly, since it fails in the most single important dimension! There's also something poetic since claims of "witchery" are a centuries-old tool used to silence women.
The quality and provocative nature of your analogy not withstanding, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The comment to which you're replying is my attempt to unpack it. What about my comment wasn't clear for you?
For example, I see in your intentionally provocative analogy the same mistaken logic I described, that somehow the existence of privilege and the idea that you are privileged in certain ways is equivalent to being a witch and therefore that being privileged makes you a "bad person." I spelled out how that's a mistake many people make when thinking about privilege and yet you seem to be making it in this very comment.
Anyhow, I'll try to illustrate why privilege is not a scarlet letter but denying it can make one complicit.
"I'm white. Thank God for that shit, boy. That is a huge leg up, are you kidding me? I love being white, I really do. Seriously, if you're not white, this shit is thoroughly good. Let me be clear, by the way, I'm not saying that white people are better. I'm saying that being white is clearly better. Who could even argue? If it was an option, I would re-up every year!"
Here's a way in which I am privileged: I can spend $1000 on a pair of glasses I really like and not have to think twice — or even once — about it. I don't think this makes me a bad person for doing it, let alone being able to do it. Nevertheless, most people would not just balk at paying that much, but wouldn't even consider the idea. Growing up my family couldn't really afford glasses (or doctors visits or dentist visits or....), so the situation still feels really weird to me.
Here's yet another way: if I'm in a room with a female engineer I know talking to two other men that neither of us know, I would bet hard money virtually all of the technical questions will be directed at me. At that moment I have a choice. I could answer those questions and go on my way. I could point out what's happening, perhaps by asking, "Why are you asking me all the questions? Tara is just as capable of answering them as I am." I could maybe take a more tactful middle-ground and say something like, "I'm not sure. You should ask Tara those questions — she's the expert." And so on.
I am not a bad person for benefitting from that privilege, but if I were to deny it I would be complicit in reinforcing those patterns of behavior, abuse, and oppression.
So, yeah, totally like being a witch! Good analogy!
You say the "core element" is that one shouldn't feel ashamed to be privileged. Well, fine: one also shouldn't feel ashamed of being a witch! And why would one?
If I were a witch, I wouldn't be ashamed of it. I'd be proud of being a witch. There's nothing inherently wrong with being a witch - witches are cool. The fact remains that the claim "if you deny being an X, that REINFORCES X-ness and lets X feed upon itself" is toxic and ridiculous. And the main other assertion I could think of that had this bizarre characteristic besides privilege was "you're a witch!" (I suppose "you're a racist" also has that attribute, but I didn't want to go there. Can you think of others?) "Witch" accusations are great for our purposes because it really has no moral characteristic at all. We all know witches don't exist and can't exist and I assume we don't collectively subscribe to religions that are afraid of them (or even if we do, we know that that fear is silly), so it's safe to use them as an example.
So. With regard to any particular person, if they say "I'm not a witch" that MIGHT just mean they're not a witch or they don't regard themselves as one. And that's OKAY. Even if the claim is MISTAKEN and they actually ARE a witch, it's not the case that denying it is uniquely evil. When witch-hunters claim it is, they're wrong. Any person denying that THEY are X doesn't really say anything about whether X COULD exist generally.
> There's also something poetic since claims of "witchery" are a centuries-old tool used to silence women.
Similarly, claims of "privilege" appear to be a modern tool used to silence men. The core essence of privilege seems to be that you have it when a bunch of people (of the right sort) SAY you have it (whether you agree or not) and it's considered rude/offensive/impossible to deny it.
> I'll try to illustrate why privilege is not a scarlet letter but denying it can make one complicit.
...but never did anything to illustrate why denying it "can make one complicit" - you merely asserted this. So I assert the contrary: there is nothing wrong with simply being colorblind, gender-blind, every-other-characteristic-blind and treating people as HUMAN BEINGS first and foremost. Overemphasizing race/gender/handicap is at least as big a potential problem as underemphasizing it. If you always bend over backwards to make sure Tara gets asked what you feel are the appropriate number of questions given her gender, that is patronizing to her. Simply treating her as an equal would be more respectful and productive. Why would you need awareness of "privilege" to pass questioners to the person in the room who is the most relevant expert?
