No, actually, she isn't. That we assign no economic value to someone staying at home and looking after the children is just one of the many problems with the way in which we measure 'employment'. Someone saying at home and looking after the house most definitely is working, and for economic purposes might best be considered to be 'employed' the the other person in the house that is going out to work for someone else.
What exists are people, and places, and resources, and space, and air, and water, and food and time. Money is a mechanism to permit us to exchange these things, and to compare them to each other in a hopefully meaningful way. Without money, you have to spend enormous amounts of time and effort trying to organise all those things. This is what the Soviet Union tried to do with their Five Year Plans.
That didn't work out so well for them, and millions of people starved. Red Plenty is a very interesting book to read about this period, but you can imagine what trying to organise the movement of people and resources centrally would end up like. It wasn't pretty.
But money is imaginary. It always has been, even when we thought that gold and money were equivalent things, it was still an invention. It's a bit like the notion of energy in physics, which also doesn't exist except insofar as things like momentum, and charge, and mass, may be represented in terms of it.
The trouble is that the whole charade doesn't work if you keep inventing different types of money, and start teaching computers to trade in it, to move it around between systems at the speed of light, give or take a clock cycle or two. The stock market is bad enough, chattering and jittering to itself in silent communication, losing and gaining trillions of dollars in ways that mean nothing whatever in the real world. Digital currencies are even worse.
I don't know, I expect that they'll have to start talking to each other, or reading maps, or looking at signs. Awful, anti-technology things like that.
So, the public schools are bad, and your solution is to make everyone pay for education, rather than fix the system? I bet fixing it wouldn't even be all that hard,
for someone who wasn't afraid to pay teachers what they're really worth. Once upon a time, teaching was considered to be a highly respected profession, and was renumerated accordingly.
Free, public education is a cornerstone of civilisation. Take it away, and replace it with private schooling for everyone, and see what suddenly only the rich can accomplish.
Kind of stretches the suspension of disbelief a bit.
Completely. Unlike that whole time-travel thing. Maybe you're right about time lord DNA favoring male regenerations. Maybe it's because this show, like all others, reflects the time in which it is made, and it's only fairly recently that the world has grown up enough to realise that hero characters do not have to be guys the whole time.
Back in the real world, many will view this as preachy SJW fodder, and the show will now always have that hanging over it
No. Back in the real world, this show is watched by children, and trust me when I say that children will, literally, not care at all that the character is now a woman, because children are quite alot less set in their ways than you appear to be.
I refused to watch the last season because of their introduction of a homosexual companion
Completely. Unlike that other homosexual character that they already had several seasons ago. In point of fact, Bill's sexuality was referenced far less than, say,
Amy's, since Bill hasn't even had a girlfriend, and Amy actually got married.
No, you see, this an interesting statement. There's nothing whatsoever that J.T.Kirk does in the show that is intrinsically male. This statement is clearly true, since everything that he does is equally achievable by a woman. Unless he, at some point, fathers a child. Which I suppose he might have.
impulsive, jealous, swaggering, boorish etc
All of which are characteristics that may be exhibited by women, of course.
and gets schooled by a woman or alien
Or a greek god, or a man, or a cloud of super-intelligent galactic energy, or whatever.
that's called character development.
Yes. It is. Women are characters too. That's the whole, entire, point.
How do you expand the worldview someone who's already enlightened?
Fascinating statement. Are all women, in your experience, already 'enlightened'? Can there be no character arc for a female character, because they are already 'enlightened'?
A lot of the new Doctors have felt like children with no real gravitas.
Perhaps. It is a kid's show though. It's not actually written with grown-ups in mind, though plenty of them watch it. But hey, plenty of grown-ups actually read all the Harry Potter books too...
They can make people think their products are better than they are
Option (a) Everyone is brainwashed by Apple's brilliant marketing (I've never seen an Apple ad that I didn't hate, but I hate all advertising without exception, so whatever), and is spending all their money on total rubbish. And none of them have figured this out.
Option (b) Apple products sell because people like them.
Now, the second option seems far more likely to me. Added to which, Samsung spend alot more on marketing than Apple ever has. They're the ones with the (very apple-like, these days) stands in the malls, and advertisements everywhere. So, is the fact that Samsung sell more phones than Apple also due to marketing? Or is that because people are only brainwashed by the subliminal messages in Apple's ads, but somehow Apple spend less on them, and sell less than Samsung...I just don't get it.
'Toying' with an idea was exactly the problem. Someone needed to come along, stop playing around, and build something that worked, and that people wanted. Installing an app with a single button click, in a way that always worked, every single time, was in itself a significant innovation.
ctivex was always poorly designed, and anyone with an understanding of security would have refused to use it in the first place.
Exactly. And these sorts of design decisions are still being made, because humans aren't good enough at software yet. Fully extensible interfaces are likely impossible, and flaws such as leaving passwords around in memory can involve an entire software stack.
That isn't an unreasonable question, but the answer is that this isn't possible in any meaningfully secure way. You can have your XP continue to run, provided that the hardware is still available, or that a virtual machine can be built to support it, but your other two requirements are contradictory.