Nobody denies that some people have more advantages than other people. The only thing we're denying is that having some random set of advantages invalidates your opinion. The difference between privilege (what we're arguing about) and advantage (what you just gave examples of) is that privilege has the immediate additional connotation "and therefore you should shut up because it's wrong for you to express views on this matter". If it didn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
BTW, Louis CK's routine is funny but he's wrong. (Which is part of what makes it funny.)
It is the first time I saw Paul Graham appear on my Facebook. It is not worth reading, the author is just going for clicks by making baseless accusations. Paul also claims he was misquoted and thinks he should start bringing a recorder to interviews.
It is a shame, one of the appeals of reading a Paul Graham interview or his writing was that it was very open, I hope his no doubt hiring a PR filter or being more reserved with his words will not reduce the quality.
> It is the first time I saw Paul Graham appear on my Facebook
Amazing times we live in, isn't it? If this is how the average person finds out who someone like PG is, what hope is there for the world at large?
Please note that had PG been known through standard mass-media channels way earlier, there might have been even a fighting chance that more women (i.e. outsiders) had joined the tech world early on, since this way the news about YC wouldn't spread through what are predominantly male/engineering-graduate-heavy word-of-mouth channels, and we would have avoided this mess in the first place. Yet the press and the world at large is not even interested in the success of something like YC until the YC is big enough to throw rocks at because of some juicy inclusion/exclusion controversy. So what we have is a controversy that, like hundreds of others like it, is nearly "manufactured" by the press itself.
The moment you become big is the moment you become torn apart by the world.
I'm not sure what you mean. If somebody isn't interested in either programming or being involved with tech startups (and the overwhelming majority of people in the world are not) then I don't see any particular reason to expect people to have heard of PG.
Experts in fields are typically widely unknown by the general public. I first learned of Andre Geim (A Nobel Prize winner in Physics; not my field) from a youtube video about beer and magnets. I don't think that suggests anything dreadful about society.
I'm commenting on the role of mass media in a contemporary society. This is important because I'm afraid that soon everyone is going to hear about PG/YC because "oh no, patriarchy!"
To repeat, look at engineering circa 1990s -- nearly entirely male-populated field, moderate prestige. Now look at engineering circa 2010s -- slightly more diverse field, significantly higher prestige. If you start with a 90+%-male base and you achieve moderate, growing success via entirely word-of-mouth advertising and by absorbing people from that base, you are setting yourself up for a situation where your organization reflects the base it grew out of (i.e. male engineers). And yet the media is not going to pay attention to you until your field is large and successful enough for spoils to be had from throwing rocks at you, at which point obviously they are going to criticize you for being "exclusionary". So what you have is a nearly entirely media-manufactured controversy. Why didn't the media focus on getting more women into engineering in the 1990s? Because it wasn't a prestigious enough field at the time for organized entryist action to exist.
Why is there a problem with this controversy? Because entryism exists. Entryists are interested in entering any high-prestige field and taking it over for themselves. They are not below taking up social justice banners to accomplish their goals. In fact, the most successful entryists utilize those banners to the highest effect. The whole controversy is pure manufactured evil. This is not about women's rights or social justice. It's about entryism.
I noticed a bunch of debits and credits to my credit card yesterday relating to admob. I never initiated these so I feared that my credit card was stolen.
I searched around and saw this link that described my issue. Apparently google has authorization to credit and debit our credit cards at will. They also do not bother to email you to let you know what is going on. And of course, no google customer service.
It also turns out that my debits and credits are not identical as the exchange rates vary and perhaps credit card fees occured. So I am either a bit up or down. Merry fucking christmas google.
This is exactly what I have wrong with the parent to this post. "Dispute for the principle of it," so that some lawyer(s) can make big money off a mistake Google made. How is that helpful to anyone (except the lawyers)? It ends up making everyone more reserved, or even killing a company off (probably not in the case of Google).
I reiterate, if it was a major amount of money, I can see that. Pursuing actions against someone who made a mistake just seems unnecessary. They've already publicly admitted they screwed something up. Someone on their end probably got into major trouble, if not fired, for said mistake.
The instinct to say, "you screwed up and now you're going to pay" baffles me every time. Why does everyone feel entitled to seek compensation for inconvenience? When did that become ok?
I see this on here constantly, and whenever it's pointed out, it's immediately down voted. And yeah, I'm expecting this to get down voted, again.
Because people have this thing called a backbone. If you're fine with someone going into your account and pulling money at will, all the power to you, but most people will not tolerate that shit. You are a customer and they are a business, no feelings, no emotional bullshit, simple straight up facts.