Bug fixes + keep shit the same. If bug fixes are understood to include security patches, and security patches include things like fixing weak encryption algorithms, or immense security disasters like ActiveX or (even worse) third-party immense security disasters like Flash, then you can't really "keep shit the same". Fundamentally, security is not a bug fix, it's an underlying design process that can't be tacked on at the end.
But these are all software problems, and we humans have gotten pretty good at that.
That hasn't been my observation of human's track record with creating software at all. Humans are great at hardware problems, but to this day humans are manifestly terrible at creating software.
A good question to ask, if you're generating content, is that if the only way to pay for it is by embedding advertising, then the content is worth nothing. Thus, if you do want to broadcast it to the world for some reason, hobby or otherwise, you're going to have to find the money yourself. If the advertising industry disappeared overnight, and all the content that it funded did so too, nothing of value would be lost.
Ah you feisty person, you. I bet the details of the bug would be super-interesting lots of people, but the article glosses over that, and so I suppose I'm complaining that the article was insignificant (and not very good), the bug is significant but fixed, and I think everyone should comment about how microcode works, so that we can all learn something. Myself included, since I've no idea really.
.. doesn't mean what the article writer appears to think it means.
Anyhow, that a new highly complex processor contains subtle bug that's fixable without hardware modification isn't exactly earth-shaking news, surely? How about they just fix it, and we move on.
I will. Unless a car being auto-driven carrying someone playing a VR game while driving their 3D TV home kills me while I'm following a helpful robot across the street, of course.
I do follow the news. None of these things work yet. Personally, I doubt they ever will, without extensive infrastructure, and even then only in very specific situations. Self-driving cars will not be driving around inner city streets. Robots will not be walking kids to school. End of story.
Also - VR is a dead-end technology that no-one wants, and 3D tv was a terrible idea.
Also - Google making 'combat robots', does this alarm anyone else? I'm sure we'll make robots that are good at killing people, but that doesn't require intelligence.
Slashdot Mirror
People who need to communicate a lot like open plans.
Developers, despite the weird obsession with solitude expressed in this thread, need to communicate more, not less.
Because they can live comfortably on the dole,
Nobody can live comfortably on the dole. Nobody.
Yes, actually, she is unemployed
No, actually, she isn't. That we assign no economic value to someone staying at home and looking after the children is just one of the many problems with the way in which we measure 'employment'. Someone saying at home and looking after the house most definitely is working, and for economic purposes might best be considered to be 'employed' the the other person in the house that is going out to work for someone else.
After a large natural disaster, GDP normally goes up, because you're spending more money fixing all the broken buildings.
Money doesn't exist at all.
What exists are people, and places, and resources, and space, and air, and water, and food and time. Money is a mechanism to permit us to exchange these things, and to compare them to each other in a hopefully meaningful way. Without money, you have to spend enormous amounts of time and effort trying to organise all those things. This is what the Soviet Union tried to do with their Five Year Plans.
That didn't work out so well for them, and millions of people starved. Red Plenty is a very interesting book to read about this period, but you can imagine what trying to organise the movement of people and resources centrally would end up like. It wasn't pretty.
But money is imaginary. It always has been, even when we thought that gold and money were equivalent things, it was still an invention. It's a bit like the notion of energy in physics, which also doesn't exist except insofar as things like momentum, and charge, and mass, may be represented in terms of it.
The trouble is that the whole charade doesn't work if you keep inventing different types of money, and start teaching computers to trade in it, to move it around between systems at the speed of light, give or take a clock cycle or two. The stock market is bad enough, chattering and jittering to itself in silent communication, losing and gaining trillions of dollars in ways that mean nothing whatever in the real world. Digital currencies are even worse.
I don't know, I expect that they'll have to start talking to each other, or reading maps, or looking at signs. Awful, anti-technology things like that.
So, the public schools are bad, and your solution is to make everyone pay for education, rather than fix the system? I bet fixing it wouldn't even be all that hard, for someone who wasn't afraid to pay teachers what they're really worth. Once upon a time, teaching was considered to be a highly respected profession, and was renumerated accordingly.
Free, public education is a cornerstone of civilisation. Take it away, and replace it with private schooling for everyone, and see what suddenly only the rich can accomplish.
Kind of stretches the suspension of disbelief a bit.
Completely. Unlike that whole time-travel thing. Maybe you're right about time lord DNA favoring male regenerations. Maybe it's because this show, like all others, reflects the time in which it is made, and it's only fairly recently that the world has grown up enough to realise that hero characters do not have to be guys the whole time.
Back in the real world, many will view this as preachy SJW fodder, and the show will now always have that hanging over it
No. Back in the real world, this show is watched by children, and trust me when I say that children will, literally, not care at all that the character is now a woman, because children are quite alot less set in their ways than you appear to be.
I refused to watch the last season because of their introduction of a homosexual companion
Completely. Unlike that other homosexual character that they already had several seasons ago. In point of fact, Bill's sexuality was referenced far less than, say, Amy's, since Bill hasn't even had a girlfriend, and Amy actually got married.
inherent maleness/machismo,
No, you see, this an interesting statement. There's nothing whatsoever that J.T.Kirk does in the show that is intrinsically male. This statement is clearly true, since everything that he does is equally achievable by a woman. Unless he, at some point, fathers a child. Which I suppose he might have.
impulsive, jealous, swaggering, boorish etc
All of which are characteristics that may be exhibited by women, of course.
and gets schooled by a woman or alien
Or a greek god, or a man, or a cloud of super-intelligent galactic energy, or whatever.
that's called character development.
Yes. It is. Women are characters too. That's the whole, entire, point.
How do you expand the worldview someone who's already enlightened?
Fascinating statement. Are all women, in your experience, already 'enlightened'? Can there be no character arc for a female character, because they are already 'enlightened'?
Does every male role have to be replaced by women to show equality?
Yes. Obviously. This is just the start. You just wait until they have a female prime minister
Oh. Wait.
97% of all alimony goes to women.
I suspect this AC has revealed that the real reason for his ire is that he owes a time traveler a significant amount of child support.
A lot of the new Doctors have felt like children with no real gravitas.
Perhaps. It is a kid's show though. It's not actually written with grown-ups in mind, though plenty of them watch it. But hey, plenty of grown-ups actually read all the Harry Potter books too...
They can make people think their products are better than they are
Option (a) Everyone is brainwashed by Apple's brilliant marketing (I've never seen an Apple ad that I didn't hate, but I hate all advertising without exception, so whatever), and is spending all their money on total rubbish. And none of them have figured this out.
Option (b) Apple products sell because people like them.
Now, the second option seems far more likely to me. Added to which, Samsung spend alot more on marketing than Apple ever has. They're the ones with the (very apple-like, these days) stands in the malls, and advertisements everywhere. So, is the fact that Samsung sell more phones than Apple also due to marketing? Or is that because people are only brainwashed by the subliminal messages in Apple's ads, but somehow Apple spend less on them, and sell less than Samsung...I just don't get it.
Some companies were toying with the idea ...
'Toying' with an idea was exactly the problem. Someone needed to come along, stop playing around, and build something that worked, and that people wanted. Installing an app with a single button click, in a way that always worked, every single time, was in itself a significant innovation.
incremental steps beyond other things that existed.
I do not understand how you cannot see that all innovations are incremental steps.
really, so my phone tracks the identities of the people I encounter on the street?
It might. The facebook app knows where you are, and other people's apps do too. So it's possible that databases somewhere do know exactly that.
ctivex was always poorly designed, and anyone with an understanding of security would have refused to use it in the first place.
Exactly. And these sorts of design decisions are still being made, because humans aren't good enough at software yet. Fully extensible interfaces are likely impossible, and flaws such as leaving passwords around in memory can involve an entire software stack.
That isn't an unreasonable question, but the answer is that this isn't possible in any meaningfully secure way. You can have your XP continue to run, provided that the hardware is still available, or that a virtual machine can be built to support it, but your other two requirements are contradictory.
Bug fixes + keep shit the same. If bug fixes are understood to include security patches, and security patches include things like fixing weak encryption algorithms, or immense security disasters like ActiveX or (even worse) third-party immense security disasters like Flash, then you can't really "keep shit the same". Fundamentally, security is not a bug fix, it's an underlying design process that can't be tacked on at the end.
But these are all software problems, and we humans have gotten pretty good at that.
That hasn't been my observation of human's track record with creating software at all. Humans are great at hardware problems, but to this day humans are manifestly terrible at creating software.
It got changed to "apocalyptic".
A good question to ask, if you're generating content, is that if the only way to pay for it is by embedding advertising, then the content is worth nothing. Thus, if you do want to broadcast it to the world for some reason, hobby or otherwise, you're going to have to find the money yourself. If the advertising industry disappeared overnight, and all the content that it funded did so too, nothing of value would be lost.
Ah you feisty person, you. I bet the details of the bug would be super-interesting lots of people, but the article glosses over that, and so I suppose I'm complaining that the article was insignificant (and not very good), the bug is significant but fixed, and I think everyone should comment about how microcode works, so that we can all learn something. Myself included, since I've no idea really.
.. doesn't mean what the article writer appears to think it means.
Anyhow, that a new highly complex processor contains subtle bug that's fixable without hardware modification isn't exactly earth-shaking news, surely? How about they just fix it, and we move on.
I will. Unless a car being auto-driven carrying someone playing a VR game while driving their 3D TV home kills me while I'm following a helpful robot across the street, of course.
I do follow the news. None of these things work yet. Personally, I doubt they ever will, without extensive infrastructure, and even then only in very specific situations. Self-driving cars will not be driving around inner city streets. Robots will not be walking kids to school. End of story.
Also - VR is a dead-end technology that no-one wants, and 3D tv was a terrible idea.
Also - Google making 'combat robots', does this alarm anyone else? I'm sure we'll make robots that are good at killing people, but that doesn't require intelligence.
But not one that drives a car, or can cross the road.